User talk:217.19.216.247

If you want to change the article's name, that's fine: petition for that — but don't link the redirect over the original. That contravenes our manual of style. Thanks. El_C 08:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Why, then, do you roll back fixes that aren't related to links to the articles? 217.19.216.247 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Hello, I'm Optakeover. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Transnistria— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * Arguments? This edits was constructive. You reverse is a vandalism. 217.19.216.247 (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 12:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * Is it customary for you to roll back everything without arguments, if you disagree with something, even if it is a stylistic editing of the text? 217.19.216.247 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take it to the talk page RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 14:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You need establish WP:consensus as past discussions have not reached a conclusion RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 14:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be 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. 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: 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. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 14:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * Nobody argued with me, did not make a single argument or even words in general against the amendments, which are mostly stylistic in nature. What then to discuss with you? Idiot. 217.19.208.110 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please wait until an agreement for the change is reached on the article talk page. Please also refrain from swearing at others. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 15:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not understand what you propose to discuss on the relevant page. There was not a single amendment, which are subject to any discussion, only the arbitrariness of the moderators who interfere with the work on the article. 217.19.208.110 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. El_C 20:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken, it was you who rolled back my corrections of the text, without ever explaining that you were not satisfied. What should I comment on? That you have to explain the reason for their actions. In general, I was extremely surprised by this attitude to the work with articles. 217.19.208.110 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I provide assistance in and a user called  asked for our thoughts on it. I reverted as I looked at the talk page and found multiple discussion showing there was No consensus for the change. So, please show why despite multiple users disagreeing with the edit it should stay.  RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 06:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus on what? 1) This user did not discuss anything with me, silently rolling back the corrections and threatening to block; 2) in this case there is no subject for discussion on which a consensus should be sought: I don’t understand the reason for the aggression against me at all. 217.19.208.110 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You still don't get the point? If there is a bit to an article that editors do not agree about, you do not edit-war on Wikipedia. You take it to discussion, and if consensus decides on something which you still don't agree with, you take it to the next level of discussion. In fact consensus-making is how we decide what to do on Wikipedia especially when it comes to tough decisions, so Wikipedia users learn to compromise when they still don't agree on everything. You do not edit-war. In any case where are your sources that show the term "Transnistria" is "offensive" or "insignificant"? If your viewpoint is so important, then prove it. Also Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that doesn't take sides on any viewpoint, whether you think it's right or not. Your content must be proved by actual hard reliable sources. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 11:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As has beaten me to saying, Your change is controversial as editors have discussed it before and been unable to decide on whether to make the change therefore you MUST ask editors whether they want that change now and provide evidence as to why the change is needed.  RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 12:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So I asked who didn’t agree with anything, because I didn’t even suspect that my corrections might not be enough for someone. In response, I received only threats. What kind of atmosphere do you have here? Consensus is necessary, it is indisputable, but a question is needed for discussion, but not stupid aggression.
 * What were my edits? 1) I collected two repeating fragments of text in a block about the names into one, brought two fresh sources confirming what was written. 2) Corrected in some places in which it is necessary, the name of the official. 3) I clarified and wrote more correctly about the crimes of the times of the Romanian occupation in “transnistria”, again citing several sources on the topic. What is there to discuss? In my opinion, the rollback of constructive changes without justification or discussion is vandalism and provocation of a war of edits in its worst form.
 * "In any case where are your sources that show the term "Transnistria" is "offensive" or "insignificant"?" - these are the sources I brought. The president of Pridnestrovie and the professor of History of the Pridnestrovian state university are not the authorities on this issue for you? "Your change is controversial as editors have discussed it" - what exactly was discussed? I read the discussion page, and didn’t find any contradictions with my edits, because they practically didn’t make any meaningful changes to the text. "Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that doesn't take sides on any viewpoint" - by your behavior, I realized that we should not be sure of this. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "The president of Pridnestrovie and the professor of History of the Pridnestrovian state university are not the authorities on this issue for you?" Have they said so in a book or made the claim in reliable place? If so, you can link to the article or mention the book that makes the claim in the talk page. If you are saying you are the source yourself then that doesn't work as this is not the place for original research. The talk page also states why the edit is reverted and why the term doesn't seem to be inappropriate and you have responded to it. Yet, you say there is no discussion of it. See the discussion under "Title Bias". You can continue discussion and provide additional evidence in the talk page and if there is enough citation, it will be changed. Good luck. Itchyjunk (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Have they said so in a book or made the claim in reliable place?" - what is the current Internet sources did not suit (the website of the President and the official information agency of PMR)? "See the discussion under "Title Bias"" - in this discussion we are talking about renaming the article, and not about my edits. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, sources should be independent of the subject and per multiple discussions on the talk page anything that involves changing the name from Transintria to Pridnestrovian must reach consensus.
 * If you have any further issues, do one of the following:
 * Discuss on the talk page
 * Take the way you were reverted to WP:ANI
 * Start a discussion at WP:DR
 * Or if you're not interested in one of them and would just like to debate endlessly with me then for both our sakes drop it RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 21:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right, the topic of renaming the article on the discussion page has begun, what is the question? No objections have been received so far. But here the arbitrariness of some participants regarding my edits is discussed, I did not rename the article. It is strange to see a comment on independence in relation to the quoted sources, which directly demonstrates what the article says (about the attitude of Pridnestrovians themselves to Romanian terms), when most of the existing sources in the article are either directly Romanian/Moldavian or reproduce the official point of view of the Kishinev authorities. If there is nothing to argue, then please return the changes to the site. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, If there is no agreement to change anything then it stays as it was. Please take to Dispute Resolution before you end up at WP:ANI RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 22:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see disagreement with my changes and any discussion. If you formulate any significant objections - welcome to the discussion, as long as I do not see the subject of the dispute, so return the article to the state in which it was before your rollbacks. And stop threatening me, it's ridiculous. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I do see a disagreement. Another user has legitimately pointed out the application of WP:COMMONNAME. So unless you have any hard sources to prove that the use of the name "Transnistria" is inappropriate in your own thinking, then prove it by showing us the sources and telling us exactly where it's said. Otherwise for controversial discussions (thank for showing it's so controversial), you do not demand your way and you must work with editors to come to a solution by accepting consensus and compromise. Your viewpoint may not be the most important or appropriate. And no, nobody is threatening you. ANI is a legitimate forum where all dispute resolution attempts have failed, including speaking to the editors in question (as many of us have done, almost to the point of exhaustion). Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 02:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The talk page clearly states why this is incorrect and does not fall under the "common names". But we are not discussing renaming here - for this go to the talk page of the article. We are discussing a vandal rollback of my edits. I do not advocate anyone's point of view at all (although the current text is clearly biased and needs corrections). I say again: if there are no objections specifically against my actions (and not what is discussed on the talk page - renaming of the article), then return the corrections. I find this dispute pointless: express disagreement on each of my edits on the discussion page, then we will seek consensus. Otherwise, the peremptory rollback is simply vandalism and the beginning of a war of edits. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "It clearly states why" without any sources. You are not providing any sources. This is my expressed disagreement to you. Moving on: this form of reversion you have seen is not vandal reversion or rollbacking. This is a content dispute, so you have a bunch of editors who exercise their disagreement by reverting one another. How severe the edit warring on the part of everyone involved is to be separately determined, but what makes it not vandalism is because the reversions are a result of content dispute, not someone intending to disrupt Wikipedia for fun. :) Regards, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 06:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I do not advocate anyone's point of view at all (although the current text is clearly biased and needs corrections)". Please do not contradict yourself... Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 06:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I cited sources proving that the word "transnistria" is offensive. Then I wrote why the WP:COMMONNAME rule does not fit here. Then I wrote what "transnistria" really is (there is a separate article about this) before explaining why we should use the real name of the object. What else do you need? I propose to conduct this dispute (about article renaming) on the talk page of the article, but not here.
 * "are a result of content dispute" - where are the disput about my predominantly stilistic edits? I was not told against a single word. Only rollbacks and empty threats. Not a single new phrase in the discussion, not a single reference to it. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to what has said, You have provided no sources that will convince the number of editors that have expressed disagreement with you. Therefore, reverting the change is appropriate under the bold, revert discuss currently your failing to discuss the change and would rather moan about the manner you were reverted so I seriously suggest if you want a behavioural dispute you take it to WP:ANI or go through dispute resolution. If it's a content dispute about what the name of the place should be (which you changed throughout the article) then you should continue discussing it on the article talk page or via a Request for Comment  RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * editors that have expressed disagreement with you - I have not seen such. There was not a single objection, I repeat once again. If a discussion on the topic had been proposed, I would have addressed it, and did not start an argument here. This dispute is about nothing, blind with deaf. I tell you about one thing - you tell me about another. There is something to say - go to the article talk page. And unreasonable undo needs to be undone. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You cited sources? Where are your weblinks to articles online? Where are your book names and authors? Where are your ISBNs? Moving on, it appears you still don't get it: a content dispute is when editors do not agree what kind of information should be added to articles, and how. The fact there is already a back-and-forth between us in terms of edits and rollbacks means there is a dispute. However there is already a overarching informal agreement that there is no agreement on what term should be used, save that WP:COMMONNAME prevails as a policy of Wikipedia, and unfortunately nobody else has agreed with your interpretation so far. So once again, where are your sources? If you said they said but you can't show us the sources, then sorry not sorry.
 * Finally, you keep wanting a discussion on the article talkpage, not here, where probably you'll play the same game as you did here, where you'd blame others for being on the side of "oppression" just because our views are not in line with yours, and you'd still refuse to state your sources even though you've had ample opportunity and requests to do it both here and there. And with this edit at : "It is more appropriate to say that pro-Romanian editors of Wikipedia themselves are engaged in the promotion of this terminology through English version of this encyclopedia. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)" as far as I can see you have decided in your mind that those who don't agree with you are somehow stacked against you and your noble cause of championing what in your own thinking is right, and that we are oppressors too. For the record I don't have a vested interest in Romania, and I don't have any particular political preferences on that country. But with these comments you've already made up your mind that every editor who does not agree with the way the information should be displayed are against you and your views on political justice. If you think you can have a discussion this way while estranging other editors and their views while attempting to edit a website that's based on consensus and collaboration, then I laugh. Oh by the way, where are your sources? You'll probably have a bigger audience if you can start convincing people that you actually have real reliable evidence that we all can read. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 07:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat: I do not advocate anyone's point of view, but I consider it necessary to observe a plurality of opinions and a neutral point of view in the article, and not one-sided biased coverage. It is quite expected that, if you disagree with something, you will blame your opponent for bias and place your sins on him. Not worth it, this is stupid and unconstructive. Shoot your tantrum: we are discussing a rollback that has nothing to do with what you write: adding information that someone disagrees with. Go to the talk page if you have something to say about the necessary renaming of the article.
 * What is to be discussed, I expressed there to find the most reasonable solution. I did not rename the page without discussion. But you began to roll back my edits, and without reason, without comments and any hints at finding agreement on any issues with which someone supposedly disagrees. It is not even bias, but simply stupidity. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We have told you why multiple times, please take your arguments about our behaviour to WP:ANI before we are forced to take you their for repeated accusations against us RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 09:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Until the arguments against me are provided on the points of each rolled out change, I have nothing to discuss with you. So far I have not seen anything but charges, threats and attempts to transfer here the discussion about renaming an article that is not related to my edits and your rollbacks. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We have told you why multiple times, please take your arguments about our behaviour to WP:ANI before we are forced to take you their for repeated accusations against us RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 09:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Until the arguments against me are provided on the points of each rolled out change, I have nothing to discuss with you. So far I have not seen anything but charges, threats and attempts to transfer here the discussion about renaming an article that is not related to my edits and your rollbacks. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated misuse of undo accusations by an IP. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 12:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)