old talk: User talk:Mareklug/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mareklug. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- I believe it is the section "Content disputes" and the Arbitration Committee's probation imposed on Kosovo-related articles, administered as part of the Macedonia/Balkan region probation. The recent edit revision history of the article I am requesting full page protection for, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, extends the editorial conflicts addressed on talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Instead of blocking the page, you could block User:Tocino for deliberately introducing false information (e.g., he put in that 32 countries have officially rejected the independence of Kosovo while sourcing this claim and list of countries ostensibly with references, which on examination, reveal the claim to be false and the list of not-recognizing countries, padded with countries which took no such position -- for example, Morocco, Portugal, India have not acted officially to deny recognition; for Morocco, we don't even have any information as to its reaction, other than a press account labeling Morocco as "concerned"). Or, your could warn User:Tocino for repeated removal of neutral, inclusive of the opposing viewpoints map display, in favor of retaining only one of the maps. That contribution expressly censors the competing POV and removes the undisputed who-recognized-officially-only green/gray map used in the main article. But blocking User:Tocino would impair the ongoing RFC about the Wikipedia name use for Prishtina, the capital of Kosovo. Merely warning, would keep the user editing, and there is a chance, that warned, he might come around to consensus, or at least, give up introducing false information and removing NPOV map documentation, since he has already recently been blocked for 24-hours for edit warring on this topic and acknowledged having been placed on probation. Alternatively, you could block from edits both him and me, but that would be entirely unfair to me, as I am working to keep the article, and in fact all of Wikipedia, factual and correctly sourced, free of POV, and I have not been disruptive. My edit history shows that my edits range all over the map. Here, by augmenting Serbian reaction section and introducing the Serbia's reaction article, I represented the Serbian viewpoint. I also took my map improvements to the talk page, and justified them there. And, once again, since you wrote back to me, User:Tocino reverted my corrections to his claims, restoring the 32 opposing countries texts, and reintroduced the one POV only map situation. User:Tocino described my earlier revert as vandalizm his edit summary. --Mareklug talk 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, this is too much for me to follow. Please use WP:RFPP, or if people have broken the 3RR, use WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it is the section "Content disputes" and the Arbitration Committee's probation imposed on Kosovo-related articles, administered as part of the Macedonia/Balkan region probation. The recent edit revision history of the article I am requesting full page protection for, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, extends the editorial conflicts addressed on talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Instead of blocking the page, you could block User:Tocino for deliberately introducing false information (e.g., he put in that 32 countries have officially rejected the independence of Kosovo while sourcing this claim and list of countries ostensibly with references, which on examination, reveal the claim to be false and the list of not-recognizing countries, padded with countries which took no such position -- for example, Morocco, Portugal, India have not acted officially to deny recognition; for Morocco, we don't even have any information as to its reaction, other than a press account labeling Morocco as "concerned"). Or, your could warn User:Tocino for repeated removal of neutral, inclusive of the opposing viewpoints map display, in favor of retaining only one of the maps. That contribution expressly censors the competing POV and removes the undisputed who-recognized-officially-only green/gray map used in the main article. But blocking User:Tocino would impair the ongoing RFC about the Wikipedia name use for Prishtina, the capital of Kosovo. Merely warning, would keep the user editing, and there is a chance, that warned, he might come around to consensus, or at least, give up introducing false information and removing NPOV map documentation, since he has already recently been blocked for 24-hours for edit warring on this topic and acknowledged having been placed on probation. Alternatively, you could block from edits both him and me, but that would be entirely unfair to me, as I am working to keep the article, and in fact all of Wikipedia, factual and correctly sourced, free of POV, and I have not been disruptive. My edit history shows that my edits range all over the map. Here, by augmenting Serbian reaction section and introducing the Serbia's reaction article, I represented the Serbian viewpoint. I also took my map improvements to the talk page, and justified them there. And, once again, since you wrote back to me, User:Tocino reverted my corrections to his claims, restoring the 32 opposing countries texts, and reintroduced the one POV only map situation. User:Tocino described my earlier revert as vandalizm his edit summary. --Mareklug talk 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)