JohnBlackburne To write that the Malvinas / Falklands is disputed between Britain and Argentina is a neutral point of view, since I don't favor particularly any of those positions. It's neutral, and the islands are disputed. Either if they end up to belong to Argentina or Britain, for me, as a non-Argentinian and as a non-Britain, it's not relevant concerning to my point of view, particularly when those islands are inhabited by 2000 ppl or so. I'm just being realistic concerning to the politics involved.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnBlackburne: By what I see, Wikipedia is not written by people with a particular neutral point of view. I'm not Argentinian, my closest approach to Argentina is with Brazil, with which we share a common language and with Spain with which we share a common history. I'm speaking consistently about what the anglo-saxonic world considers to be the "international displomacy". Forget the English diplomacy on English Wikipedia, it's the corrupt logic of the supremacism. I'm glad to be editing mainly in the Latin Wikipedias. I don't give any credit to English WP in what concerns to political issues. Sorry to say, but your attitude is abhorrent!Viet-hoian1 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia but your new changes (type of this) has been reverted. Your new changes have been introduced without discussion, consensus (see Wikipedia:Consensus) and against status quo (see Wikipedia:STATUSQUO). Even if you think that you have some arguments, before changes - must be discussion and consensus, also according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE. Subtropical-man talk (en-2)20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subtropical-man Well, I can understand that this issue should have been subject of a discussion. Nevertheless, the regions in which these cities are described to be located (in this particular wikipedia) are actually artificial regions, created only for EU purposes, mostly for statistical purposes. According to common and widely accepted knowledge among the Portuguese people, Portugal is divided in 18 districts in the Portuguese mainland and 2 autonomous regions (Madeira and Azores), which continue to be relevant concerning to almost all administrative purposes, in spite of the abolition of the "Governos Civis". And, apart from the districts, the regions of Portugal are not usually defined as they're defined for EU purposes. It's quite ridiculous for any Portuguese to say that Santarém is in Alentejo, for instance, as it is widely known that it's located in Ribatejo which is a very distinct region of Portugal. Therefore, I don't consider to be correct to define the regions in Portugal according to EU definitions, since Portugal is a sovereign country (and not a colony of Brussels) and it has very well defined national subdivisions (districts and autonomous regions) as well as very well defined historical regions. Thanks for your attention. I won't revert your edits, though I will bring this issue to discussion, though I mostly edit in the Portuguese and Spanish wikipedias. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The referendum on regionalization in Portugal was rejected in 1998 and the EU statistical regions were not approved neither they were recognized by the people who had the word according to the 1998 referendum. Therefore, Burssels' decisions don't apply to Portugal concerning to this subject, since there was a referendum and the proposal was rejecred. In the next time you wish to make any changes, I'd be glad you'd have consideration for the Portuguese opinion about this opinion, which, anyway, may not be relevant for the English WP, but you can revert that, anyway. I edit most on Latin WPs, and only occasionly on this WP, as I know how distorted it is concerning to political and geographical issues. Do what you wish! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2015
The division by NUTS operating for many years. All your changes has been reverted. To change in very many articles (all articles of places in Portugal), necessarily must to be consensus. Subtropical-man talk (en-2)10:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All your changes has been reverted because you push own version without consensus and against status quo. You do not have a chance to introduce these changes without consensus. Because not helped earlier warnings, and you continued tendentious edit-warring on many articles and break few rules and standards of Wikipedia, the case was transferred to the administrator. Subtropical-man talk (en-2)14:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Subtropical-man: I'd ask if some sort of compromise could be made concerning to some particular regions, specially concerning to Ribatejo, since the NUTS II classification was made only for statistical purposes (and were redrawn, for those purposes, namely not to let some parts of the former NUTS II region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (Ribatejo and the North side of Estremadura) regions to be affected in relation to the allocation EU funds. Besides that everyone calls the territory roughly corresponding to the {Santarém District) as Ribatejo, not Alentejo (apart from Ponte de Sôr, which is in another district and sometimes is considered to be in Ribatejo and other times is considered to be in Alentejo. As you can see in plenty of sites, Alentejo doesn't include Ribatejo, like these ones: [1], [2], [3] (published by the Portuguese Government itself), [4], etc. (note: I only indicated maps published after the redrawing of the NUTS II region in 2011). The other regions are also commonly called by their traditional names, but in a broader sense there are indeed the North, Center, Alentejo (this one not with the borders defined by NUTS II) and Algarve regions, along with the Metropolitan area of Lisbon, which corresponds to the NUTS II region of Lisbon. I don't disagree, at all, that the NUTS II and NUTS III are included in the location of the places, though I'd prefer that the proper context would be provided and the traditional regions would be added to the description (preferably those established in 1936), with an explanation that those regions are not administrative (since their administrative functions were later transfered to the districts), but they're historical and cultural regions, with their designations being broadly used in Portugal (unlike many of the NUTS regions). Thanks a lot for your attention. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EconomicsEconomics I made one before one of the polls was removed, based on what clearly is Wikipedia:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. I revove this average, until the situation is clear. Either both polls are accepted or neither is, unless the English Wikipedia is a circus. In that case I quit, though I'll inform ppl in other ways that a censorship is being practice in this case unless I get any really convincing proof that the information on that poll is false. I'm far more used to edit in the Spanish WP, but I've been particularly interested about this referendum, that's why I edited here as well. Otherwise, edit whatever you like and make a fool of yourselves. I'll edit the correct information both in the Spanish and Greek Wikipedias. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EconomicsEconomics OK, cherry pick the ones that you like for your English WP (not mine, since 98% of my articles are edited in the Latin WPs and perhaps 2% are edited in this WP)... As I said, make a fool of yourselves, again! (It's not the first time that I've seen the English WP making a fool of itself and that's why I rather edit in the 2nd most consulted WP in the world - Spanish - rather than in this pathetic WP).Viet-hoian1 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Greek bailout referendum, 2015 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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.
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. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις17:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K. I won't be engaged on any further edit-warring here. Edit whatever you wish, as fool as it may be. As I said, I'll edit that information in other Wikipedias (not this one), with the correct and reliable sources, though not in the circus of the English Wikipedia. You may even edit a poll saying that the yes will have 99% of the votes and I won't contest it.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Viet-hoian1 for understanding the policy regarding edit-warring. However please keep the barbs out of this discussion. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not add false information. That should be clear to everyone, including you. That one poll was removed by an admin due to technical reasons involving WP:OTRS does not give us the license to remove similar polls for balance. That should be obvious too. I fully expect the OTRS problem to be fixed soon. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις18:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K. Oh, don't worry, I won't add any further "false" information here. I'll rather add true information on other Wikipedias. Bye! I hope I won't see you again. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about you adding false information. I was just replying to your comment You may even edit a poll saying that the yes will have 99% of the votes and I won't contest it. which implies I desire to add wrong information. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις22:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Euroscepticism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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:
According to 18 opinion polls conducted in July 2015, the pro-EU parties that were polled ([[Democratic Party (Italy)|Democratic Party (Partito Democratico)]], [[Forza Italia (2013)|Forza
Nuovo Centrodestra]] would get, on average, 49.5% of the votes, while the Eurosceptic parties ([[Five Star Movement|Movimento Cinque Stelle]], [[Lega Nord]], [[Us with Salvini|Noi con Salvini]],
Your sequence of edits at User talk:Magioladitis has removed an entire section of the talk page. When you go on to a user's talk-page to start a new discussion, click the "new section" at the top write an appropriate heading and then your text in the edit window. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or your account will be blocked. Your last edit to the Greek referendum was inappropriate. Remember that this place works by consensus, so that's what you need to seek by discussing with other editors, not disrupting articles and talk pages. §FreeRangeFrogcroak22:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look boy, I edit about whatever I think it is worthful to edit about... I'm aware that not all the stuff are pleasant either to the US State Department, not to the Eurocrats, as long with their dear fellows. I assume that I'm an Eurosceptic, thou I wouldn't edit anything that would simply be favourable to eurosceptic minds. I guess it's the BIG difference between between your mind and mind, since I've discovereed already that you are an EU robot, with no neurons, wile I'm a critical eurosceptic wi neurons concerning to advantages and disatvantages of EU. I'll keep being like thatr, not a slave, but a free-thinker. I espect that you may want to be a slave but I won't allow anyone to become a slave, just because you're a slave and you think it's great. I can't desire you a good nighg, but I can desire you a next morning with less less slashes! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greek bailout referendum, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhodope. 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.
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 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.
Future Perfect at Sunrise Thank you for the notice but apart from Greece and Turkey I've never edited anything about the Balkans. Does it have to do with Kosovo? Though I haven't intervened in this issue, I'm surprised about how shocked you are about the Serbian-Kosovo issue (supporting Kosovo) and how shocked you are about Crimea and Donbass (supporting the Ukr. govt), which is the ultimate double standard. All that I did was to correct informations about the Syriza Party, since the "Moscow Times" is not a reliable source. For pro-western ppl it may be the most reliable source in the world, for a rational person, it's not a reliale source at all. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympia. 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.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
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.
Nope, it's been reverted. Please take some time to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. From your editing history, it's evident that you're not WP:HERE. If you truly want to be constructive, you'll desist from treating Wikipedia as if it were a blog or forum on talk pages. 'Observations' such as yours belong on YouTube where everyone has an opinion without actually knowing anything outside of WP:OR and WP:POV. If you think that you will WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, you're wrong. If you like a LOL, LOL over WP:THETRUTH. Seriously, no one gives a monkey's about your personal opinion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@Iryna Harpy: I'm not from Eastern Europe and I'm not particularly interested on writing about Eastern Europe and generaly, as I said previously, I don't even write most of my stuff in English, rather in Spanish (if that's interesting to you). I respect your deletions, as I respect the fact that (I suppose) you've read what you deleted. And again, the anglo-saxon arrogance, which I never ever found on WP Español, annoys me, so I'm not interested at all about writing on the English WP.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, Viet-hoian1: I don't have a drop of Anglo-Saxon blood in me, I just happen to be an Anglophone (amongst other languages). It just goes to show that you shouldn't assume (it makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me') anything about anyone. As for not being interested in adding and changing content on English Wikipedia, you already made a point of your lack of desire to another editor on this talk page... nevertheless, you've persisted in rewriting content and removing sources because you don't deem them to be reliable, instead introducing sources that are considered WP:BIASED at best. If you'd like to pursue 'your good work' here, I suggest that you understand that English Wikipedia is the litmus test for other wikis. What you can get away with there has absolutely nothing to do with the strictly adhered to policies put into practice here.
Now, just to clarify, your editing skills would always be appreciated if you actually tried to put yourself through the rigours of the learning curve specific to English Wikipedia. New, capable editors are always welcome. Your current behaviour is, sadly, disruptive rather than constructive. I'd be very pleased to see you evolve into a good editor here, so happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: I've checked and I didn't write anything that was defamatory to anyone on Euroscepticism, though I concede that some information wasn't actually properly sourced, like considering the former president of Poland as an Eurosceptic, which is debatable, though like Mr. Tsipras he might be considered as a soft Eurosceptic, in the sense that he had strong reservations about the functioning of the EU (in opposition to hard Eurosceptics who are against the whole EU concept). If you'd like to discuss anything about the content of the article, you're welcome to write it here or in the Talk page of that article. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's best to discuss these changes on the talk page of the article in order to pull in some more editors and attract some serious research and discussion. The article has been languishing on the verge of being AfD-ed for a few year, and you're certainly not alone in some bad practices being used in the development of the page. Personally, I see it as being based on a serious amount of OR (per my comment on the article's talk page). How we perceive individuals, or groups of individuals, and their politics within the spectrum of an inadequately defined (for the purposes of the article, that is) neologism is irrelevant. We're here to reflect third party evaluations, not interpret verifiable actions and comments according to a definition that hasn't been proscribed through RS. Until that is addressed in the article, anything else is potentially WP:BLPVIO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: Yes, I mostly agree with you. I think it would be useful to clarify better, in the article, the distinction between soft Euroscepticism and hard Euroscepticism, since they're quite different concepts. That's something that should be suggested in the Talk page of the article. Greetings and sorry for previous outbursts. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Viet-hoian1. Yes, the 'flavours' between far-left and far-right (ultra-nationalism, etc.) need to be more crisply delineated. My apologies for being so abrupt with you, also. I guess we all get a little cynical about other users intents if we work on political and current affairs articles. I think I've spent so much time on Eastern Europe the last couple of years that I've forgotten how to be amiable. I'm starting on cite checking and cleaning up refs on articles surrounding the parties referenced in the Euroscepticism article in order to ensure that the use of the term is RS in context. Any content in the article is contingent on this. I'll also cite check the article itself and fix refs as a starter. It's probably best to ping each other from the relevant articles so that others can join in. There are already stirrings from other editors, so we may just be able to make a salient article of it yet! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: Thank you so much for that work you said you'd do. I owe more apologies than you do. I'm bipolar, so it may sometimes cause some less appropriate behaviours. I guess writing about all the mess that's going on in Eastern Europe (or other wars) may quite well disturb someone. But I've seen some information on the articles related to the war in Ukraine and I was actually amazed how all the bad stuff happening there is unvariably attributed to the separatists (or insurgents, rebels, whatever you prefer to call them) and none responsability is attributed to the Ukrainian army and its batallions. Going back, I'm going to ask a more clear clarification concerning to the differences between soft Euroscepticism and hard Euroscepticism. It's not exclusively a left/right dicotomy, however. The Five Star Movement in Italy is neither left or right and it's Eurosceptic as well. Greetings and have a good day! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: I guess now the article is slightly better. Nevertheless, you're welcome to check it and particularly to read my suggestion on the talk page of Euroscepticism. I guess it doesn't need a fork between soft and hard Euroscepticism, just some clarifications. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I haven't had a chance to read the talk page as yet. Just to clarify, I didn't mean that there's a left-right dichotomy, which is why I referred to 'all the flavours in between'. Apologies if that wasn't clear. I'll try to get on with a little more work on the Euroscepticism article today. If not certainly tomorrow. I'm not going to address the bipolar issue as it's a subject I have an immediate understanding of. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euroscepticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn. 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.
Toddy1 Well, given the sources that are given, what is there to discuss?... only if the case is "not in the citation given" or something similar. If they are in the citations, the content shall, for sure, be included in the English Wikipedia, though I edit mostly in Spanish... If I can't edit on English based on these sources, I do in Spanish anyway. Unless it's not in "citation given"... Maybe I didn't read well the citations and maybe I need to read a second time, but I'm quite convinced that they say precisely what had been said. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Viet-hoian1 here. These are highly reliable sources. There is no reason for them to be removed. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tobby72 - the issue I am raising is that Viet-hoian1 should be using the article talk page as well as edit summaries. That way, the people who want to remove the content have to achieve consensus to remove it.-- Toddy1(talk)16:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Toddy1 Oh, thanks a lot, though only now I realized I had been blocked. Well, I'll check the article and if I find convenient to make some changes concerning to the content, I'll discuss in the Talk Page. Greetings! I edited about these issues on Spanish Wikipedia and I made sure that I was personally editing with the best accuracy that was possible (as long as I was editing, I don't take responsibilities about other people that edited there).Viet-hoian1 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crimea. 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.
Oh, thank you very much, since I was exactly addressing that issue... particularly comparing the status of Crimea and the State of Palestine. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Crimea. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. 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.
Note that this will be logged as an arbitration sanction (WP:AC/DS) under the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions rule. However, I also noticed that you have sought out contentious editing areas almost systematically across several other nationalist editing hotspots too, and have been behaving in a tendentious and aggressive manner there too (including Israel and Balkans-related topics). This is the main reason I have gone straight for a block rather than a mere topic ban. Fut.Perf.☼14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm JohnBlackburne. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Falkland Islands seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtropical-man (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Euroscepticism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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.
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Alexis Tsipras. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Do not repeat such a test especially in a BLP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
