Please write your comments here:
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2019 Bolivian political crisis; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 18:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: Maybe you can see from the history of the mentioned page, that I didn't revert the title to an old one. I tried to use another version (with a question mark in the title) exactly trying to solve an edit war. I also didn't revert the title again after the first revert of my proposition, I didn't even try to, exactly because I want to avoid an edit war. I still didn't see any response to my arguments... Threatening me here with a possible block is thereafter not appropriate. Please remove this and try to response to the argumentation. Once again: the title political crisis doesn't represent consensus and to many opinions also not NPOV, so the actual title is a disrespect of both these rules. Leaving this title and calling any effort changing it an edit war is also inappropriate (I don't really know anyway, if you are for "political crisis" or for something else, but in the case you are for "political crisis" and against other versions, THIS would be a bias...) Yomomo ( talk) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
1. You are trying to make arguments based on views and definitions of 'coup d'état'. However, the title of an article should be based on what reliable sources call the event, or a neutral descriptive phrasing if there is no WP:COMMONNAME. There is no common name, and many sources carefully avoid using 'coup'; hence, discussions have been long and ongoing. Contribute to those.
2. Wikipedia is not going to have an article with (?)
in the title. It's not written into policy because it should be so obvious to not do that.
3. Stop pinging me to your user pages. If other editors want to find open conversation on the matter, that is not where they will go looking. I can now see that you may have more genuine intentions, but please read the guidelines first. (I apologize for thinking that you were WP:NOTHERE to be constructive, but your editing behavior isn't better than a WP:SPA vandal. If you want to be productive, engaging is a must. It is hard to get consensus through with LatAm politics, but I've been trying my best to push discussion - please do that instead of listing your views and being reckless.) Kingsif ( talk) 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
2019 Bolivian political crisis, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
If you want to open a Request for Comments on the title, or a Requested Move, do that. Otherwise, stop all your various backdoor ways of trying to push the matter, a.k.a. disruptive edits that you're making without any discussion.
Kingsif (
talk)
20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Kingsif (
talk)
20:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the remarks. Sorry for canvasing. I still don't understand, what was so wrong about putting the collapse part about the dispute apart that it was not the right tag. It is still a disputed issue and the part was referenced. It was restricted on facts that are documented on appropriate sources. There was no POV there. It was exactly respecting consensus and it mentioned, that the title shouldn't change. I have the impression, that just because I'm new here, my edits count less. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, it's not so important. Yomomo ( talk) 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Please write your comments here:
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2019 Bolivian political crisis; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 18:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: Maybe you can see from the history of the mentioned page, that I didn't revert the title to an old one. I tried to use another version (with a question mark in the title) exactly trying to solve an edit war. I also didn't revert the title again after the first revert of my proposition, I didn't even try to, exactly because I want to avoid an edit war. I still didn't see any response to my arguments... Threatening me here with a possible block is thereafter not appropriate. Please remove this and try to response to the argumentation. Once again: the title political crisis doesn't represent consensus and to many opinions also not NPOV, so the actual title is a disrespect of both these rules. Leaving this title and calling any effort changing it an edit war is also inappropriate (I don't really know anyway, if you are for "political crisis" or for something else, but in the case you are for "political crisis" and against other versions, THIS would be a bias...) Yomomo ( talk) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
1. You are trying to make arguments based on views and definitions of 'coup d'état'. However, the title of an article should be based on what reliable sources call the event, or a neutral descriptive phrasing if there is no WP:COMMONNAME. There is no common name, and many sources carefully avoid using 'coup'; hence, discussions have been long and ongoing. Contribute to those.
2. Wikipedia is not going to have an article with (?)
in the title. It's not written into policy because it should be so obvious to not do that.
3. Stop pinging me to your user pages. If other editors want to find open conversation on the matter, that is not where they will go looking. I can now see that you may have more genuine intentions, but please read the guidelines first. (I apologize for thinking that you were WP:NOTHERE to be constructive, but your editing behavior isn't better than a WP:SPA vandal. If you want to be productive, engaging is a must. It is hard to get consensus through with LatAm politics, but I've been trying my best to push discussion - please do that instead of listing your views and being reckless.) Kingsif ( talk) 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
2019 Bolivian political crisis, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
If you want to open a Request for Comments on the title, or a Requested Move, do that. Otherwise, stop all your various backdoor ways of trying to push the matter, a.k.a. disruptive edits that you're making without any discussion.
Kingsif (
talk)
20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Kingsif (
talk)
20:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the remarks. Sorry for canvasing. I still don't understand, what was so wrong about putting the collapse part about the dispute apart that it was not the right tag. It is still a disputed issue and the part was referenced. It was restricted on facts that are documented on appropriate sources. There was no POV there. It was exactly respecting consensus and it mentioned, that the title shouldn't change. I have the impression, that just because I'm new here, my edits count less. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, it's not so important. Yomomo ( talk) 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)