User talk:Males

Kostur Dialect

Thank you for defending the Bulgarian nature of my native Kostur dialect from the Makedonisti. 76.69.91.129 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Kostolata[reply]

That's all right!--Males (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I provided a response on my discussion page regarding the Variko article. Deucalionite (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at my response when you get the chance. Deucalionite (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Milev

Thanks for creating it, it's looking good already! And yeah, sure, I'll give it a copyedit as soon as I can :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I notice you seem to be engaged in edit warring across several articles; please note that it's typically much better to make appropriate use of talk pages to build consensus via Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. If this sort of revert battling continues, there's a pretty good chance that one or more of the involved users could wind up blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder. You can see User talk:Ddirec and Talk:Tetovo.--Males (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Action Committees

I am returning the note. Every problem I wrote about in 2007 still remains. Nikola (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chekalarov

Sorry, mea culpa. I think it must have been very late when I did that.Kostolata (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

) --Males (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

24hrs for revert-warring and tendentious editing on Macedonian Muslims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Males (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise without violating of some rule from my side. There was a revert warring on Macedonian Muslims, but why was I blocked? Why weren't blocked those users who deleted sourced info, had improper language ([[1]],[[2]] and refused to explain their arguments in the talk page, as I insisted ([[3]], [[4]]) The only explanation by Future Perfect at Sunrise was "tendentious editing". There weren't some arguments for this judgement. This is a personal view of Future Perfect at Sunrise. I looked over his edits and I state that a big part of them are tendentious. I didn't noticed some serious problems between him and Macedonistic POV users, but I noticed problems between him and users with other, nonmacedonistic POV. It seems that the only reason for my blocking is the personal POV of one administrator. I think that there aren't any reasons for blocking - from formal or other nature)

Decline reason:

This block was based on your actions; what others did or did not do is not relevant here. What is relevant is that you have single-handedly reverted every single edit made to Macedonian Muslims, without exception, over the course of the last month. You have made no effort to form a consensus on the article's talk page, despite the fact that no less than three different users have an apparent concern with your edits. You were asked to stop this sort of edit warring by Luna Santin above - you did not do so, but continued to act as though you owned the article. This is not acceptable, and is why you were blocked. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Males (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please, note that the previous ask by Luna Santin can't be a reason for action by other administrator (Luna Santin paid attention for other, different articles and the situatuion there was OK. There was a dicussion about these articles and a solution(Everybody can see - his/her note was from 12:18, 22.01.2008 and my actively involving in Macedonian Muslims was since 17:07, 22.01.2008). I was blocked for my edits on Macedonian Muslims. In the last two weeks these edits included not only reverts, they included improving with providing of new references. I never had any pretentions to own the article, I just protected my edit from irregulary attempts (by 3, maybe connected users with one POV, who refused to explain their action in the talk page, as i asked them) to be deleted. I continue to insist about clean-fingured attitude to all involving parts and to oportunity to find a solution.

Decline reason:

Clearly an edit war on this editor's part and no statement to the effect that it will not continue.Toddst1 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Her warning said "multiple articles" and was left January 22nd, right in the middle of your edit warring on the MM article (as I said, you were reverting every edit made during the month of January). Regardless of how it was worded, you received a warning about edit warring and should have stopped. That's common sense; please don't try to wikilawyer things, as it won't help you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope for more profound entering into the problem, including the actions by the administrator who blocked me, as i state, irregulary. The articles in which I've been involved, when Luna Santin wrote me, aren't connected with this blocking. They were:

1. Strumica ([5]) protected by her.
2. Gorani_(ethnic_group) [6]
3. Tetovo ([7])

Unlike Future Perfect, Luna Santin paid attention to all involved editors and maybe this was one of the reasons for finding of solution. In her action weren't included editors from article Macedonian Muslims. (Actually, you can compare her words to me and to other side - [8] and then to look what happened with relevant argues.)

Until her warning (12:08, 22.01) I had only 3 edits in MM - 17:29, 8 January 2009, 17:29, 8 January 2009 and 03:20, 11 January 2009 (Minor edit).- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_Muslims&action=history. Where did you seen "right in the middle of your edit warring on the MM article"? The correct warning by Luna Santin about other articles isn't connected with retribution made by Future Perfect, who, I want to underline, obviously is baised. Practically, I can't see any reason for this blocking.

P.S. In this moment the only important thing to me is honesty from all sides.--Males (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Males (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Of course, the edit war is a fact, but is it enough reason for blocking of namely that editor who tried to keep the rules (well grounded information etc)? The question is: Did I violated some Wikipedia rule defending a concrete article from attempts of three users to delete sourced info without any argumentation in the talk page? Who deserve to be blocked? Who is the vandal? It is a controversy of a point of principle. The hasty blocking by one administrator as the action made by Future Perfect (who is biased on these themes) don't stops the edit wars and emotions.

Decline reason:

Yes, the edit war you have participated in is enough for you to be blocked as a preventative measure. Blaming the blocker does not remove the facts, which two other administrators above have also detailed. Your block is only 24 hours - sit it out! Indeed if you return another unblock request following the posting of this response I will protect your page from further disruptive unblock requests and if necessary increase your block period on the basis of further disruption. — --VS ^talk 06:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Complaint

Complaint about blocking and following actions by some administrators. A big part of the actions in the case are apparent from the discussion in the previous section.

The edit war

In 8 January I added 3 new alternative names (or variants) in the article Macedonian Muslims. I grounded this information with references and since them I continued to add more references. Some users who don’t accept this information, obviously due to the political reasons started to delete it – originally the argument was that this information is outdated, then that it is only Bulgarian one and finally they pointed out some political reasons. In considerable part of their reverts they didn’t point a reasons. I restrained to discuss the political themes, which aren’t relevant to the topic, but I answered to the other their objections which made an end of some of their arguments, but not terminated reverts. Originally they deleted 3 alternative names, then they started to delete only two. The argue about all reverts wasn’t in the talk page of the article, nevertheless that I ask them to express their arguments in the talk page - [9] , [10] , [11]. I maintain that I kept good manners regardless of the improper language of two of my opponents – [12] [13]. No one administrator wasn’t in any way in this discussion until my blocking.

Blocking

On 3 February one of my opponents who wasn’t in the situation for a while wrote to one administrator - Future Perfect at Sunrise with offer to block all of us (3 users) - [14] His argument that all we violated 3PR was fake. Now, since I seen the POV of this administrator, I can assert that the choice of administrator made by my opponent wasn’t accidental. His action only against me, the editor with different perspective from his POV, is only one of the evidences. The administrator didn’t warning me, he didn’t warning some of the other sides and he didn’t offer some solution, he just blocked me “for revert-warring and tendentious editing” for 24 hours. Thus he sided with my opponents and defended their political motivated POV. He forced his own opinion and does not comply with the fact that I am the one who presents the sources and tries to comply with the rules Wikipedia. (I can present cases in which I showed moderation and resolved Wikipedia disputes through talks and conceding - [15] etc.)

Appealing

When I made my request unblock, an other administrator, User:Hersfold didn’t made very profound examination of the case. He noticed one old warning in my talk page made by Luna Santin on the occasion of other articles and decided that I was warned yet and Future Perfect at Sunrise just finished the process. Then I proved that the warning by Luna Santin concerns other articles (in which all completed successfully), that in the time of her warning (12:18, 22 January 2009) I had only 3 edits for 14 days in the article Macedonian Muslims [16], but It seems that here administrators never recognize their errors. Everybody can assess the situation and decide whether Hersfol was superficial or not performing his duties.

General application

Along with my ask for taking a stand on my case, I would like to know in how many cases some of the administrators acknowledged that another administrator acted rashly. I wanted to be unlock, not because I feel guilty about something, but by the principal reasons that this is not the way to resolve this dispute. Unfortunately nobody wants to comment the blocking in essence and the right of all editors to be equal. I have nothing against the various forms of corporate ethics, but I would be very happy if there is at least one administrator who will see the situation fairly and profoundly.

In my opinion this is not a meaningless test or cause for the loss of valuable time. For me as editor without long experience It shows the principles, which can reduce tensions in some edit wars.--Males (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked

I've blocked you again. It's generally not a good idea to go back continuing the same edit war for which you were blocked, right after coming off the last block. You are still engaged in stubborn, sterile revert-warring against consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are familiar with the fact that I am asserting you are biased. Your first blocking, when you blocked namely me, not my opponents, when you define my reverts as "tendentious", for me is the evidence. Your attempt to gag me again is the other evidence. Why didn't you warning me, first? Why didn't you warning some from the other users? Why didn't you protect the article until to building eventual consensus? I don't want to offend you, but I really think that it isn't fair to use the power of the administrator to advance one/your POV.--Males (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Males that a re-warning is not required in the case of an editor returning to behaviour that they were previously blocked for - however in this case the edit summaries provided by editors other than Fut.Perf. provided you with enough caution to not re-enter material - which nevertheless you did again - thus resulting in this second block.--VS ^talk 23:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first question that is important for me is the accuracy of the first block about "tendentious" edits in Macedonian Muslims. An administrator with particular POV on Macedonian question, without warning blocked an editor (i.e. me) with a contrary POV. (Nevertheless that until this moment the administrator didn't made some edits in the concrete article).Then this disputable blocking is an argument against me.

The second problem is why some of the other administrators denied to look profoundly: The only caution by some other editor after my first blocking, until I stop my edits in the article is this - with a very "substantial" argument: "Stop wasting everybodys time!". Then the other opponent, made his revert with call to find consensus. Maybe, hasting to defend your colleague Future Perfect at Sunrise, you didn't notice that after it I didn't made some edits - nevertheless that some editors deleted important info with relevant sources. Also maybe you didn't notice, that there were editors who supported my efforts to find more neutral way - [17], [18]. However, my objections about abuse power of one administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) who is involved in these themes are actual.--Males (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for referring to Future Perfect at Sunrise as a dog as detailed at here - come back to be a part of this community without further attack or risk being blocked for considerably longer.. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, honestly, I wouldn't have blocked for this. See my comment here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Per Fut.Perf's kind comment and explanation at my talk page, whilst I think that this may be thought of differently by others, you not feeling offended is enough for me to lift this block. I will do so now.--VS ^talk 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, I think that rashly blocking for proverb "Dog does not eat dogs" shows that maybe I was right, when I used it. I didin't mean "dog" in a direct sense. As it is pointed in the article here, proverbs "are often metaphorical". Perhaps we should not be so tense, if we want to understand others and to avoid additional charges. Maybe I am a naive man, but I am thinking that the tolerance means to be able to accept disagreement.--Males (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed - tolerance means to be able to accept disagreement. Wise words for you to consider also when people have a disagreement with your edits. As for the proverb can I suggest that you write more carefully because it seems I and others at my talk page initially also came to the conclusion that "dog" appeared to be a slur reference towards other editors - my point being the English language is the medium used at this project to convey messages to others and if it is necessary for you to come back later to explain what you meant then you probably didn't make the best choice of words in the first instance. Make sense?--VS ^talk 22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! My knowledge of English is less than yours. In this discussion I also made mistakes due to the inability to express and understand, as needed. Therefore, your suggestion for more attention when we choice our words is acceptable for me. If, however, it happened to make some lapse, please give me some credit of trust - I don't want to insult anybody.Regards,--Males (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki

Hi, Males. Late last month, I added several sentences on the Bulgarian Men's High School sourced to Demetriades book on the topography of Ottoman Thessaloniki [19]. The source you have added for the more precise date is fine by me and certainly an improvement to the article [20]. Let me know if I can be of further help. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Macedonians (Bulgarian)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Macedonians (Bulgarian). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Macedonians (Bulgarian). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]