User talk:Yomomo

Bolivia

Please write your comments here:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2019 Bolivian political crisis; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 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. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: Maybe you can see from the history of the mentioned page, that I didn't revert the title to an old one. I tried to use another version (with a question mark in the title) exactly trying to solve an edit war. I also didn't revert the title again after the first revert of my proposition, I didn't even try to, exactly because I want to avoid an edit war. I still didn't see any response to my arguments... Threatening me here with a possible block is thereafter not appropriate. Please remove this and try to response to the argumentation. Once again: the title political crisis doesn't represent consensus and to many opinions also not NPOV, so the actual title is a disrespect of both these rules. Leaving this title and calling any effort changing it an edit war is also inappropriate (I don't really know anyway, if you are for "political crisis" or for something else, but in the case you are for "political crisis" and against other versions, THIS would be a bias...) Yomomo (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the title of 2019 Bolivian political crisis

1. You are trying to make arguments based on views and definitions of 'coup d'état'. However, the title of an article should be based on what reliable sources call the event, or a neutral descriptive phrasing if there is no WP:COMMONNAME. There is no common name, and many sources carefully avoid using 'coup'; hence, discussions have been long and ongoing. Contribute to those.

2. Wikipedia is not going to have an article with (?) in the title. It's not written into policy because it should be so obvious to not do that.

eehhmm? Why? I mean even if it were in the policy, the policies of wiki are not like laws of God :-). In situations like this, maybe it is meaningful to use this alternative,,, I mean, if you have no other solution that would respect more important policies (like NPOV and consensus), why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomomo (talk • contribs)

Re. policy: If you don't like it, don't edit Wikipedia. Simple. Re. using your bad suggestion: That is an alternative that is worse than any proposed title, as it is both not neutral and utterly unclear, as well as going against the policy on symbols in titles generally (yes, the concept of a question mark inside parentheses isn't mentioned, but it would be if anyone ever conceived of it being thought up). Re. other policies: In most cases, if you can't find consensus, no change is made (the exceptions, before you ask, are generally by Very Important Editors like Jimmy Wales) - so it's irrelevant what you think we should do in the absence of consensus because the answer is 'nothing'. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. Stop pinging me to your user pages. If other editors want to find open conversation on the matter, that is not where they will go looking. I can now see that you may have more genuine intentions, but please read the guidelines first. (I apologize for thinking that you were WP:NOTHERE to be constructive, but your editing behavior isn't better than a WP:SPA vandal. If you want to be productive, engaging is a must. It is hard to get consensus through with LatAm politics, but I've been trying my best to push discussion - please do that instead of listing your views and being reckless.) Kingsif (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing – December 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2019 Bolivian political crisis, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Please do not add a table of your own opinion to the top of a mainspace article, especially in a collapsebox that pushes the entire article content down. I implore you to read the guidelines and observe the editing standards of Wikipedia before making any more edits. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bolivian political crisis vs. coup d'etát

If you want to open a Request for Comments on the title, or a Requested Move, do that. Otherwise, stop all your various backdoor ways of trying to push the matter, a.k.a. disruptive edits that you're making without any discussion. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 - canvassing at cmonghost's talkpage

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Kingsif (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the remarks. Sorry for canvasing. I still don't understand, what was so wrong about putting the collapse part about the dispute apart that it was not the right tag. It is still a disputed issue and the part was referenced. It was restricted on facts that are documented on appropriate sources. There was no POV there. It was exactly respecting consensus and it mentioned, that the title shouldn't change. I have the impression, that just because I'm new here, my edits count less. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, it's not so important. Yomomo (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're new, you don't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia practices. I'm not the first to say this. Please watch and learn. What is wrong about putting a collapsebox of content reflecting your views on a main page? It's a main page! Talk pages are for maintenance, you can't arbitrarily put anything you want onto a main page. If there's a discussion about moving the article, the actual tag is useful for both editors and general readers. There was no discussion, so no need to blast back-end issues out in public. You really are on the way to a block, just because you refuse to learn or even simply stop and listen when various editors say 'we have guidelines against every single thing you're doing'. Here I am explaining, but really, no editor should have to defend to you why certain things aren't acceptable just because you want to do it in seeking your own version of a single article (which is what it is at this point, since I've pointed you to places for discussion about the matter on several occasions) - if you don't like it, challenge it via the appropriate methods, but be warned that you're going against years of policy-building. Kingsif (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note that, from the context and ways in which you have been using the term 'consensus' in all your arguments/rebuttals/outbursts, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the WP policy on WP:CONSENSUS. Kingsif (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]