User talk:AzorzaI
Your recent editing history at Article 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.
Edit warring on a number of articles in a disruptive manner - see Peja and Thomas Preljubović. Botushali (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, ToBeFree. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at this? I am more concerned with Botushali's edits to Thomas Preljubović where they actively replace new citations with older and outdated ones; despite me trying to clear it up at the TP. --Azor (talk). 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I am actually now equally as concerned with the user's edits on Peja too. Please take a look at both articles. --Azor (talk). 18:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Notice[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Botushali (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I see from the history of this user talk page that you were informed about the expected standard of behavior while discussing Balkans topics in August 2023. Nevertheless, I noticed this message from September 2023 where you say:
What motivation does Croats have to claim Tesla? He was born in lands that is today Croatia yes, but throughout history you did not seem that motivated to claim the other Serbs living in todays Croatia. A Serb is "Croatian" when he becomes famous, but an inferior individual who should be sent to concentration camps when he is the average citizen. Croat editors has also, throughout many years, argued against his Serb ethnicity on Wikipedia as well.
This started with answering the other editor's claim of What motivation do Serbian side has to have him "belong" to either of the other sides...namely Austrian, Hungarian or any other , rather than Croatian, apart from animosity towards Croatia?
, which was clearly provocative and I've warned the other editor not to do that again.
Nevertheless, I think going from there to Godwin's Law - is a bit much.
Please remember not to go overboard in these kinds of responses in the future (two wrongs don't make a right). --Joy (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Joy. Yes, that part of the conversation did take an unfortunate turn. Looking back, I shouldn't have answered the ethnohistorical question the user brought up, as it wasn't productive nor relevant to Wikipedia. Luckily, the conversation didn't continue down that path if I remember correctly. Still, responding to an inappropriate question with a similar tone wasn't the best approach, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. Have a great day ahead. --Azor (talk). 15:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)