User talk:Conan Slog

Hi
Hi. If you are going to contribute positively to those articles, and if your edits (and yourself) are going to be taken seriously, and if you want the edits to remain, then you should please consider engaging in CON practices. This would involve (a) using edit summs so other editors can better understand your intent (and help/support any edits), and (b) discuss any potentially controversial stuff on talk pages (again so other editors can understand and help with any needed compromises). (I would've hoped that "(c) refrain from using multiple accounts" could go without saying, but history isn't on our side on that one.) I genuinely believe there is scope for positive contribution, so please lets try and uphold the basic mores of the project - anything else just won't "work" in the long-run. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You really haven't copped-yet that I am trying to help!? For four years I've been trying to help find a path which would allow your contributions to be constructive and retained. Changes which are made with socks or through edit-warring will not remain for more than a short period. Only changes borne out of CON and constructive collaboration will stand any tests. I am sick to the back teeth of this. STOP the bloody sock-posturing. (sigh) Guliolopez (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Covering the revolution in Ukraine
Good evening. I noticed that you undid my recent edits about the events in Kiev while also adding a source. I do prefer my version, as is kind of obvious... could you say what specific things bothered you about it? Answering on this page would be fine, or we could also move the discussion to the article's talk page. --Kiz o r  19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, confident as I was, I redid my edits, and you promptly undid them. And then I redid them. Would you mind talking about this? We're fast heading towards what's known as an edit war and that just wastes everyone's time. My reasons for my version are:


 * I move the Debka link to something covered in that link. As it was, the news article was given as a reference for something that wasn't mentioned in the news article. That just doesn't work.
 * I remove the passage that starts "Under the agreement...". That can give the impression that the protesters were breaking the agreement by continuing the protest, which is not in the Russian Today news article used as a reference. I've found the agreement in English and it does have an item about unblocking things like squares, I'll ask about whether that obliged the Euromaidan camp to disperse.
 * I remove the statement that President Yanukovich left the city to attend a summit in Kharkiv. I'm under the impression that we don't know why he left the city. I admit that there's a personal judgment here that we shouldn't take Russia Today at its word, not in the circumstances and not over things like the BBC, which just talked about leaving (or was it fleeing?) in a later article. Note also that he doesn't seem to have ever attended the summit.
 * I add a mention that the protesters took over without resistance. I feel that that's a significant part of how the day's events went, plus it differentiates this from places like Libya where the government was defeated in battle and overrun. The BBC timeline used as a reference uses this wording. I replace a list of the places the protesters took over with a less specific "the city", do you object to the loss of accuracy? --Kiz o r  06:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=599934027 your edit] to 2014 Ukrainian revolution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * com/News/News.aspx/177727#.UxrUeN9e4W0 Report: As Ukrainian Unrest Unfolds, Anti-Semitism Rises Retrieved on March 8, 2014

UNSC vote
Why is it important to have the statement by the Russian representative? Clearly, it is more important to list what countries voted for what option. If this keeps on going, I may have to ask the admins to intervene --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions Warning
If you continue edit articles related to Eastern Europe to reflect a more pro-Russian POV, you will face discretionary sanctions as per this 2011 Arbitration Committee ruling. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2014 Ukrainian revolution. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for pushing a pro-Russian POV on the page 2014 Crimean crisis, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
 * User:Coffee Why was only one party in this edit war blocked? Darkness Shines has reverted that same edit (supported by me and another editor) 5 times without a valid explanation aside from repeatedly calling it "shite", and has made no other contributions to the article, nor has he attempted a constructive discussion on the talk page. He completely ignored a dispute resolution over this edit and has been very uncooperative and belligerent. I understand that Conan seems to be under restrictions, but that shouldn't give other editors free reign to be disruptive.LokiiT (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * LokiiT: If you notice, Conan wasn't blocked for edit warring... Just as you won't be blocked for edit warring if you continue to attempt to push pro-Russian propaganda on this encyclopedia. Consider this your warning. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User: Coffee I'm sorry but why are you threatening me? What Pro-Russian content am I pushing and why should it not be included in the article? I'm the one who made it less POV by trying to add a POV template and including the fact that pro-Yanukovich forces/Crimean residents were being anti-Semetic as well. LokiiT (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)