User talk:78.78.200.165

/* Discretionary sanctions Notification - Balkans and Eastern Europe */ new section

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

March 22

You need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You are going to assume this when I arrived here yesterday?

I have read it. I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

How many articles do you expect me to have been to yet? :/ That said this is my main interest right now, and of course, feedback to me promotes feedback from me in return, yes? That's generally how discussions tend to work. And it's also more in line what I might call expertise (I have quite a bit of experience with following conflicts) and it's a currently very relevant subject. You have no real basis to assume spa so the assumption would appear to be done in bad faith.

Here's hoping for more friendly relations in the future regardless. I have no quarrel with you nor any reason to have one. (And yeah, this is me despite diff IP.. my router restarted and assigned me a new IP) 78.78.242.6 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is the fact you are pushing for this one edit so hard. its not even one topic area, its one report you are being wp:tenditious over. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

And part of the problem is you are not taking on board the feedback, rather you are digging in and fighting your corner (see wp:battleground). When multiple users tell you you are wrong, it may well be you are wrong. And you do not start up another thread asking the same question you accept it and walk away. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I also note that having argued "I never said it was a war crime" you are now saying it was. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course? I I did not know if it was, and thus I did not claim it was but stated the fact that I didn't know. I argued that it should be included due to relevance.

Now I've checked the definitions and given a source for the definitions. Hence now we all know (ie all who are on the talk page and seen it) that such statements in themselves constitute a war crime. And thereby all arguments to the effect that "it's just words, that doesn't matter" are moot. And there's no longer a need to argue over if it's relevant to include statements based on if SSO is important enough or not to warrant this inclusion. (As one of the branches of the military, I argued they were and you argued that they're just a "formation", which is false and that you do not know what SSO means, thereby begging a source as if your personal knowledge of a subject has relevance) Because now we have confirmation that this is not a mere statment - but the statement itself, the mere action of making it - is a war crime. Adapting to new information is quite normal, really, you're supposed to do that, both here and elsewhere. As for pushing, you seem to be pushing even harder now?

78.78.143.46 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

---