Welcome to Wikipedia, Silvio1973! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
...are not written in good faith. It's based on selective sources and interpretation. It represents extreme politics of the Italian irredentists. No need for that. 78.0.152.65 (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Example: you wrote: "Andrea Schiavone, known in today's Croatia with the name of Andrija Medulić", as you don't know that "Schiavone" means - a Croat!78.0.152.65 (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fist, you should log. In principle I do not answer to anonymous users.
Also I think you should read about wikipedia code of conduct before posting again a comment of that kind, or your user ID could be blocked.
To enter in the matter of your concern. Being qualified of irredentism is inappropriate and injustified. I do not consider that Italy has any right of claim for Zadar and or anywhere else in Dalmatia or Istria. Italy started a war and los it. It is a logical consequence to lose land. What I do not uderstand are the efforts made by modern Croatian storiography to change the history of people that lived in territories that today are in the border of modern Croatia.
Concern the etymology of Schiavone I know where it comes form and it means "Slav",because it was from Dalmatia. But Damatia at that time was not Croatia, was the Republic of Venice.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your Italian educational system as such is very problematic concerning Dalmatia and its population in history. They don't teach you the real stuff, you have distorted paradigm abaout it. Example - you use Austrian censi from the middle 19th century but you obviously dont't know that these censi were not like modern ones, it was not based on ethnicity as modern censi are, it was based on "language spoken in public life" which cannot be equalised with ethnicity in this case since official language in Dalmatia was Italian, proclaimed by Italian administration with a fake document.
Dalmatia was a part of Venetian Republic, but it was not populated by Venetians or Italians, neither it was part of Italy. But all of this was already said and resolved in Zadar talk page. You are just starting problems from the beginning. 83.131.73.39 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giorgio da Sebenico
I noticed you talked about Niccolo Fiorentino, so I thought you'd like to have a look at Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico. We have an Italian user there who insists that his proper name was Giorgio Orsini, but has not been able to provide a proper source to verify this. Either way the issue of most common name looks to favor the more geographic name for the main title, but it would be good to verify if there's any real merit to this argument. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On my books of Art they are reported as being the same person.
I gave a look to the talk on Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico (honestly disappointing, I wonder if these users mind really something about art) and I must confess that it's a true mess.
Also, it is simply not serious that 80% of the article is about the dispute on the name and only 20% about his masterpieces. And everywhere in the article there are translation in the two languages of names and places... honestly the article should be written again from scrap. It should be an article on art and it is looks indeed as a street fight.
What some users should understand is that in the XIV century parents did not go to the Town Hall to register their children! Only people with noble origins were keen in transmitting the family name to their children. Most of them were called "Name" + From (da) "somewhere". Concerning Giorgio Orsini (Alias Giorgio da Sebenico) this name was given to the artist when he was already dead.
My proposal is to report in the text (briefly) this fact but to use for the rest of the article the name Giorgio da Sebenico.
Side comment : in Italy it is quite known as Orsini.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that basically confirms what I suspected to be the case. I also don't really like the fact that I contributed to an expansion of a name debate that is already overblown and has undue weight. Hopefully a person interested in art will come along and offset this with actual art content. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion response
Hello there. I'm in response of a request for a third opinion. I am currently reviewing the talk page of the disputed page and should come up with a response in the near future. Whenaxis (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
Hi. This is Whenaxis. I filed an edit war filing on your behalf for both you and Zenanarh for your edits on Zadar and Luciano. You can see the application here: [1]. Hope all gets resolved - or unfortunately arbitration will be the next step. Yours truly, Whenaxisabouttalkcontribs 23:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good one. I have filed an application for edit war against Zenanarh.
However, I will accept the judgement of any arbitration. And I hope this will show the road to follow in the future. It is not possible that any modification concerning the history of Dalmatia has to become every time a kind of war.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the edit war has seemed to have calmed down, I have decided not to issue a block in this case, but this is a clear warning that Edit warringand/orviolation of the three revert rule are not allowed and will result in a future block if continued. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeltaQuad, Surely they have calmed down. I moved away from the dispute and the current versions of the article those convenient for Zenanarh (he was the last one to modify!). Next time I'll ask directly for a 3rd opinion without getting in such discussions. You can go trough the talk and see how much I tried to find a consensus and what was Zenanarh's reaction.
You should also see how much disputed are the article about Dalmatia and its history to understand that there is a real problem of POV's about the content of those articles.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again
After my decision, I looked back to your contributions and Zenanarh's contributions. And I thought everything was over, then I saw your edits for Luciano Laurana and Schiavone, and you guys are still disputing.
So I decided to help you guys make a decision by requesting for comments from the larger community. I will follow the dispute in the following days, if you need anymore help, please leave a message on my talk page. Sincerely, Whenaxistalkcontribs 00:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
Hi Silvio1973. It's Whenaxis again. I would just like to follow up with my previous mediation and I would like to see if there are any remaining issues that have been on your mind. Any questions regarding what the next step should be or anything else, I am happy to help you with your journey on Wikipedia. Please leave a message on my talk page on anything I can do to assist. Thanks, Whenaxisabout | talk 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Nevado de Cachi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cachi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dalmatia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Hi. When you recently edited Zadar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert all your corrections later
I do not understand the comment that you placed on my talk page regarding the Zadar article: I will revert all your corrections later. My corrections were just that, corrections, they didn't change the content. There is some really poor writing in that article, and it is not properly sourced. I didn't find anything on the talk page that would suggest that correcting spelling or grammar would be improper, or fixing a redlink. Could you clarify your comment for me please? I did notice the warning regarding violations of Wikipedia policy, is that what you mean by: There's a lot of discussion going on Zadar right now.? Reading the talk page there was a decision six weeks age (12 January 2012) by administrator Whenaxis, is there still a problem? --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation
One of the things that might help citation in the Zadar article is use of the Template:Cite in its various formats: Cite news, Cite web, Cite book.
Also it is sufficient when linking to a page in a book on Google Books to limit the url to the book id and page number. Thus:
Hi. When you recently edited Rasac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quechua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Silvio1973, I just wanted to stop by and say that your improvements to the Rasac article were exactly what I thought was needed when I placed that tag on it. Well done! - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Italians of Crimea
Hey, I responded to you on my talk page instead of here to keep the continuity of the conversation. --ddima (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the information you removed is of "no importance" - I did not add it to prove a particular point, but to provide additional background on his employment situation, especially given the fact that the article will become a DYK entry, and the hook is precisely about his job.
By the same criterion, it could be said that the information you entered is also of no importance, and in fact it was removed, and then restored. I have no problem with it, so let's not split hairs, I like the article the way it was, with both of these facts inside for the benefit of the reader. GregorB (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dalmatia / Bay of Kotor
Please defend your position by showing a few more reliable sources that prove your assertion that the Bay is notably described as Dalmatia. If you just keep reverting, regardless of whom you are reverting:
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you continue with the behaviour on Dalmatia, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.
Joy, I have reverted user Nemambrata because I do not find normal that someone modifies the article without being really involved before in the discussion.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have already been notified and warned regarding WP:ARBCOM. Another POV removal of WP:SET results (from a reference intended to show the prevalence of a term) will be instantly reported on the relevant noticeboard, and will be presented as part of your pattern of pro-Italian tendentious editing on this project (as previously noted by Joy). The relevant policies are WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, WP:VANDALISM, WP:EDIT WAR, and WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING. regards. -- Director(talk) 11:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:CANVASSING? That's what you have done trough the the Talk page of Dalmatia. However Direktor, I think you are an expert in the matter of being blocked. At least this is what appears going trough your Talk page.--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an informational post regarding Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I wish to make certain you are informed on this subject.
The title of the article is "House of Gundulić". And "Gundulić" is manifestly the WP:COMMONNAME. As such, that term should be used consistently in the article. Rather than two or three terms being used interchangeably.
Wikipedia determines the most common name primarily through research in secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY). Wikipedia articles are not written, and terminology is not determined according to the "original" or "official" names of the subject.
Usage of WP:PRIMARY sources, such as official documents - is very restricted.
In short: go to secondary sources, and (for the purposes at hand) completely forget about "original" or "official" names. Again, thank you. -- Director(talk) 18:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about?! Where did I call you an "irredentist"? I did no such thing. You called me "arrogant" and "obsessed" for simply following policy, and you referred to my contributions as "crap". But I did NOT call you an "irredentist" or "fascist" or whatever else you're on about here. This is outright slanderous. -- Director(talk) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Italianization". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 December 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Italianization, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Hello, Silvio1973. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page. Message added 23:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Bonatti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cerro Grande (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Bonatti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Bonatti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prealps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
Please see activities of editor IvanOS at articles of cities and municipalities in Istria where he removes from infobox labels in Italian language (Buje, Labin, Novigrad, Istria County...). It all started after my comment WP Croatia#Minority languages where I raised question about double standards towards different minority languages in Croatia-all in hope to improve position of all other minority languages. However, editors IvanOS and Sokac121 (they usually support Croatian nationalist POV), decided to insist that there should not be a minority languages in infoboxes and then this incident happened. It would be good if you can contribute on debate and maybe even invite other interested editors from other projects? I think that these two editors no longer represent major attitude at WP Croatia but interest of third parties who have experience with this issues may be useful just in case debate draws huge interest at WP Croatia. With their knowledge they can make a strong arguments and keep discussion civilized (I speak from previous experience with this topic). You can also warn editor IvanOS on inappropriateness of his actions so that there stay a trace because he already has inappropriate activities in case of other languages as you can see on his talk page.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mutilated victory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dubrovnik/Ragusa
Greetings. Here is a possible book/academic expert who can deal with linguistic issues around Romance/Slavic language naming and usage in the Adriatic area. Good luck.
A state of deference : Ragusa/Dubrovnik in the medieval centuries
Stuard, Susan Mosher
Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, c1992
Tapered (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Bonatti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sakai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Healthcare in Croatia
Once a PROD has been removed you cannot re-add it, please take to WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 17:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re the esodo..
Hello Sig. Silvio, just posting to remind you of my respectful request that you provide a brief quote or two in support of your edits on Istrian Exodus (in light of previous misunderstandings re the explicit position of the relevant sources). The quote you did provide - cuts off right where it might have had something to say on the issue at hand. The quote need not be extensive in any way, but please make sure its relevant. As things are, experience warns me not to take the matter as sourced.. Ciao & regards -- Director(talk) 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Istrian exodus".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 19:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A minor change to DRN
Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 13:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jirishanca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Riccardo Cassin 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 my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
] in 1954, but [[Ardito Desio]], the chief expedition leader for the [[Italian Alpine Club]]), preferred to leave Cassin home. According to Cassin himself:
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you continue with the behaviour on Istrian exodus, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. I hate writing reports.. -- Director(talk) 11:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Direktor, I am not goint to revert your edit. I am going to add disputed matter exactly as you are doing (pardon exactly as you did first).
Cassin
Thanks for your additions to this article. Would you please give a source for these additions or they may be removed? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In casi simili è meglio se mi mandi una mail direttamente (la trovi su meta) piuttosto che via Wikipedia, c'è il rischio che come ora finisca per non vederla affatto! --Vituzzu (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Istrian exodus 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 my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Croatia at http://www.dzs.hr/Eng/censuses/census2011/results/htm/E01_01_04/e01_01_04_zup18.html --> released data --> census 2011 --> tables --> population by ethnicity by towns/municipalities --> (scroll down) County of Istria</ref>
such as [[Milovan Djilas]] and [[Edward Kardelj]], then Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs), were sent to Istria in the years 1945-1946 to organise anti-Italian propaganda to induce the
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BSE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Zadar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Marek.69 talk 18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from IJA
I've not insulted you, I don't think I've said anything to you before. I fully support your right to join in and participate in any discussion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia which anyone can edit therefore you're more than welcome and edit any page and participate in any discussion. Regards IJA (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Artesonraju 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 my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
time on the 24 June 1969 by K. Schreckenbach, H. Saler and K. Sussmilch el 24 de junio de 1969). A large number (and perhaps exproportionate when compared to the actual relative difficulty of
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De Facto and Indirect Recognitions
Thanks Silvio1973 for your suggestion. I tried to rephrase as follows:
In July 2013, ECtHR stated that a de facto recognition of the acts of Northern Cyprus may be rendered necessary for practical purposes thereby the adoption of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application by its authorities or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".(ref1) The beginning of direct flights to Northern Cyprus by the other states is regarded as indirect recognition of Northern Cyprus as an independent state.(ref2)
Sorry Silvio, but I just saw this message. This discussion should take place at the article talkpage not on your talk, but I will reply here at this stage and then we should move this discussion where it properly belongs, i.e. the article talkpage. In any case, the proposed edits are unacceptable. The first source is WP:PRIMARY and it does not say that the de facto recognition has happened but rather that it may be rendered necessary to be de facto recognised. Therefore it has not happened yet and it is not official. It is just speculation at this point. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PRIMARY it is an unacceptable addition. The second paper covering the flights is not published in a peer-reviewed journal and it is not a reliable source. It is just the opinion of the author which may or may not be valid. Therefore these are not "De Facto and Indirect Recognitions [sic]" but mere speculation about "De Facto and Indirect Recognitions [sic]" and should not be included in the article. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 14:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Silvio. It looks like you started a new article at HR 5171. Since a requested move has just closed, that page has been replaced with the former contents of V766 Centauri. If you still have the material you added previously, you might try to insert it in HR 5171 if you believe it is relevant. You can see your old material at this link if you need to copy it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring notice
Your recent editing history at Russia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a thread on WP:ANI that may concern you [2]. Regards. -- Director(talk) 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add a bit...
The things you said to Direktor are unacceptable. The undertones may be difficult for an outsider to fully appreciate, but they are still obvious. Editing in areas like the Balkans is risky, as admin are given extra leeway to deal with problems. You need to step back a little bit, maybe edit less controversial topics for a bit. These controversial topics are easy to get caught up in, to edit war, to say things you shouldn't say, and to get blocked. From what I see, your English is respectable but not perfect, so you must learn to give the benefit of the doubt to others, or you will find yourself in the wrong and upset for no reason. What I fear is that if you don't pull back a little, be less aggressive and more patient, you will get blocked. You may yet, I hold no special authority to decide the outcome of that discussion, I can only give my opinion. The community is free to ignore it.
If you find your blood pressure rising, your emotions rising, then you need to walk away from that article for a day. Go edit something else. Ice cream, Polar bear, whatever, just something else that doesn't make your emotions get the best of you. We all have opinions, we all get frustrated, but you have to learn when to walk away and cool down. Otherwise, you will end up getting blocked over and over. I'm not asking you to change your opinions, just the way you deal with frustration. The article was there yesterday, it will be there tomorrow. Nothing is so urgent that you can't walk away for a day when you need to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. There's nothing to add. However, I have just posted a modification on another article on dispute. I am going to revert it and wait for things to boil down. I appreciate your advice and consider it very valuable. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As a bonus, when people perceive you as calm and reasonable, they will consider your point of view above those that are not. Seriously, it is to your own advantage to be more patient and learn ways to help keep from spouting off comments. Trust me, I get just as frustrated as you do over some things, I just have learned ways to deal with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ppm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at [3], you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. DP 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I am seriously thinking to report Direktor for his behavior. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck - remember, your behaviour will also be under review, and I can guarantee a block for your actions - it was even noted above. DP 14:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dragging someone to ANI is like throwing them in front of a train, except you have to go with them. Seldom a good idea unless the problem is obviously one sided, and honestly, it isn't. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is not one sided, as someone else pretends it is. However, @DangerousPanda: please note that for some reasons Direktor follows my new posts and of course continue to offend me. I will not react, still I do not see who gave him the right to treat me like that.--Silvio1973 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your edits were not so regularly problematic, nobody would have to click your Contributions button and clean up after you. There's a fine line between wikistalking and fixing things, and so far (from a quick perusal) Direktor's on the correct side of that line DP 09:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, from a quick perusal. A very quick one.
Dear DP, I edit in a lot of other areas and I do not have never so many problems such as with Direktor (and I am not the only one). However I take your advise very seriously, because any human system got rules and I am certainly not familiar enough with them. Said that, it is not because Direktor is more experienced that he has the right to treat me continously like shit. The thing is that he never cross that line but continously offend (e.g. about my proficiency in English) creating pitfalls where the less experienced editors can fall in. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with editing, some tips
I saw you first time on ANI when Direktor had brought you. I didn't knew that you have good knowledge about numerous world affairs and politics. I was just saying that you should avoid conflict as much as you can, I understand that sometimes edit conflicts is completely out of control. About your english, I would advise that you to read more than you write, for some weeks or months. Here[4] you forgot to close the bracket in your comment, be careful about them, and good luck with your editing. Thanks for your contributions. OccultZone (Talk) 09:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear OccultZone thank you for your valuable advise. I will exercise more care when writing and definitely avoid conflicts. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
International Pacts and Treaties
Hi Silvio: The abridgment on Russia looked reasonable, and my edit is restoring the news on the Geneva Pact. Wikipedia policy recognizes International Pacts and Treaties as Notable for inclusion. If you have a follow-up then perhaps Talk page first would be useful. Otherwise the abridgment on Russia looked reasonable for Crimea. FelixRosch (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alkylation unit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reformer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BRD on Ukraine Page
To Silvio; Upon request of User:EVergreen, I have initiated a BRD on the issue of the back-and-forth editing on the Ukraine page which you had previously commented upon. Good Editing. FelixRosch (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. Nevertheless, I do not remember I actually ever edited the article Ukraine, but only Russia. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was your comments on the Russia talk page dealing with "Proposals for Russia and Ukraine lead" which I thought were on target. This situation on the Ukraine Talk page would apply to both pages beneficially and your comments would be quite welcome. FelixRosch (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I must confess I feel very uncomfortable writing about the recent issues between Russia and Ukraine. I am mainly observing what is going on but I think that sourcing entirely from news is wrong. There is a big issue of recentism and honestly I am very concerned with it. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions notification
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My warning (for what it is worth)
This edit [5] is outright canvassing of potentially sympathetic editors, as are your direct communications with User:USchick, who has their own issues here. Let me say up front that I do not condone some of the behaviour Director has displayed in a range of fora over two and a half years I have been on en WP, but I am quite sympathetic towards the principle of defence against POV-warriors regarding a whole range of issues on en WP, particularly when editing in areas regarding the former Yugoslavia. It is a "target-rich environment" in my experience. I remember you from quite some time ago, so your bleatings of "not really understanding procedures" per this is in my view duplicitous. In my view you should be site banned for at least three months for each instance of obvious canvassing, you have been here way long enough to know better. No doubt others will be more lenient, but you can take from this that you have failed a basic integrity test as far as I am concerned, so don't be surprised if I take the side of those that think you should not be given the privilege of editing en WP because of your poor behaviour. There are a lot of editors who display poor behaviour on en WP, but targeting Director in this case is just an example of "sinking the slipper" when someone is on the ground after the "Jews and Communism" drama. Where I come from, that usually results in a head butt to the bridge of the nose from someone that considers that is a pretty low act. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have been suggested by an experienced user to find people endorsing my RfC/U and I have am also contacting people usually defending Director. Indeed I am trying to contact all the users that were involved in our disputes. if you think I forget someone tell me. This is an RfC/U not an AN/I and perhaps I am the one being wrong. The only thing I know is that I am sick to death to be insulted. If the WP community believe that Director did not insult me, this is fine for me, it means that I am too sensitive. But mind well that insulting someone is not a solution, even if it was demonstrated that I do not listen enough what the other say (and dear PM67, Director is not the good example). There are RfC, 3O and ANI to treat such problems. Director is a user or rare competence, the only issue is the he believe he is ALWAYS right and ends insulting everyone opposing to him. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are WP:CANVASING. You are specifically targeting Director and contacted all the "opposing editors" first in the hope of getting them to get stuck in to him. NOW, you are contacting others. Either way, it is pure canvassing. I will take you to ANI if you don't stop. That is your last warning. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listen I am contacting and had contacted everyone. There is no order, the RfC is pending 48 hours from posting, so wait tomorrow 9am to accuse. however this morning 8am I contacted Antidiskriminator and before your first post Tomobe03 and Evergreen, who many times opposed my arguments. I tell you more. I should contact in principle only people who actually mediate but I will try to contact everyone. Said that, please realise that I do not pretend to be the good guy but I am pissed off of being qualified of fascist and extremist. I have nothing against FYR and I have everything against the Fascism (and you don't know my history as an individual). But for God's sake I am not asking the moon. I want Director to be more polite. If you guys think I am disruptive or just a bad editor go for ANI or RfC/U but stop insulting. But stop insulting. Director makes reference continously (and negatively) to my nationality. He did for almost two years. I do not even know how I managed not to react. However if you want to bring me to ANI go ahead, but if the objective is to gey rid of the "enemies" of former FYR I think you should change target. I am not one of those people. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You
Hi,
I noticed you posted a lengthy message about yourself on my talkpage to explain that you are not fascist, irredentist.... Don't get me wrong here, but I don't care about your political views. Please be so kind not to write comments about other contributors (including yourself) on my talkpage. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I will not anymore, but I think it was necessary to clarify a few things. I can swallow almost everything, but calling me fascist is like giving me a fist in the stomach. All my life I have been (actively) against that ideology. Good editing, I hope we will have the opportunity to work together in future. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear
Hi Silvio, I understand that you're frustrated and you're going around in circles, for years now, and that must be very painful. The fact that Wiki policy is not always clear is not very helpful. The fact that people aren't always in a collaborative mood is also not very helpful. You know I'm not your enemy, so I hope you will listen when I say this. I think you made some very serious errors and I wonder if you understand what they are?
1. RfC/U instructions: at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. Do you understand what this means? The dispute you list is about Dalmatia. Why did you pick that particular dispute? Why did you invite uninvolved editors? You created a situation where no one can help you.
2. When you edit articles that require very specific knowledge, you must provide sources, because other editors are all over the world and may have a general interest in the subject, but no specific knowledge, so looking at sources becomes very important when trying to agree on something. On more than one occasion you want people to trust your knowledge without any sources that people can verify. You had an argument about sources in Dalmatia and also in Donetsk Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Events changing fast, the map need to be continuously updated or removed. You can argue that in Dalmatia it was Director's fault, but in the second instance, Director wasn't there, and you had the same argument. That's two more situations that you created where no one can help you.
I have to ask, is this a language barrier? What is the reason for creating these situations? USchick (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the policies are not clear. But it is clear that if I am mistaken I did in good faith. I have not posted an AN/I for Dalmatia. I had previously issues in other areas with Director. However, If i am going to be blocked because I do not understand the procedure I don't mind. What remains is that Director insults me all the time. What should I do, accept without any limit? In the second instance I am not wrong. There is no caption under the map. The reader must know if we speak of region of Donetsk / Area controlled by the rebels / Area claimed by the rebels. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not post this RfC/U because I want to be right but just because I cannot handle anymore Director's insults. If users prioritise procedures over humanity, I have no place here. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to policy you can post all kinds of ridiculous maps. I had a very long edit war about maps and now several people hate me. lol, I think we should both go do something a lot more useful and less controversial. USchick (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Silvio, another thing you have to keep in mind is that, as indicated by the collapsing of Izak's comment, those of us who were not involved in your particular dispute with Director are limited in terms of participation. Yes, I do feel that Director engaged in improper conduct in the past. But even if those diffs were available, they are apparently not pertinent to your particular dispute, as far as I can see. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that a RfC/U has pertinence about the conduct of a user across different events. In this sense is different from a ANI. Is there anyone who can clarify?? Otherwise ANI and RfC/U would coincide.Silvio1973 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why was Izak's comment collapsed? Again, I am no expert on RfC/Us. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC/U is not an Artificial Intelligence. The comment collapsed because it was requested to do so. However I am tired of this crap. After this RfC/U I take a long break from conflictual areas. Sure, Director will be free to do what he wants. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cro-Magnon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Super-spreader. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Honorary degree. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iatrogenesis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sunburn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gliese 581. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mensuration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mediterranean monk seal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pola. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, I reverted your edits about the contribution of Istrian and Dalmatian art in Renaissance, since this is a general article about Italy, with limited space about this topic, and citing them there, you give undue weight (this is the meaning of UNDUE) to them with respect to other regions/artists which are not cited. The fact that now these regions do not belong to the Italian Republic is not sufficent reason to cite them, since Laurana is neither bramante nor Michelangelo. Of course, in another context, like an article about venetian art, they must stay there. Alex2006 (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make me laugh. You keep reverting reasonable and sourced edits and after pretend me not to reinstate them. Ma chi ti credi di essere? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 8601. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fields Medal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Director(talk) 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Ah Ah You broke the 3RR rules not me and you were reported accordingly. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One can edit-war without breaking 3RR, Silvio1973. Then again, one can also try to exploit 3RR to have his way. -- Director(talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you continue with the behaviour on Dalmatia, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Riccardo Cassin 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 my operator's talk page.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Silvio1973 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.