User talk:PlavaOmega

Tomislav Tomašević article

Hi PlavaOmega - I noticed you are editing as of recently with very specific right-wing agenda only articles of leftist politicians and critique of nationalist ones. You are welcome to do so but your formulations are very biased and that goes against neutrality of Wikipedia. When expanding article on Tomislav Tomašević using the descriptions like 'numerous corruption allegations and investigations' (when there were few), stating that mayor is in rule (while in elected position), that Lauc is party member (when he was relativly small donor and sympathiser) is rendering your contributions highly problematic. Please refrain from such type of edits in the future. --Zblace (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Zblace. I can assure you there was no "right wing agenda" in question, I simply had a different idea of how ones Wikipedia page is supposed to look like. After you left this comment, I went ahead and checked articles of other politicians/parties across Croatia and yes, I must admit my mistake, the additions I made to the page of Tomislav Tomašević do not fit the article. No other politician and party in Croatia has scandals listed on their pages and neither should the article of Tomislav Tomašević. I'm happy you informed me of this as it made me more aware about how I am supposed to edit pages. Thank you. PlavaOmega (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hrvoje Klasić article

Thank you for your last message on my talk page and for detailed clarification of your edit. While I recognized that some parts of your contribution were justified and represented a contribution (removal of adjectives which may not be fully objective or neutral) you are right that I put the focus on the removal of reliable English language source (Balkan Insight) and national newspaper Večernji list and usage of the populist right wing unreliable source. I nevertheless tried to acknowledge your contribution by subsequent removal of adjectives which motivated your initial edit. Also, Croatian Wikipedia controversy was not merely alleged (Please see). Hope this clarification may help. If you would like any further clarification which I omitted please let me know.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridge (Croatia)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Tuvixer were literally warned by admins due to participating in edit wars, biased editing and ignoring sources. It's also hilarious you add that red hand image to make your comment look serious while in reality it's meaningless. A quick scroll through your "Talk" page shows you've been ignoring sources on other articles as well (for quite some time) and using your personal, subjective outlook on issues rather than adhering to Wiki's objective and listening to the sources.

>that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree

The SOURCE disagrees with you. Your personal bias Tuvixer is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the source. PlavaOmega (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]