Archives (index)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Hello Santasa99. I've recommended that you and User:Ceha both be banned from the topic of Turkish Croatia for long term edit warring, under the WP:ARBEE sanctions. I will leave the proposal open for a while to see if either of you wants to respond, and can offer a realistic plan for resolving the dispute in some other way. I have lost confidence in the way things are going on the talk page, since no progress is being made, and nobody can even offer an RfC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I didn't deserve any better. If you are prepared to recommend same sanction (ban) for an editor who has filled two+ Talk pages in the last two months, full of attempts to come up with some resolution, while wrestling with editors who were coming out of outside project (Croatian Wikipedia) taking turns in waves and never putting together two sensible words in reply (yesterday Shokatz, today Silverije, tomorrow Ceha, day after tomorrow Kubura), and who has done everything that Dispute Resolution guidelines recommends except completely disengaging.

Here is couple of suggestions for a resolution: I will never open that page again if you are going to thoroughly check everything about it, so that imposing a POV onto articles by means of bullying and blatant canvasing and campaigning at editor's "base-camp" (language / ethno-national) project does not become rewarding modus operandi - you may or may not be aware that Ceha could gladly accept sanctions against him, as long as those same sanctions (ban) have been used against me too, because the rest of his like-minded crowd, who were also involved all this time (editor Silverije: DIFF; DIFF; DIFF; DIFF ("voting" for the second time in the same discussion); DIFF; DIFF; same user disregarded previous merger and without any discussion deleted Redirect, and without any sources, concerns of previous discussions on notability and verifiability, recreated page HERE), would do his bidding for him - DIFF; DIFF; Take an eye onto discussion; Can you send me an email; Tražim pomoć (asking for help); Glasovanje (you can start voting); Turkish Croatia (canvasing and campaigning at Croatian Wikipedia "village pump" subpage called "List of irregularities at English Wikipedia")

Or, we could try to resolve a dispute by following guidelines and policies on notability and verifiability, or even better, by agreeing to merge problematic obscure article with fring subject with a larger more prominent one, to put its content under the scrutiny of a slightly wider community, but without canvasing on the editor's base-camp projects (such as Croatian Wikipedia) by those who are against any of the proposed mesures - which is everything I've been trying to propose in the last two months?

Otherwise, I should start getting used to indiscriminate sanctioning proposal.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I lost confidence too. If no one is able to do anything, or does not want, in one case which, actually and on closer inspection, isn't that complicated at all - except to reach for sanctions indiscriminately - then those people on meta, discussing Balkan's nationalism spilling over, are wasting their precious time, really, on feeble attempts to improve project by purging it of ideological corruption and its consequences.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is another really serious proposal, but only if Ed is really serious when he said that he will leave the AN open in case we can offer a realistic plan to resolve the dispute in some other way. Although, I really have no idea what "realistic" might mean, or if it's just a word that could later serve as an excuse to dismiss all suggestions as "unrealistic", but if Ed is willing to hear and engage that would be really great, and in that case scrape all what is written here before, and here's my suggestion - we can also invite all three antagonistic Croatian editors (it's how they self-identify) but also all others who appeared in the merger discussion through canvasing on Croatian Wikipedia, all that should be irrelevant if we do as follows: we organize a new debate in which each sentence, paragraph by paragraph, is scrutinized in both version of the article, and everyone should explain their reasoning, point by point, and try to validate it with neutral and reliable sources. (article is not at all that big, so this job shouldn't be overly torturous.) However, an evaluation should be made by admin Ed, on which he would base his conclusions and actions (or not). I already engaged with aforementioned editors, writing at least couple of full A-4 pages in attempt to resolve issue, so I am not willing to write in circles, without an end in sight, and without admin who is willing to literaly judge on our rationals. We can ping every time we make a point on important sentence or paragraph.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Santasa99. I am interested by some of your comments at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-08-30/Opinion, about possible canvassing regarding our Turkish Croatia article via a forum on the Croatian Wikipedia. This is a complaint that might be followed up on the admin boards, but it would take a lot of evidence gathering, which might be tedious. There might be a quicker way of improving the article on Turkish Croatia. It could be done through some negotiation on the talk page. It appears that User:Oshwah tried to begin this at Talk:Turkish Croatia#Discussion regarding the current content dispute. After Oshwah made that suggestion, you and some other people commented, but there was no WP:RFC. That step is still possible. Some serious content work would be needed, because whoever started the RfC would need to make very clear descriptions of the issues (with references) so that newcomers who visit the RfC could understand the arguments. There are a few regular content editors who are Balkan experts and we might be able to get their attention to help out, but it would take a really well-structured RfC so they could feel their time was not being wasted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @EdJohnston: I have not seen this message of yours until this very moment, I wish I was, I would have replied to you immediately - you are probably well aware that I was trying to contact you in the meantime for related issues. Are you still interested to discuss this issue sometime in the near future, does the offer still stand?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bombaj Štampa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Bombaj Štampa albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_16#Category:World_Heritage_Site_Tentative_list. – Fayenatic London 17:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sanatasa99, would you mind not removing your signature from your posts, per [1]? It makes it very hard to see who is responsible for a given comment. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I poses necessary skills, I am not a developer - my field is anthropology (of a landscape), geomorphology in the Anthropocene, or geology of archaeology.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Wasn't sure if Meta is your preferred talk page or not, so replying here...)

When I prepared the Signpost article, which is obviously based on my earlier message posted on Jimbo's talk page, I specifically chose to focus almost exclusively on the ideological aspect of the story (far-right bias and Holocaust revisionism). I thought - perhaps correctly - that this aspect is both most readily understandable to the general public, and the one the general public will be the most sensitive to.

There are other issues, such as rather obvious personal despotism on the part of the admins in question, which would be highly problematic even if the admins themselves were otherwise adhering to WP:NPOV. This would, however, be a less opportune topic for the purpose of the RfC, for example: it suggests personal rather than systemic issues are at hand.

I had no specific plans about the media, although I'm quite aware that, say, a NYT article on the topic would really drop a bomb. It's not as if the WMF is oblivious - it's not - it's just that their approach may indeed be too passive. High-profile media coverage would quickly remind them they are after all responsible for what goes on with the wikis.

I'm being told some Croatian media may pick up the story again, as they did in 2013 and 2018. It is important that Croatian media cover it, because it may create an influx of new editors, and this will be instrumental in restoring sanity. GregorB (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor, thank you for your reply.

I really admire your hard work and everything you've done surrounding this whole issue, it requires guts and some nerves, not to mention the amount of time it takes. Personally, I think WMF should receive brunt of blame for their indolence and general passivity - they live on donations, and probably the more projects they host, means more users, and the less hustle surrounds these projects, the more donations they receive, and large donation-contract, such as that with Google stay secured, and so on. They really deserved some public attention and someone to shake and stir that giant arse up good for their indolence. Who cares about truth, propaganda, general quasi-scientific ambient and anti-intellectualism - we all live in the age of post-truth, anyway. It's a good news if Croatian media is going to pick this one up again, it would be even better if some international media gets interested too. Stay strong, stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It really is hard work and it is mentally difficult. Frankly, only two things make me content thus far: I believe I've done a solid job - there is not a word I would take back, which is important to me - and the fact that it received as much support as did. That's why I really appreciate your comments, they do make me feel better about the entire affair, sordid as it is.

Apropos the WMF and all that political stuff, I've said it once already: there is something to be learned from the Croatian Wikipedia cabal. They are well organized, there are persistent, they know what they want, and they are united in common cause. Their opposition? None of the above, I'm afraid. The WMF? Not all that interested. This is why the cabal has been able to rule for all these years. So, these are precisely the circumstances that need to change, and things will take a turn for the better. GregorB (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It goes both ways - I mean, even if nothing special happens, people who think about this whole situation as you think, including myself, will still have one more reason (no matter how big or small) to feel more optimistic, and not just related to Croatian version of Internet encyclopedia, that needs fundamental shift, but really in general with the whole situation with that societal tectonic crack caused by revisionism, and which plagues not just Croatia. It is important that we see that dormant majority exists, and louder reactionary minority has its opposition everywhere - that's why is important that we have registered this through your work and one hell of a report on Signpost and meta.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bosnia (early medieval polity) 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. – bradv🍁 16:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: thanks, I understand. I am ashamed and I have nothing, maybe only that this was desperate last resort; that I am outstretched with this problem on more than a few instances of resolution attempts, all caught in infinite loop of repeated arguments; and that I am so ashamed and disappointed of being probably now seen and marked as unreasonable editor with a knack for edit warring and conflict - no one will first think that there may be some difference between the other editor and me, that we don't fit in the same mold, so there is always that possibility of being put in the same basket. I am sorry.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Given the history you and Ceha have I would like to suggest that extended conversations with him on his talk page are not helpful. I know there's content discussion going on there that you want to weigh in, but I would suggest the place to have conversations with him are at Talk:Kingdom of Bosnia. Let him have a chance on his talk page to work through things with Bradv and other editors who are not tied up in the actual content disagreement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In re-reading this I want to be clear that according to policy any real content agreement will need to come at Talk:Kingdom of Bosnia not on his talk page so you are not in danger of having your voice unheard should you sit back on that conversation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC) And sorry for the double ping[reply]

@Barkeep49: thank you for your time and consideration, cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Donji Kraji 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.
Edit-warring while RfC is in progress is WP:strongly discouraged Mikola22 (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]