User talk:SciPedian

November 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bosnia and Herzegovina. 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2018 (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.
 * This is a mistake. I've never reverted anyone's edit, so I'm not engaged in an edit war. Instead, I contributed 3 scientific references that list Bosnia and Herzegovina as a US-led international protectorate, instead of an unscientific reference by "CIA Factbook" that claims the country to be a federal republic. Also, no one can find a single scientific reference that corroborates the CIA claim. Finally, no one else offered any counter-argument either. SciPedian (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See this and this, reverting this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They are 2 different editors, who made 2 different edits. No edit war obviously. So what's the problem with contributing scientific references where there were none previously? SciPedian (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Two edits that added up to a revert of your addition. Please see WP:BRD (and WP:SOCK). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what those rules say. Can you quote the exact part of the rule that corroborates your censoring of scientific references in favor of a biased and unscientific CIA reference? SciPedian (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Bosnia and Herzegovina, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You reverted my edit with a commentary in which you accuse me of "cherry-picking sourcing." That could hold if there were any references previously, but in this case there were no secondary scientific sources whatsoever, and the only source was by CIA. Also, you did so without citing any rule that you allege was violated so no one can really tell what's meant by "cherry-picking sourcing." Please either provide the exact rule that has been violated in this case or stop censoring my good-faith addition of 3 new scientific references where there was none previously. SciPedian (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   16:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)