Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why is higher resolution necessary? We can see everything that we need to see on the map, can't we? What's wrong with it? It might not be easy to photoshop it or change it, which you seem to be inclined to do. At any rate, hopefully those previous fraud maps can now be deleted, as we finally have the real thing. (LAz17 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)).Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
On ANI I am asking short block of both users [1]. User LAz17 is guilty of incivility (word fuck and others), but in trying to calm situation maybe it is best that both are blocked for short time period.
Maybe I am making mistake but this is now dispute aboute census data. Because of that I have created page User:Rjecina/Bosnian census in my user space. Can we please continue discussion in my user space. After consensus page will be deleted.--Rjecina (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Man, you screwed him up, considering that the data is from 1994 during the war, and not after the war as ICTY shows on their interactive map. (LAz17 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)).Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Kindly stop your fraud. For example, there is this map here, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH2006a.png and you can see how Mostarac put grahovo drvar and glamoc different... I then talked to mostarac and he fixed it... I put sources where data is correct... and you put that glamoc municipality back. As can be seen, serbs are over 66% there, so it must be dark blue, not your light blue. (LAz17 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)).Reply
Laz, I'm not going to argue with some paranoid idiot which speaks of a fraud in every second sentence. Mostarac used data from 2003. His map is also different from mine if you bothered to check it. Serbs made are about 65% of population there, that's why the color is lighter. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
You can see sources for 2003 and 2008. In both the Serbs are over 66%. Therefore it is rather ridiculous to assume that they are less than 66% in 2006, unless if you have some serious source that suggests this. Therefore put it back to how it was. (LAz17 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)).Reply
Ma jebe lud zbunjenog tamo... ko zna sta su smutili. :P Ja bi teo da hrvatski entitet dobije uskoplje, i to travnika da ode... sad ko zna sta ce biti. Zanima me sta ce uraditi sa mostarom. (LAz17 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)).Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Yerpo (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I did not break the 3RR, and for conflict in Piran pages warning would be enough. Problem at that pages was in one paragraph which user Yerpo repeadly deleted without it being discussed at talk pages. I played by wikipedia rules there. Moreover User Yerpo, did revert pages in similar period and he wasn't blocked. Interesting, no ?
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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I made 3 edits in more than 24 hours time, and I was blocked? Why?
Decline reason:
You were engaged in an edit war. From WP:3RR: The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule. —Travistalk13:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
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 guy who blocked me, did not do anything according to that rule. Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. There is no evidence that I made any disruptive edits, anything what I've done was argumented, and the guy who tell on me did more reverts in that time. Ridicilous. If he had any thoughts that I've behaved not according to wikipedia rules (or its spirit) he should have discus it on my talk pages. Give me one good reason why was I blocked (and the other guy was not).
And, by the way, making 4 edits in 3 days I would not call an edit war in which one side (and which have done less than the other) should be sancioned.
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, the other guy did not. He reverted only three times where you did four, and Wikipedia policy states that one can remove without discussion potentially problematic content that isn't backed by a source. He was warned, though, and heeded the warning. --Yerpo (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, you did not. I edited the article only 3 times, in more than 24 hour period. By doing so, I and did not brake any rule:
23:11, 10th February
9:14, 11th February
18:32 11th February
9;24, 12th February
I haven't come close at breaking the 3RR
Moreover you (User Yerpo) done the same thing, edited at
7:02,11th February
17:04,11th February
19:50, 11th February
18:16, 12th February
User Yerpo, which participated in edit war, made more reverts in shorter time, however it was me who was blocked, and not him. I did not brake any rule. And no matter that, I'm still blocked, and the guilty party is not. When this block expires I'm very interested to see what will be said about all of this on ANI. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You got the times wrong. Your first revert was 01:11, 11 February 2009. My last revert was argumented on the talk page as the administrator that blocked you told me to do. I'm sorry, I should've done that earlier, but that doesn't change the fact that it was you who kept insisting on problematic and unsourced statements. You are welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page. --Yerpo (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Than wikipedia [6] is obviously lying. If wikipedia is not lying than times are good. That block was POV and complitly unsorced. I'd like to fix this thing first, clear my name, and then we could maybe think of that article. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Like William M. Connolley said, technically you didn't break 3RR, but you were still edit warring, and were more persistent at it than I. So instead of making another revert, I decided it was time to let other people decide what to think of it and reported our disagreement. The admin decided to block you (and I'm not going to explain his actions which I had nothing to do with) and warned me. So at my last revert, I did what he instructed me, and explained my view of the issue on the article's talk page. If you have problems with it, fine, you can report them wherever you want. But keep in mind that policy allows me to remove problematic unsourced material without special discussion. The paragraph was problematic to me and WorldWide Update, and, more importantly, it was unsourced. So... --Yerpo (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to solve that issue with administrator wich made that error. You did falsely reported me for breaking 3RR (that rule emphisized that there must be more than 3 reverts, and that means at least 4 in 24 hour period). If you had anything to say against that text you could have discuss so in page discussion pages. That was problematic is POV of you (and that other user), and according to wikipedia policies not every sentence has to be sourced. If you have some source which would show that that text is false, please do show them, and then I will not have anything against removing that paragraph from the article. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I suggest you read the rules about sourcing. Hint: if you explained them exactly opposite like you did now, you'd be about right. Your explanation sounds the same as if I would say: "You are a murderer. I don't have to prove everything I say, but you have to prove you aren't if you want to get out of jail". --Yerpo (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not realy. Slovenia claims access to open sea which is based on the fact that it had free access to open sea while being part of SFRJ, and which goes beyond 12 miles, and is as such contrary to international law. And Slovenia did not provide any argument for historical control (or even existence of such corridor). So do you realy wants me to prove that Slovenia had not ever provide any argument for historical control of it ? (that is exictly analogus to your "murderer" comparison. If you can prove me that Slovenia had provide any argument for historical control (or even existence) of such corridor, than the paragraph should go. If you can not, than I'll ask you nicely to put it back where it belongs. By the way, you have all of this on [7]. Cheers! --Čeha (razgovor) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Yerpo (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
