Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
....is still alive here;): http://simple.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dalmatian_Italians --] (]) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
....is still alive here;): http://simple.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dalmatian_Italians --] (]) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:'''The Truth{{smallsup|TM}}''' shall find a way it seems. I suppose the ''simple'' Wiki is the appropriate context for stuff like that :) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
:'''The Truth{{smallsup|TM}}''' shall find a way it seems. I suppose the ''simple'' Wiki is the appropriate context for stuff like that :) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
== Timbouctou and you ==
I've closed the ANI thread and left a warning with . I trust you will avail yourself of the opportunity to move on. Should Timbouctou engage you again, please remain civil; your recent reactions were not entirely fault-free. I am sympathetic to your frustration, but remember that responding to incivility with incivility helps nothing. Thanks - ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok you won: never more contribute by me in dalmatian articles ok? I'm not a sock, so thanks me for house of cerva and stop bother me or accusing me i'm not interested any more in YOUR influenced pages.
Another edit war
.
Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Director. You have new messages at Kubura's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Recent refactoring
Hello, Director. You have new messages at Sunray's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:Regarding the sock article
Hello, Director. You have new messages at Τασουλα's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Occupation of Trieste (WWI)
Hi DIREKTOR, I'm looking into the issue, it seems that the Italians just occupied the city on 3 November 1918 on their own . it.wiki is down thanks to Italy's new fascist regime, so I can't access any sources on that side. Of course, if you find any online sources on this subject I'd be grateful. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Whoa whoa.. what?! Aren't Misplaced Pages servers in Florida? How can the Italian government shut down itWiki just because its in Italian? :P
As for Trieste, yes it looks like its supposed to have been under joint Allied command, but was occupied by the Italian army instead. Virtually every major Austro-Hungarian city on the Adriatic was occupied in this way either openly by Italy (Trieste, Pula & the Istrian peninsula), or by Italian irregulars (Rijeka, Zadar, and Trogir). The only major exception seems to be Split (and perhaps Dubrovnik, way down in the south), hence the trouble I imagine. --DIREKTOR06:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok I just noticed you edited the SRoC article while I was editing it :P, I actually thought I forgot to do the edits and re-did them. Apologies, I fixed the redirects. --DIREKTOR15:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite simply: I did not breach WP:3RR. I'm usually very careful about following that policy. I reverted three times : once, twice, three times. And I had no intention whatsoever of going any further, which can be evidenced by my bringing the issue up at ANI.
I will say further, speaking from years of experience on enWiki, that this is no way to run an encyclopedia. Not because this was a rash block (though it was), but because you can't treat the person pushing new, non-consensus edits with edit-warring and the guy restoring the status quo the same way, simply because they both reverted each-other. You just can't, its incredibly unfair, far too easy - and just plain stupid. Quite simply it validates WP:EDIT-WARRING as a method for pushing new edits. Don't believe me? Just have a look at the article and check whether the new edits are in or not. Saw this about one million times, and it makes no sense. WP:BRD should be policy. --DIREKTOR23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are free to disagree with the edit warring policy, and to endeavor to get it changed to better reflect what you think it should be. But you are not free to ignore it. Stating that you deliberately went just to the brink of 3RR and then stopped is hardly an argument to unblock you. You know what edit warring is, you've been blocked for it many times before. So you must also know that 3RR is just one part of the policy and that even if you didn't violate 3RR you still willfully edit warred. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I won't take-up much more of your time, but Beeblebrox, what is "edit-warring" then? Define it for me pls. I did willfully revert someone, but did I edit-war? 'Cause I just got blocked for three reverts. Is two reverts the limit? One? Whatever the admin feels like? You can't play these games with people. I stopped reverting and brought the issue to ANI, and then got blocked for "violating 3RR" without violating 3RR, you can't beat that. Unless you also take into account that the other guy also just managed to push his non-consensus edits into the article exactly because I was careful not to break 3RR (validating his haughty, uncompromising, dictatorial attitude). Excellent work all: now when the matter starts again he can tell me to go f*ck myself in a much more leisurely and relaxed atmosphere - all he has to do is revert-war. --DIREKTOR23:50, 8 October 2011 (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.
The thing is, I know you are an experienced user, and that you are not an idiot. So I'm finding it hard to fathom how you could be so unsure about what is and is not edit warring on your eighth block for it, but I'll play along anyway. Here is an excerpt from Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#What edit warring is that seems very much on point: " Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." The spirit of the policy is most succinctly summed up as "persistently reverting anything that is not outright vandalism is always the wrong thing to do," 3RR is merely a specific bright-line application of that.
I know you tend to edit articles related to the Balkans, and that such articles are a hotbed of POV pushing and nationalism. I'm sure that is frustrating for a good faith user to deal with for years on end, but at some point you are going to have to accept that edit warring is not the way to deal with it. Personally, I never revert anything more than twice, and on that second revert I always be sure to explicitly explain myself not only in an edit summary, but on either the article talk page or the user talk page of the person I've reverted. If they revert me again, it's time to ask for a third party to step in, either by requesting page protection or using WP:DR. Although I see that you did engage in discussion on the talk page, for whatever reason you went to ANI, which as you know is for asking for someone to get "busted" not to resolve a dispute. I certainly don't approve of how the other editor involved behaved, but he was blocked as well, for just as long as you even though this is only his second block. The message you should both get from that is clear: no matter what you are arguing about, edit warring is never the solution. In the grand scheme of things, is it really such a disaster for an article to not say what you want it to say for a few days while the issue is being discussed? I don't think so. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and what about the fact that, when I was blocked, I had already stopped "edit-warring", let the guy have his way in the article, and brought the issue up on ANI? (I stopped, mind you, not the other fellow.) But honestly I think that when people wrote about WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM with regard to WP:3RR, they were primarily talking about waiting for the 24-hour period to expire and then making your revert. I don't think the idea is to advise admins to block people for 3 or 2 reverts or whatever and calling it "edit-warring". --DIREKTOR10:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi, I think I suggested this to you a year ago.. have you considered a voluntary one revert restriction? I had this restriction for a while , six weeks it was and it was a good experience and a good learning for me. (one which I am thinking to also go back to for a couple of months as I have gotten back into the habit of pushing the limit towards the redline) There is a userbox you can add that lets others know that you will make only one revert and then move to discussion on the talkpage. It was beneficial imo to accept the addition (if it was re-added after I removed it) in the article and then to make my case on the talkpage. This manner of operations also in many cases left me in a position of apparent strength in the discussion and many times the other user had to return to the article and remove their alteration after the discussion was resolved, or, if they didn't come to the talkpage to discuss, after a few days you are able to remove the addition by default and if its then replaced they are warring without discussion. I think it would be a good experience and learning process for you and if you were to volunteer yourself to such a revert restriction I am sure an administrator could be convinced to unblock you as per your offer removing the danger of the prior reverting to reoccur. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The Truth shall find a way it seems. I suppose the simple Wiki is the appropriate context for stuff like that :) --DIREKTOR12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Timbouctou and you
I've closed the ANI thread and left a warning with Timbouctou. I trust you will avail yourself of the opportunity to move on. Should Timbouctou engage you again, please remain civil; your recent reactions were not entirely fault-free. I am sympathetic to your frustration, but remember that responding to incivility with incivility helps nothing. Thanks - KillerChihuahua21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
