User talk:Encylo-P-D

Slovenia[edit]

I have reopened the talk page on the subject where you can see what the discussion was all about. The short description was apparently indeed tampered with as the 84.255.219.234 claimed, though I seriously cannot bring myself to checking how far back that goes. In addition, most (if not all) Central European countries simply adhere to the short description "Country in Europe" - same goes for the short description on Google (just type in Slovenia in search engine for that matter). Cheers! Øksfjord (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was never resolved. Slovenia can be considered Central, Southeastern and Balkan. Encylo-P-D (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on a spree of adding either Eastern or Southeastern term to the Central European countries, I see. Interesting. Did you create your profile just for that purpose? Øksfjord (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create your profile specifically for inaccurate information about Slovenia? I add these terms with citations. Encylo-P-D (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is already sufficiently cited. Has been for years now, predating my profile. Slovenia is - per Wikipedia - considered Central Europe, as are Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, and Hungary - all of which you edited as well - with all the edits already reverted as far as I can see. Yes, there are multiple definitions of Central Europe, that's why those countries are considered a part of it by concensus - not only on the English Wiki, but also everywhere else (the sole exception being, as far as I know, the German that simply places it in "Europe"). But you will not find Slovenia categorised as a country in Southeastern Europe anywhere (not even in the combination of "Central and Southeastern" you used). Øksfjord (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally included in Southeast Europe. Secondly, Central and Southeastern is not a category, it's acknowledging it can be considered Central or Southeastern or both. Third, I have included citations showing it can be considered Southeastern. Encylo-P-D (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the discussion we had in November 2019 well - Jingiby was quite like yourself in that regard, though that led to a significant dispute back then and he eventually gave up, it seemed (and his talk page was quite bustling with criticism referring to his partiality on a wide variety of topics). Furthermore, if your point of view is to be considered, Italy can also be regarded a country partially situated in Southeastern Europe and Spain a country in Africa. Øksfjord (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my point of view, it's the point of view of reputable sources. Encylo-P-D (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can also find many sources which place it in Eastern Europe. I can add those and change the description to Central and Eastern Europe. Encylo-P-D (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits seem to be highly tendentious - all those sources have been repudiated in the past. You seem to be sequentially editing the descriptions of all the former communist Central European countries to promote your view. Øksfjord (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No promotion here, simply accurate information with reputable sources, showing that many of these countries are considered Central and Eastern or Central and Southeastern. Encylo-P-D (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite unsavoury. If you look at the linked page about Southeastern Europe, you will find that Slovenia is only mentioned in the description as being one of the countries sometimes placed in SEE, same as Hungary, Moldova, and Cyprus. No other list there mentions Slovenia being included in SEE (neither by Ständige Ausschuss or the CIA WF), as opposed to the page describing Central Europe. Additionally, I see you reverted an edit a third party made on the Slovenian article with the justification of reverting vandalism? Really ... Øksfjord (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page describing Central Europe also sometimes places Slovenia in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Plus, the second paragraph of the articles starts with "the region is variously defined, it often includes" which means it's a nebulous region that doesn't have a universal strict definition.

The revert was to fight vandalism as there was no explanation. Encylo-P-D (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your disturbing edits or you will be blocked. Dasomm (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, finally someone else who finds them exasperating. Øksfjord (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite unsavoury. You find accurate information with citations “exasperating”? I see. Encylo-P-D (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above about the accuracy and consensus. Øksfjord (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not threaten me. Encylo-P-D (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not “disturbing edits”. Accurate information has been added with citations. Encylo-P-D (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Admin help}} Dasomm (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have voided the admin template, because it is unclear what help is being requested. PhilKnight (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I would ask you to stop vandalizing the pages on Croatia and Slovenia. Consensus has been reached and you have no right to change the content of the introduction without permission. Šaholjubac (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Your recent editing history at Slovenia 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NebY (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Slovakia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. NebY (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you are edit warring when you know a consensus is against you, to make a WP:POINT, that isn't behavior that we find acceptable. If you return after this week and conduct yourself in a similar manner, you may find yourself blocked for an indefinite period of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 11:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]