Kurrop

Administrative warning

Kurrop, your activity regarding several items related to President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549) was raised and is being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard. When investigating the conflict, I found that while there is discussion on the talk pages, you are indeed forcing your position into items against the opposition of several other users. Please find consensus with the other users first before you continue with such edits. The item President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549) is now protected due to edit warring, but you are very close to receiving a block for this behavior. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: I have changed those pages giving references and historiography and opening a discussion on the discussion pages, the users you talk about systematically reverse my editions without debating, giving no references and insulting me. How can I get a consensus with them when they are fully determined not to reach any consensus and keeping the status quo as it is in the way they like. Thanks for your time.--Kurrop (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I am not judging about your position or the other side’s position. I have explicitly no preference regarding the outcome.
That said, it is obvious that there is quite some asymmetry in this conflict, since you are basically fighting against several other users at the same time, on several pages. This entire situation clearly calls for discussion, rather than for more edit warring. Due to the situation, I think you are the key user to get this dispute back to a productive path again, thus you received this warning to be more careful with edits in items.
Since you are apparently relatively new here, I’d also like to let you know that we seek for all data that can be found in sources, rather than for "the one and only truth". It is not uncommon that there is no concensus about some matter in question, so that both points of view are represented in the items at the same time, next to each other, in multiple claims of the same property and supported by individual references. It is then up to the data user to decide which data to use. With that background, it may be a solution to have both dates in question in the item.
If you have further questions, please let me know. I watch your talk page at least for a couple of days. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @MisterSynergy: for your help I will try to have a constructive debate. Anyway, as there is different points of view for this issue, with references. Can I add the referenced info even with the others users regret that claiming for the previous status quo that fit their interests?--Kurrop (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)