You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Greater Serbia. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Peacemaker67#Greater_Serbia
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Peacemaker67#My_ability_to_follow_simple_instructions
I don't have any "concerns".
My quite simple question was if I was allowed to ask for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.
Is that allowed or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
1. I did't try to add this commentary within the article itself. What are you talking about?
2. I apologize, but I didn't claim that there were any inaccuracies in the article. I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.
Is that allowed or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Previous paragraph was also originally entitled: "Peacemaker67's behaviour". It was regarding Peacemaker67's starting "two edits edit war" and blocking an opponent from editing.
Why the headline was changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I dont try to underestimate Peacemaker's contribution to this site, but just expressing my amazement of your (both of you) capability to avoid simple questions in both of these paragraphs. Thanks for advise, maybe it works better now. 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If you were putting so much effort in answering my simple question, this would be much better discussion.
I apologize, but I didn't claim that there were any inaccuracies in the article. I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.
Is that allowed or not? 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.
Is that allowed or not? 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 06:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
General Ization:
"but you are not allowed to ask for quotes in the body of the article. Clear now?"
Clear!
Thank you so much! Didn' know why did you need so much time to say so. 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 06:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Just in case you missed it, I have opened a thread at Talk:Greater Serbia so you can discuss your query there. I encourage you to do so. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this discussion offer, but, since I'm a Serbian, I'm quite bored of that ideology arguing.
If you have any explanation about appearance of the English term "Greater Serbia" (time and place) I would really appreciate it.
Thank you again. 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 21:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Greater Serbia. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Peacemaker67#Greater_Serbia
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Peacemaker67#My_ability_to_follow_simple_instructions
I don't have any "concerns".
My quite simple question was if I was allowed to ask for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.
Is that allowed or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
1. I did't try to add this commentary within the article itself. What are you talking about?
2. I apologize, but I didn't claim that there were any inaccuracies in the article. I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.
Is that allowed or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Previous paragraph was also originally entitled: "Peacemaker67's behaviour". It was regarding Peacemaker67's starting "two edits edit war" and blocking an opponent from editing.
Why the headline was changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I dont try to underestimate Peacemaker's contribution to this site, but just expressing my amazement of your (both of you) capability to avoid simple questions in both of these paragraphs. Thanks for advise, maybe it works better now. 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If you were putting so much effort in answering my simple question, this would be much better discussion.
I apologize, but I didn't claim that there were any inaccuracies in the article. I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.
Is that allowed or not? 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 05:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.
Is that allowed or not? 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 06:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
General Ization:
"but you are not allowed to ask for quotes in the body of the article. Clear now?"
Clear!
Thank you so much! Didn' know why did you need so much time to say so. 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 06:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Just in case you missed it, I have opened a thread at Talk:Greater Serbia so you can discuss your query there. I encourage you to do so. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this discussion offer, but, since I'm a Serbian, I'm quite bored of that ideology arguing.
If you have any explanation about appearance of the English term "Greater Serbia" (time and place) I would really appreciate it.
Thank you again. 31.223.138.86 ( talk) 21:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |