31.223.138.86

December 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Greater Serbia. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 behaviour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peacemaker67#Greater_Serbia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peacemaker67#My_ability_to_follow_simple_instructions

I don't have any "concerns".

My quite simple question was if I was allowed to ask for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.

Is that allowed or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 31.223.138.86 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You can indicate on an article's Talk page what you may see as deficiencies or inaccuracies in the article. You are not allowed to add this commentary within the article itself, and certainly not to do so persistently after it is removed and you have been advised not to do so (which is called disruptive editing). As previously suggested, please use the article's Talk page at Talk:Greater Serbia to express your concerns about the content of the article Greater Serbia. General Ization ^Talk 05:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

1. I did't try to add this commentary within the article itself. What are you talking about?

2. I apologize, but I didn't claim that there were any inaccuracies in the article. I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.

Is that allowed or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 31.223.138.86 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review this edit, only one of seven in which you inserted comments about quotes you thought were needed into the article itself. General Ization ^Talk 05:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You are obviously referring to my copy-pasting whole article with my quote demand, and correcting MYSELF.

What about answering my question?31.223.138.86 (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your question is completely answered in my responses above and below, and has been answered multiple times now. If you think other editors should add additional information to the article, or if you have questions about the information that is already there, post your questions or comments on the article's Talk page, not in the article itself, as you persistently did earlier. General Ization ^Talk 05:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Previous paragraph was also originally entitled: "Peacemaker67's behaviour". It was regarding Peacemaker67's starting "two edits edit war" and blocking an opponent from editing.

Why the headline was changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 31.223.138.86 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Because this discussion is not about Peacemaker67's behavior, which was completely appropriate. Peacemaker67 has more than 47,000 edits on Wikipedia, and has been working here for more than 5 years. You might infer from that that they know a little bit more than you do about Wikipedia policies and practices, as do I. You are not an "opponent", and you were not "blocked from editing". (If you are blocked from editing, you will know it.) By the way, please start signing your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. General Ization ^Talk 05:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I dont try to underestimate Peacemaker's contribution to this site, but just expressing my amazement of your (both of you) capability to avoid simple questions in both of these paragraphs. Thanks for advise, maybe it works better now. 31.223.138.86 (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop censorship

If you were putting so much effort in answering my simple question, this would be much better discussion.

Original question

I apologize, but I didn't claim that there were any inaccuracies in the article. I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.

Is that allowed or not?31.223.138.86 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Once again: It is allowed on the article's Talk page, not in the article itself. In this case, it means you can post your request on the page Talk:Greater Serbia, not within the article Greater Serbia. What aspect of that answer are you having trouble understanding? General Ization ^Talk 05:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, finally. I was wrongly thinking I was allowed to edit an article and ask for a quote.

I don't know why you did't tell me immediately it was not open to everybody. 31.223.138.86 (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

We have repeatedly tried to explain to you that you were posting your requests for quotes in the wrong place. You are allowed to edit the article, and you are allowed to ask for quotes, but you are not allowed to put your request for quotes in the body of the article, where everyone who reads the article will also read your request(s). Clear now? General Ization ^Talk 06:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

And to attempt to answer your question directly: "Šešelj is alleged to have propagated a policy of uniting 'all Serbian lands' in a homogeneous Serbian state, which he referred to as 'Greater Serbia'. This state was to include Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and considerable parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)." (http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/cis/en/cis_seselj_en.pdf, as cited source #4 in the article.) General Ization ^Talk 06:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss ideology and insisting with the question

I was simply asking for a scientific source of the 20th or 21st century English term regarding an ideology from 19th century.

Is that allowed or not? 31.223.138.86 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I give up. Goodnight and good luck. General Ization ^Talk 06:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

General Ization: "but you are not allowed to ask for quotes in the body of the article. Clear now?"

Clear!

Thank you so much! Didn' know why did you need so much time to say so. 31.223.138.86 (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Greater Serbia

Just in case you missed it, I have opened a thread at Talk:Greater Serbia so you can discuss your query there. I encourage you to do so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this discussion offer, but, since I'm a Serbian, I'm quite bored of that ideology arguing.

If you have any explanation about appearance of the English term "Greater Serbia" (time and place) I would really appreciate it.

Thank you again. 31.223.138.86 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

---