User talk:InNeed95

Hi

I wrote that to a user named "Khirug"(in Kosovo serbs page) since he removed the source and 4%. I took the source and the 4% from the Kosovo page and I thought it would be better to have the same % in both pages, also I didn't POV push or made other edits in the page (check my profile). I didn't mean anything bad or to start an edit war (which didn't happen). If the 7% should stay I have no problem since we are going to have a census anytime now and new stats will be updated (according to the official census).(Note the % should also change in Kosovo page) 2A02:587:E23B:7D00:D191:6719:55D6:6D4F (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @User talk:2A02:587:E23B:7D00:D191:6719:55D6:6D4F,

I explained that you should not take my comment, which I gave with the revision on the Article Kosovo Serbs, into consideration, because I didnt check at first what you changed.

I respect that you are trying to improve the article. But the source given was not reliable.

Indeed, if everything goes right, their will be a new census. Than we will have numbers that show us the actual percentages of each ethnic group in the State of Kosovo in the present time.

Looking forward to it,

--InNeed95 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't restore removed comments

Users may remove comments from their own talk page. There is no need for others to replace those comments. If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it. Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings @FormalDude:,

I am sorry for making this mistake. The Vandalizer *cough*, I mean the User, didnt seem to respect the rules and give no care towards Warnings (I think it was the 3rd Warning).

I will keep in mind to not repeat the same mistake again.

Thanks.

Just one more thing, if you have time, could you regard the latest activities me and the User had? Because, it came up to be problematic, and it resulted in the wrong outcome(because of the bad handling of the problem by a certain other Admin).

I would be thankful to here a opinion from a competent Admin like you are.

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but I'd be happy to give my input.

It seems like you broke the WP:3RR by reverting more than three edits on one page within a 24 hour time period. This edit of yours was the edit that broke the rule by being your fourth revert. If a reverted edit of yours has been reverted, it is best practice to stop reverting and discuss the issue on the talk page, except in cases of blatant vandalism, which this definitely was not.

The article is now under temporary full protection, which was deemed appropriate by an administrator. The protection level will be lowered on August 3rd. In the meantime you should discuss the disputed edits on the article talk page and try reach a consensus or compromise.

There is also a discussion about you on the edit warring noticeboard where you may wish to make a comment to avoid possible sanctions for edit warring (though that does seem probably unlikely, it can still be a good idea to comment an explanation).

Let me know if you have any other questions! ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 16:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude:

Ohh... I thought you are a Admin due to your will to help others. My mistake :D

I know about the 3 Revert Rule. I thought it is only about the reverts which I made for the edits of Pipsally. The number was 3 for it.

I did not revert anything after my first revert. I actually tried my best to cooperate with the distruptive Editor (first thru his Talk Page, than thru the Articles Talk Page), but he didnt want to cooperate at all. I had enough Passion. Than I reverted his edits 2 more times. (In the end a third party reverted my latest revert with a pathetic excuse of Vandalism... like... lol)

I know that the article is now protected. Unfortunately, with the wrong version in use. What a shame.

I saw the discussion. Quiet pathetic. Bad excuses. The Admin disregarded my efforts of trying to cooperate with the distruptive Editor. He didnt even seem to know the acutal problem. It looked like more to be a guess by him. This is also, quite a shame.

I am not looking forward to waste my time on that "Noticeboard". I dont think that it would result in anything good. We will see.... maybe I will.... but its unlikely.

Thanks for accepting my request to review this problem.

--InNeed95 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP:3RR applies to both reverts involving the same material/editor or reverts involving different material/editor, as long as they are all on the same page and within 24 hours, so you did unfortunately break that rule.

It certainly looks like there should have been more discussion, and while it is okay for you go to a User Talk page for that, the Article Talk page is best. You can continue discussion there about the disputed edits in order to hopefully reach a resolution ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude:

Ohh I didnt know that. I thought it is specifically only about the reason I stated above. Thanks for telling me.^^

I only was on the User´s Talk page for a little bit. I afterwards went to the Talk Page of the Article and notified the distrubtive Editior about it, and that he should write his reasons for his changes there.

I tried my best to cooperate with the distrubtive Editor, but he did not want to.

Funny enough, later on he charged me of being the wrong doing, and a incompetent Admin, that did not at all investigate the problem, believed his words and "Protected" (I did request a Protection on the Protection Request side btw...) with the Vandalised form.

Later on, the Admin blocked me or 2 days because I called it Vandalism. I actually explained to the Admin, why I called it Vandalism (because of editing several ties without explainations) and he still blocked me. Like wth?

Sorry for answering this late, but as I stated, I was blocked for no reason for 2 days.

--InNeed95 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

InNeed95, you were blocked for good reason. Please don't call other editors incompetent, that is a WP:PA, and is not true about the administrator you dealt with. Wikipedia is pretty explicit with what counts as WP:VANDALISM so throwing around that word incorrectly is not a good look. I suggest moving on from this whole issue anyways. All the best. ––FormalDude^(talk) 16:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude:

I explained why I called it "Vandalism". Maybe it was a bit "exaggerated", but still, I explained why.

It is quiet true for the Admin. He/she did not investigate the problem and just threw in some charges. (He claimed that the probelm was about some procentages (even tho it clearly wasnt like wtf?).

Indeed. I shouldnt waste your time with my problems. I just wanted a opinion from your side.

Thanks for participating. All best likewise.

--InNeed95 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)