User talk:Setxkbmap

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...noting that your writing access to the page Kuči (tribe) has been temporarily removed by extended-confirmed protection, and that edit warring in a contentious topic area may lead to blocks, topic bans or interaction bans. The advice I've provided in a longer message to other editors applies to everyone, of course.

If the area becomes too heated, the Task Center and the community portal provide helpful ideas and uncountable ways for disengaging from the conflict. Please always take your time and remember that Wikipedia is not compulsory. If a voluntary free time activity makes you upset, you can always seek alternatives. Wikipedia is full of them. Good luck and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am sorry, maybe i got frustrated and made some mistakes while editing, but keep in mind that i tried discussion on talk page, which led nowhere due to stonewalling, i tried dispute resolution, but other editors such as Alltan didn't want to respond at all, i tried RfC but they spam it so much that nobody is able to read it and people just lose will to contribute.

In my opinion, article where i am most active (Kuči) is heavily edited to promote one POV, and even slight change that can affect that POV is either reverted, or pushed down so first few lines of each section state whatever their POV is.

For example, in the latest dispute with other editors, they claimed i can't cite Predrag Petrović because he is not a historian, but an engineer, claiming he is not an expert in the field (he wrote 6 books on the tribe). I said ok, we can compromise, i don't need to use him. But then they keep inserting quotes from Mulić Jusuf, who is an agriculture professor and has nothing to do with the tribe.

After that, i wanted to use Rastislav Petrović, who has a PhD in history and his thesis was about the tribe itself, and he wrote a book based on it, but he was deemed a nationalist, because he supported Yugoslavia in wars during the 90s. But those same editors will use Pellumb Xhufi, who is deemed a nationalist by other Albanian historians and Austrian academy of Sciences. It really sucks.

The article itself currently states that Kuči are of Albanian origin, with stack of sources that are terrible, only 3 talk about origin itself, and other editors claim that that is scientific consensus, while i have other writers, including Historical institute of University of Montenegro, which claim mixed origin. And it's kinda WP:BLUESKY, as the tribe was formed in the second part of XV century, and census data from that period shows mixed names, religion was defined in 1455. when tribe was orthodox, but we have info that they were mixed in 16th century, so tribe was definitely mixed both in ethnic and religious ways.

If you have recommendation for any other way to solve this, it would be great. The only reason why i was included in this small edit war by Alltan was because they kept removing sources that are definitely RS, like Historical institute of University of Montenegro, and i dont mind extended protection as i will have 500 edits soon (i edit other articles regarding Montenegro as well) Setxkbmap (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]