User talk:195.252.66.175

Mind explaining what was "unconstructive" instead of sending automated message? 195.252.66.175 (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive, uncollaborative behavior. Removal of sourced content with references is not allowed on Wikipedia; see the WP policies

WP:NOTCENSORED. GenoV84 (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

False, your behavior is disruptive and uncollaborative. You keep adding Croatian case of ethnic hatred into Serbian section?? Why?? And I find Croatian sources and index.hr to be biased and inflammatory. Also stop stalking me on other pages. And I see you ran and reported me already, talk about disgusting behavior, but I expect nothing less from "people" like you. 195.252.66.175 (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try again without the

personal attacks. Except for cases of obvious vandalism, It's more appropriate to avoid deleting the sourced informations added by other contributors without discussing the case on the respective talk pages. Nobody has insulted or stalked you in the first place; as you can see by your contribution history, other editors have reverted your edits for the same reason as I did. GenoV84 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Throw links at me all you want, that won't make your statements true. You did not answer my question why did you put Croatian attack against Canadian goalkeeper in section "Serbian incidents" when I tried to fix that? You called me IP vandal the first time I removed some pretty harsh wording, ridiculous claims and sources which I find to be biased, which I all explained in summary. And you followed me to page "Montenegro at the Olympics" and reverted me so I would call that stalking. Other editors reverting me does not make your claims or those edits true. I have repeated several times my arguments why your reverts are not constructive. You have provided nothing as counterargument. 195.252.66.175 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editing. This is the reason for which me and other editors have reverted your disruptive edits. You are taking these reverts far too personally and refuse to be accountable for your persistent disruptive behavior, despite said reverts and warning. GenoV84 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd say you're the one who raised this on a personal level. You called me "IP vandal" on your first revert of my edit even through I explained in summary my edits. When I asked what was so "unconstructive" (see above) your response was also rude. You ran and reported me shortly after that. You're the one who set the tone of this discussion. You can throw wiki links at me all day long but you still have not answered my question. Why did you put Croatian attack against Canadian goalkeeper in section "Serbian incidents" when I tried to fix that? And I explained in my summary I deleted very POV and disgusting accusations and sources which are highly biased. You ignoring my arguments about my edits and my questions regarding your edits shows who is unconstructive and uncivil one here. 195.252.66.175 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because

deliberately deleting sourced content with references as you did is not constructive? You need to provide evidence in order to support your claim that those sources are unreliable or biased, and you didn't.... GenoV84 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So you are going to ignore my question to you and your behavior which I called out (rudeness in edit summaries and on my talk page, reporting, stalking)? Fine by me. 195.252.66.175 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 195.252.66.175! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Montenegro at the Olympics several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Montenegro at the Olympics, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Chip3004 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have seen in summary of my last edit on that page, I told user to use talk page and present arguments why should socialist yugoslav medalists be listed on a montenegro page. 195.252.66.175 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia, like you did at Montenegro at the Olympics. Such attempts to avoid detection, circumvent policies or evade blocks or sanctions will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chip3004 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks. How kind of you. 195.252.66.175 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]