User talk:Göndul

January 2016

In a recent edit to the page Rita Hayworth, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Materialscientist Thank you for letting me know, I was completely unaware of that policy. I was under the impression that Wikipedia, being read by people all over the world, should be written in International English. Obviously, it is not my intention to show disrespect for other people's versions of English.

Iryna Harpy, you are very impolite. I made the edit 4 days ago and the other editor removed it twice today without any explanation. I don't have to do what he "requests" of me. He is the one who should discuss before reverting. Also your reverting me in a matter of minutes in support of the other editor is highly suspicious. Have you sent him the same warning? If you agree with him, go to the talk page instead of issuing threats.

No, I have not sent Volunteer Marek the same warning. I checked the content you introduced and, per editor Volunteer Marek's edit summary, agree that it is both WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE. Please read WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. As it was you who introduced the content in the first instance, the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that it is relevant. I have been polite in giving you the benefit of the doubt in order that you explain why you believe this to be pertinent to the article in question, therefore ask that you use the relevant talk page should you wish to discuss the matter further. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Human rights in Poland

Since 20:54 on 17 January you have made four reverts on this article. If you are willing to undo your last change there may still be enough time to avoid a block for edit warring by me or by some other admin. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I undid my last edit because I realize I have fallen into a trap. After I made an edit that he did not like on another article, Volunteer Marek looked up my editing history and removed a very well sourced edit I made in Human rights in Poland. When I reinstated it, he teamed up with Yrina Harpy to revert alternatingly so as not to make more than 3 reverts themselves while trying to make me break the rule. Even so, one of the edits was just to correct a mistake I made and another one consisted in adding new content and is not a revert. I removed my last edit to show good faith and build trust, but I still consider it legitimate.

EdJohnston. Sorry, I forgot to ask you something. What should I do to get my edit (which is well sourced and relevant) reinstated without making myself vulnerable to accusations of edit warring? Thank you in advance for your response.

Thanks for your reply. It is not a surprise that you sincerely believe you are right; most people in edit wars do so. To avoid future problems, I suggest you not restore your material again until you can persuade the other editors at Talk:Human rights in Poland. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles of interest to you are covered by sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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.

My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just a standard notification, nothing more (since you asked). However, I do believe that some your comments, such as that one, are strange. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)