Slatersteven (talk | contribs) →November 2019 – some advice: would help if I linked correctly |
|||
Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
::Thanks buddy, i thought Wikipedia only came up with true information, this is chaos. How much in Wikipedia exist incorrect data it is incredible. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22#top|talk]]) 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
::Thanks buddy, i thought Wikipedia only came up with true information, this is chaos. How much in Wikipedia exist incorrect data it is incredible. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22#top|talk]]) 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::Last word of advice, change this attitude and read [[wp:v]], no we do not deal in truth. Also [[wp:fringe]] maybe of benefit.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
:::Last word of advice, change this attitude and read [[wp:v]], no we do not deal in truth. Also [[wp:fringe]] maybe of benefit.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::To answer your question {{tq|what exactly is it about}} that was directed to me, I will be specific: You are claiming in [[Talk:Sokollu Mehmed Pasha]] that there are no historical documents calling him a Serb. That may be true, but it is irrelevant, since we have several (actually lots of) historians telling us he was Serb. They are reliable sources, se [[WP:RS]]. On the other side, your arguments for him being Croat is based on your personal analysis {{tq|from original documents and based on his words}}. That is the definition of original research, see [[WP:OR]]. In addition to my reading list above, I will add one more: Please also read [[WP:SYNTH]]. --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::"In Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research" I read Wikipedia article of Serbian history in Croatia, and? Not one source has historical evidence that Serbs are coming to Croatia(western Slavonia to the Dubrovnik area) and what I learned from Wikipedia and RS, nothing. But the problem is that most peoples don't know historical facts like I do, and I wanted to change that because students, Croatian emigrants etc are reading this. There is no change and that's it. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22#top|talk]]) 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
::"In Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research" I read Wikipedia article of Serbian history in Croatia, and? Not one source has historical evidence that Serbs are coming to Croatia(western Slavonia to the Dubrovnik area) and what I learned from Wikipedia and RS, nothing. But the problem is that most peoples don't know historical facts like I do, and I wanted to change that because students, Croatian emigrants etc are reading this. There is no change and that's it. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22#top|talk]]) 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:59, 10 November 2019
Mikola22, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Mikola22! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
October 2019
Your recent editing history at Serbs of Croatia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. David Biddulph (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
An extended welcome
Hi Mikola22. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Serbs of Croatia, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Hi Mikola22! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
November 2019
Your recent editing history at Croatian Orthodox Church shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2019 – some advice
I was about to give you a warning about edit war, but I see that you have already got two such warnings, the latest today. Please read them carefully and study the linked information, especially WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD.
In addition, I would like you to learn more about how Wikipedia uses sources. It seems that you in some cases are trying to "prove" things by making your own analysis of old sources. That is not how Wikipedia is creating an encyclopedia; it is called original research, and you can read about it at WP:OR. Instead Wikipedia is presenting information that is produced by experts (i.e. historians), what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. Please read more about that at WP:RS. --T*U (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- So far I have provided information based on books written by historians,
what exactly is it about? Mikola22 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think it is clear from RSN this may not in fact be the case. I suggest you might re-direct your energy to less contentious edits/topics.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please read wp:not and wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- And thinking about your edits wp:spa may be relevant. If you are taken to the edit war notice board right now I doubt it will go well for you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks buddy, i thought Wikipedia only came up with true information, this is chaos. How much in Wikipedia exist incorrect data it is incredible. Mikola22 (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Last word of advice, change this attitude and read wp:v, no we do not deal in truth. Also wp:fringe maybe of benefit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- To answer your question
what exactly is it about
that was directed to me, I will be specific: You are claiming in Talk:Sokollu Mehmed Pasha that there are no historical documents calling him a Serb. That may be true, but it is irrelevant, since we have several (actually lots of) historians telling us he was Serb. They are reliable sources, se WP:RS. On the other side, your arguments for him being Croat is based on your personal analysisfrom original documents and based on his words
. That is the definition of original research, see WP:OR. In addition to my reading list above, I will add one more: Please also read WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- To answer your question
- Last word of advice, change this attitude and read wp:v, no we do not deal in truth. Also wp:fringe maybe of benefit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks buddy, i thought Wikipedia only came up with true information, this is chaos. How much in Wikipedia exist incorrect data it is incredible. Mikola22 (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- "In Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research" I read Wikipedia article of Serbian history in Croatia, and? Not one source has historical evidence that Serbs are coming to Croatia(western Slavonia to the Dubrovnik area) and what I learned from Wikipedia and RS, nothing. But the problem is that most peoples don't know historical facts like I do, and I wanted to change that because students, Croatian emigrants etc are reading this. There is no change and that's it. Mikola22 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)