User talk:Ktrimi991/Archive 8

Mini-Schengen area
Hi can you check the wiki page about Mini-Schengen area since it's getting out of control. A user named Alex Mili is trying to POV push by calling Kosovo an "unformed" state and I'm rv his edits while I give more than enough explanations. I also made a whole essay to another editor (you can find it to my edit page) explaining why it should stay to "4 countries" and not "3+1 "unformed state". I ask you since you are contributing to Kosovo Wiki pages and you have similar experience this editor. Sorry to bother you but I don't see anyone more capable than you for this situation. Thanks
 * To the IP editor who posted above: the issue is now solved. And that editor is now indefinitely blocked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2021 Cuban protests&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sth?
Hi, Ktrimi991. I saw your comments at El C's talk page and noticed that you used "sth" several times. I have to ask, what does "sth" stand for? I've never encountered it before and had no look searching on it. Schazjmd  (talk)  19:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi "sth" is "something" :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! My curiousity was bugging me.  Schazjmd   (talk)  19:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also learn new words around while editing on Wikipedia. I am not native speaker of English, and my skills have improved a lot since when I started to edit back in 2016 (as much as when I look back I wonder why I was so dumb at the time :P ) Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your Comment on the talk Page of EdJohnston
Miredita Trim,

I couldnt comment on your last comment on the Talk Page of User:EdJohnston, because I was blocked by him with questionable charges.

Either way, I want to give a comment on you last comment on his Talk Page.

let me Copy and Paste your Text:

"On Kosovo Serbs, contrary to their claims, both InNeed95 and User:Pipsally were making changes without consensus. The coronavirus stuff in North Kosovo has been there for a long time (InNeed95 removed it), and the consensus figure was 7%, not the 4% to which Pipsally reverted to. I made a change in another article [8] to solve a dispute between the two editors. I suggest both of you continue your discussion on the article's talk page. InNeed95, can you focus on discussing your reasons on the article talk page instead of accusing people here?"

Its a bit funny but nevermind that. I told you, that you seem to Misunderstand the actual Problem, and that you should review the situation again(Seems like you didnt).

It had nothing to do with the Procentages. I dont know from where you got this information from (probably from EdJohnston, because he just threw that reason in.... lol).

But let me just clear one thing about those "Procentage" change.

On the Article Kosovo Serbs a IP-User, changed the Article twice. The first time, his edit was reverted by another User. The second time, it was reverted by me. That IP-User changed the Procentage Number from 7% to 4%. With that, he claimed to have a source. I look the source up, and saw that it was unreliable, due to having two different claims and being old (from 2005). I contacted the IP-User thru his Talk-Page (see here: [1]) and told him about the Problem, so he does not Edit the Article again, and start a Edit-Warring.

He answered me thru my Talk-Page later on (see here: [2]) and accepted his mistake. As such, the current shown procentage of 4% is wrong and unsourced.

Either way, that was not the Problem I had with the distrubtive Editor Pipsally. Pipsally reverted several edits on the Article with the reason of "Edit-Warring". I messaged Pipsally thru his Talk-Page, and which User/Edit had the possibility to be a risk for "Edit-Warring". He did not answer my specific and clear question. After a while, I decided to go to the Articles Talk-Page and told Pipsally to explain his changes there. So we can have a consensus. He did not want to cooperate after several times I asked him to do so. As such, I requested a Protection of the side (see here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1035735868) and reverted his last edit of the Article. He on the other hand, accused me of made up wrong doings and a certain Admin, that did NOT investigate the Probelm at all, accepted his request and handle the situation one sided. (Quiet a shame...)

So tell me now, who was the one doing the wrong thing? Somebody, that edited/reverted a Article with no explainations / made up explainations, or me, that asked the distrubtive User to explain his edits?

Now to your claim about the Article Deni Avdija. You did not solve the Dispute me and Pipsally had on that Article. Actually, I started a Talk-Page discussion, which ended with, non Removal of the sentence.

Btw, the Problem was not the Link you changed (which I am very in favor of, so thanks for changing that), but because of the whole sentence, which seemed to be controversial in many aspects.

Think about what I wrote. I hope you understand now, what the problem was and who the Wrong Doing User is.

Tungatjeta,

--InNeed95 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi InNeed95. Since you insist that you were right and everyone else was wrong, I asked another admin to take a look . Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you really read my comment here? Because it doesnt seem like it.

Also your comment on the Talk-Page of the other Admin did barely contain anything about my comment here. But rather, some accusations (to which I defended myself of course). The problem is not about the Block. You seem to take everything out of the context (probably because you didnt read my comment at all, and you just assumed that it was about the Block).

Please spend some time to read my comment. I would really appriciate it.

Tungatjeta edhe njehere,

--InNeed95 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * InNeed95, why do you insist that you are right and other people are all wrong? My suggestion to you is to reflect on your issue, accept that the block was due to your own wrong actions, and read WP:RfC on how to solve content disputes. It is up to you: either you will reflect, or some admin will remove your editing rights once and for all. I think it is better if you choose the first option. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ohh vella, my comment is not about the BLOCK. Understand that! READ IT. And dont throw in things that dont have anything to do with it.

As such, your "suggestions" do not reflect the issue, since you dont want to read my comment.

Taking my editing rights for what reason? For calling something vandlism? (Which was called exeggerated by myself on the Talk Page of EL C).

--InNeed95 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as you "hold your thoughts for yourself", everything is OK. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Literally has nothing to do with the problem. But nvm. You act the same as both of the others. Unwilling to cooperate. What a shame.

Have a good one,

--InNeed95 (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Body mass index&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)