User talk:Edin balgarin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:16, 13 March 2022

Edin Balgarin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Edin Balgarin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Edin Balgarin. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Edin Balgarin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Edin Balgarin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated removal of sourced content on Maltese people

Hello. Your repeated removal of sourced content on the article has been reverted by multiple other editors now, showing that you do not have support for it. So get support from other editors on the talk page of the article, before removing it again, or you risk getting blocked for edit-warring! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom. Thanks for the above message. I'm currently struggling to understand your position on the matter. The message above implies that you have taken a "policeman" position whereby you are enforcing WP's policies, which is fair enough. However, your decision to boldly revert me and your failure to bring an equivalent message across to the other editor (there is just one) suggests that you have a take on the issue being reported. If this is so, you may have noticed the bottom thread on Talk:Maltese people which I began last time. Feel free to add your points there, or even here if you believe I have missed a point. Thanks. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. For almost three weeks now (starting on 12 November) you have been repeatedly changing/removing content to push your own favourite theory, about the Maltese people being related to Arabs only, in spite of sources saying they're a mix of multiple ethnicities (and apparently mainly descended from Europeans, not Arabs), edits of yours that have equally repeatedly been reverted by other editors. Which means that you must get support from other editors on the talk page of the article, before changing to your preferred version again. If other editors don't agree with you, and support your changes, you can't make them, no matter how strongly you feel about it. It's as simple as that. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BS, and straw man at best. First of all, you continuously remove "Arabs" despite seeming to know that the two nations are related. Second, where you attack the straw man, the multiple sources state that the "Europeans" have MIXED with the Maghrebi Arabs to arrive from Sicily to create the Maltese nation. The so-called "Europeans" became assimilated. If you are claiming that the Maltese descend from "Europeans" then the onus is on you to provide two types of source: A) How did those "Europeans" end up speaking an Afro-Asiantic language? B) What happened to the ORIGINAL people to speak the Afro-Asiantic language, i.e. did they leave Malta in the 15th century? If you can't find sources for these, then Maltese people are no different to Bulgarians. I myself am one eighth Turkish from Bulgaria, but this doesn't make the Turks and Bulgarians "related". When people inter-marry and the children choose to go with one ethnicity over the other, it's goodbye to the one whose language has been sacrificed. In fact, the whole thing is a carry-over from Italians whereby ONE editor with a conspicuously pro-Italian agenda is pushing an age old claim that Maltese people are "Arabicised Italians" and something that is further expanded by the same individual to claim that GREEKS are relatives of Italians. See however that it doesn't say this on the Greeks page. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English/Germanic

Hey, man, totally with you on the classification argument. For some reason the concept of ethnolinguistic identity among the English peoples of the British Isles is completely askew of that of the general world/academia. It's a heavy politicized issue and sees certain regions of the British Isles, namely Scotland, Ireland and Wales, trying to classify themselves as Celtic and distinct to the English, despite them all speaking the same West Germanic language and their cultures/societies being practically indistinguishable today.

1% of Scotland, my own country, actually speaks a Celtic language today but apparently the entire nation is Celtic despite us having spoken English or Norse for almost 1500 years in some parts and for around 800 years in roughly half of the nation, if not more. But apparently we're Celtic because the people there used to speak Celtic languages, even though they spoke other languages before they spoke Celtic languages for literally thousands and thousands of years.

It's a very tiring issue, I try my best to educate people on it and bring them around to a more logical and rational way of thinking. I don't know, there's nothing political about classing them all as English speaking Germanic peoples and nations. You can still be distinct political and national identities but you're still part of the same ethnolinguistic bloc.

Hello Scottish IP! Thanks for the message! I spent a whole month in lovely Stornaway not so long ago and how lovely it is! And having a Bulgarian accent was well received as I didn't get taken by the locals for a "south of the border bastard"! :) But honestly, great people! I must say it is very commendable of you to be accepting of a Germanic heritage whilst coming from any of the non-English home nations. Now so you know, I agree with you 100% of the way. The ENGLISH people, are as far as I am concerned, a Germanic people through and through. Every source that is used to supply Germanic lists and every source that says the Dutch and Germans are Germanic, also lists the English. It's just that some editors like to conflate a separate factor, that being that those Germanic people came into contact with non-Germanics and so the English are a hybrid rather than a cut and dried member of one wider family. By "non-Germanics" I mean Norman French and Celts (obviously we cannot include Vikings but that would certainly be a factor if we were talking about whether English were West or North Germanic - to which I would firmly argue WEST Germanic). Yet in truth, who is pure? Germanic and Romance people are traditionally mixed on both sides of the linguistic contour running from northern France through Belgium (Flemmish and Wallonian), through Luxembourg and down the French and German border and further on with the Italian and Austrian border: then you get the Slavic-Romance-Germanic tripoint where Austria and Italy meet Slovenia. In truth, Italians, Danubian Germans, and Slovenes live on all three sides of all three borders and are culturally closer to one another in these parts than to Slavic, Germanic and Romance people farther afield (such as Polish, Swedish and Portuguese). My point is that the nations have all intermarried and none is pure. And as for Celts, they have had a presence everywhere from your homeland all the way to the Carpathians, and so their seed remains within modern-day people. That said, I am mildly cautious about bestowing the title of Germanic over Irish, Scottish and Welsh folk. In Northern Ireland for example, the loyalist factions to the Crown (chiefly the Protestants) don't even embrace the word "Irish" and just use the comprehensive "British". They clearly don't object to a Germanic identity. But Scots as a whole community worry little about the language barrier to exist in Scotland itself. It is not like in my native Bulgaria where Turks speak a separate language and are thereby a separate ethnic community. Most in Scotland embrace a "Scottish" identity and clearly they see a need to attach themselves to a wider faction, and clearly this should not be the same as those English people and so all that it left is to forge a Celtic bloc. On the one hand, power languages (such as English and Russian, and historically our Slavic language over the non-Slavic Bulgars) have a way of thrusting themselves upon communities, so once a family abandons Language 1 and adopts Language 2 and within a generation the names change, it becomes possible - in older Bulgaria let's say - that a person identifying as Bulgarian may be unaware that all 16 of his double-great grandparents were Bulgars - making him 100% Bulgar in a Slavic guise. BUT, power languages do not flex their muscles remotely. A community generally gives up its language when the more resilient linguistic group (albeit a lesser figure) is IN THE MIDST. That way they really DO mix and in the end, one solid nation stands - but what happened to the Thracians? I'll lay odds that I myself have Thracian ancestry. With Scotland, Wales and Ireland, not only did the language survive in certain pockets, but campaigns are in place to revive and encourage their continuity. In Wales, it has even happened that people have ADOPTED Welsh a generation or so ago. Do they know that their ancestors may NEVER have spoken Welsh? An eternal flame Welsh may be, but is it an honest marker of a community? The borders don't mean much as you know. Where England ends and Scotland begins is an administrative boundary, and it was probably never the case that Germanics all lives south and Celts all lived north. Sure original Celts were driven to the edges of the island, but Anglo-Saxons did follow and join them within. It's the existence of Celtic languages that is the problem here!! :))) Without them, there would hardly be need for English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish to identify differently, but even if they did, you can all call yourselves Germanic and forget Celtic the same way Bohemia (Czech Rep) is of Celtic origin by name. I doubt that anybody within the British Isles truly believes that a line exists anywhere that renders all people one side of it ethnic group X and the others over the frontier group Y. And in all honestly, pan-ethnicities are man-made constructs. Maybe it is time we all abandoned them and just stuck to your primary identity (Bulgarian not Slavic, Scottish not Germanic/Celtic, etc). So I am prepared to give you support if you want to introduce a Germanic element to Scots, Welsh and Irish but it won't be an easy ride looking at the double-standards over English by the bundle of naive ignoramuses I have had to argue with. --Edin balgarin (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, some of the comments I seen you receive in that English people discussion thread made me beat my head against a wall, they were painfully devoid of logic and rationality.

Stornoway is one of the few remaining parts with a Celtic linguistic presence in Scotland today, so a very fitting place for you to visit, haha! But the truth is the vast majority of Scotland (99%, which itself is quite incredible to be so linguistically homogenous) is English speaking and has been for centuries, in around half the country English was the dominant and only language since the 1200s and in the southeast and some other areas English has been entrenched for 1500 YEARS (far longer than Gaelic was ever spoken in the vast majority of Scotland)!

I think these broader ethnolinguistic groupings are still important for historical and academic purposes. I agree they don't factor in much in the everyday person's life or understanding of the world but I think they have a critically important place.

Scottish topic

They just seem to be ignoring me now on the talk page, lol. Ridiculous. What do you think the reason for such fierce resistance to this is? Is it just because it includes the word German? And is it coming from English people or English people in denial of their Englishness (those living in Scotland etc.), haha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I have spent the past few weeks in Bulgaria and did not log in during this time as I was tied up with domestic matters - though I am pleased to say that all of the foxes have now been shot! :) Anyhow, yes you are right it is ridiculous. I've seen it a lot over the years: an army of blue-eyes boys who are in bed with the admins clump together to push a point. When their pathetic argument dries up, they start to ignore the objectors and in the end, will invoke weak technicalities to restore their apologetic version and in the end, have the fair-minded editor blocked or sanctioned. It's thanks to such cretins that WP:WINARS. --Edin balgarin (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic Britain

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Germanic_Europe.gif

Here's something you might be interested in. As you can read here: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml it seems the actual genetic input from Germanic peoples into the British Isles population has been severely downplayed and underestimated. Both England AND (the apparently Celtic Scotland) are over 50% descended from Anglo-Saxons, Norse and other Germanic groups that settled the islands between the 400s onwards.

So we have now not only them all speaking a Germanic language and mostly having a Germanic names, but even being more 'genetically Germanic' than regions like Austria and southern Germany which have long been solidly considered a part of the Germanic world and are clearly listed as a Germanic ethnic group on Wikipedia. But most interesting of all here is that we can clearly see even the so-called Celtic parts of the British Isles like Ireland actually have significant levels of Germanic blood, it's around 30% or so for the entire island and it's not much lower for Wales.

So in what ways are these people not Germanic? This remains a complete mystery. And why does this not mean the Irish and Welsh are clearly not Celtic ethnic groups since they have significant levels of non-Celtic admixture? This remains a complete mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification - Balkans and Eastern Europe

Perfunctory notice:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Also, please bear in mind that Kosovo has a 1 revert per 24 hours restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from different talk page. He vs She vs They.

Kosovo and 1RR

Hello, and thanks for the heads up. I realise that 24 hours ago, I was in clear violation of 1RR (I just ignored the sign which I seem to recall from before). Can you advise me what I should do at the moment to avoid sanctioning? I realise as an admin, you are entitiled if you wish to block me and maybe others. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edin balgarin: generally speaking, old violations that aren't continuing behaviors will not be sanctioned. Blocked are for stopping current disruption, not for punishment. Please just keep the 1RR in mind when editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. I've not been checking others' editing activity because I am at the moment engaged with discussions on Kosovo dating back to January 2015. Did you notify Horse Eye's Back as well? Sorry to have asked... --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edin balgarin: I did, yes. I also recommend that you not accuse users of sockpuppetry without good evidence. That would be considered a personal attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen. I apologise there. But please note I only asked if this person was someone else based on TWO similarities and two further peculiarities. There was no direct insinuation. In the meantime, I am reading into something else in this whole affair. If the editor says he is not so-and-so then I'll leave it at that. If a checkuser personally wishes to know what these concerns are then I will share them but I won't take it any further of my own volition. --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to their assertion here they have not apologized nor have they left it at that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three observations. 1) There is only one of me. 2) I am a biological male. 3) It has stated this on my user page for several years. Kindly refrain from stupid, illogical references to "they/their". It's "his" where Wikipedia is concerned. --Edin balgarin (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edin balgarin: The use of singular they is appropriate on Wikipedia when another editor's gender is unknown (or not immediately obvious on a user page and unspecified by your own settings: they (see syntax)). There is no reason to be rude about the courtesy of not assuming your gender identity. If it is something I'd like to avoid in the future, might I recommend adding {{User Male}} or one of these userboxes: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Gender. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Edin balgarin, I did not know that was your preference. I will use "he/him/his" from now on. I wasn't going to make a big deal of it but you keep referring to me as "he" and if we're making a point about it my wikipedia profile is *only* to be referred to using the singular they and variations. My gender is undisclosed and immaterial to any possible discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right. Just to avoid any problems, which singular pronoun do you wish me to use if I talk to a third person? Note that a longstanding tradition not only of English but all languages (I speak Bulgarian, Russian and a fair amount of Dutch) is to use "he/him/his" when not knowing a sex and it is generally accepted that this extends from specifically male to anything while it is unknown. So there are no aspersions I assure you. Let me know what you would prefer. That is not an enquiry as to the identity of the editor. --Edin balgarin (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general conception is they/them/theirs. Now that we've cleared that up isn't there something you've been meaning to do? Maybe in connection with a certain series of personal attacks? Maybe beginning with an A and ending with "ology" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back - We haven't cleared anything up. "They/them/theirs" is most definitely not some "general concepion". It is a new-fangled brain fart. When they taught me English in Bulgaria, they said "they" is for plural, and we were not to even generalise when the sex wasn't known. Instead we continued the longstanding convention of "he" until it is known otherwise. I previously referred to you as "he", and if you are a biological female then I wholeheartedly apologise for having ascribed the wrong sex. If you indeed came into this world with a Y chromosome then there is nothing to apologise for simply because you choose to identify as something else. I have seen the Wikipedia practice of referring to some individuals as "they" and I am likely not to touch those articles, because I stand by the adage that "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick". Yes people like me are considered dinosaurs, and I know that here in the west where I live, it demonstrates a major chasm between older and younger generations. In Bulgaria where I am from, it has not regressed to that phoniness. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are one of these. You are simply one person who is well within your right on this otherwise anonymous project to conceal every aspect of your life story - and what's more, I support and protect that right. I am also a realist and accept that some people come into this world, are believed at birth to be one thing and later on discover that internally, they have some properties of the other sex. I refer to intersex which I think applies to about 0.5% (1 in 200) of people who come into this world. But not even they get to use this discrepancy to go from "he" to "she", let alone "they" depending how they feel at the time of day. It's a scientific phenomenon, and it presents language problems because tongues developed over millennia to see male and female without thinking that some configurations are a mash-up of the two despite the individual being perfectly healthy in every way. "They" however is reserved for where we know there is more than one. The word will never be ambiguous, i.e. "when you say 'they', do you mean there was more than one person, or were you referring to an individual that denies the biological sex and denies identifying as the opposite sex"? That's never going to happen. I take care to write this language in accordance with the prescriptive tradition, and the style guides I use (such as Simon Heffer whom you won't like) don't even recommend saying "he or she". I see no problem with saying, "he or she was driving too fast" when a car shoots passed at a dangerous speed, but the guidance is that until we know different, "he" extends meaning. Saying "they were driving too fast" because I couldn't see if it were a man or a woman is plain asinine. I'm sorry Horse Eye's Back. It is one or the other. --Edin balgarin (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Edin, but English has evolved beyond the primitive dualism. The singular "they" (which can be attested as far back as Shakespeare) has become the default in 21st-century English usage, even if it sounds a smidgen clunky to old ears such as mine (I'm 68, native speaker of English and a professional writer since 1984). (And your "adage" is just plain grossly offensive and insulting to people having to deal with a crappy universe.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid argument. It’s disgusting transphobia. Read the wp:UCOC, disparaging people’s gender identity is banned on all WMF sites. If you don’t like it we don’t need you here. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus Well said. SoyokoAnis - talk 19:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a man in my mid forties, a native English speaker, and a teacher of the English language. Singular they has a long history, and it has been in standard usage throughout my life. That a non-native English speaker might not know that is perhaps understandable; that they might be apparently unwilling to learn, and want to stick to what they were taught in their country is perhaps disappointing, but not exactly a blocking offense; what would be unacceptable would be if someone were to resort to shockingly offensive and patronising rhetoric in an apparent attempt to win a discussion about pronoun choices. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to demonstrate an understanding of how inappropriate it was for you to use the phrase above in any context, that it is commonplace to refer to a single person as 'they' if you are unaware of their gender, and that it is a behavioural expectation that you do so here to refer to someone who has expressed a preference for that. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: Singular they has been in use at least since the days of Shakespeare. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - I recognise its long history. It's not just about historic examples though - the point I was making was that in my lifetime, its use has been entirely routine and normal. I'm sure one could find the occasional contrarian grammarian who might disagree, but they'd be in the minority, and they'd be wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The use of male pronouns when gender is unknown is historical, as you know, and has been outdated for decades now. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edin balgarin: I am in my sixties, and a writer by profession. The English language (both British English and American English) is my livelihood. I have professional proficiency in English as well as being a native speaker. Do you know how arrogant you appear when I come here and find you, a Bulgarian who is not a native English speaker, trying to dictate correct English usage to us? How would you feel if I claimed I'd been taught Bulgarian in England and started claiming I knew how to speak Bulgarian better than you, and better than Bulgarian language professionals? I'll add one other thing, about your offensive insult above - refering to a human as "it" is grossly unacceptable, whatever their gender. If you spend time at Wikipedia and listen and learn, you can potentially improve your English significantly. But coming here and arrogantly trying to teach it to us got you exactly what you deserved. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:. I have just caught up with the activities of the past 48 hours and have spent the last hour reading and analysing the comments. It's a pity I wasn't able to make representations in the short time I was free to edit and while the admin noticeboard discussion was live. I may have been able to avoin the editing ban. For the record, the reason I do not edit 24/7 like some accounts is because I drive for a living, and while all this was happening, I was transporting goods all around the country. I spend more nights a year sleeping in the truck than I do at home. Incidentally, I carry my mobile only when on the job, whereas when it comes to editing Wikipedia, I prefer a PC. Smartphones for me just don't cut the mustard for Wiki and emailing. First of all, I apologise for the offence I have caused; I really did not know that the ramifications were this far-reaching and stirred up resentment in so many people. Having thought about it, I believe there is a way that you may allow me to resume editing privileges. I can think of two solutions for how we go forward. I will put these across to you after your reply. In the meantime, you may be interested in the following posts whereby I address what I believe to be a misunderstanding on everybody else's part. --Edin balgarin (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are at liberty to request unblock, or to ask questions about what led to your block. I warn you though that if you resort to offensive rhetoric again, your ability to edit this talk page will be revoked. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:. I am glad you're about at this time. No there will be no offensive rhetoric. I plan to discuss a way forward. If one is agreed then I can proceed with an unblock request. In the meantime, I will address two others to participate in the discussion. It will give everyone a chance to reply first, then I'll make my proposals. I'm in no rush to edit these next hours. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid:. I just wish to quickly use this opportunity to thank you for suggesting a warning instead of a block. It is much appreciated. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and PARITY

Sorry to see you are blocked. Obviously I don't know whether you have quietly walked away or whether you don't know yet. In the event that you are in the shallows at the time of my writing and intend to appeal at a later time, please be aware that regarding the Kosovo border issue, it is not a WP:PARITY matter. The policy which supports your position is WP:WEIGHT. The confusion may arise from the concept that we need parity itself. Best wishes and good luck in whatever you decide to do from here on. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 :You are at liberty to request unblock, or to ask questions about what led to your block. I warn you though that if you resort to offensive rhetoric again, your ability to edit this talk page will be revoked. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 09:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 ::{{ping|Girth Summit}}. I am glad you're about at this time. No there will be no offensive rhetoric. I plan to discuss a way forward. If one is agreed then I can proceed with an unblock request. In the meantime, I will address two others to participate in the discussion. It will give everyone a chance to reply first, then I'll make my proposals. I'm in no rush to edit these next hours. --[[User:Edin balgarin|Edin balgarin]] ([[User talk:Edin balgarin#top|talk]]) 09:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
+{{ping|Dumuzid}}. I just wish to quickly use this opportunity to thank you for suggesting a warning instead of a block. It is much appreciated. --[[User:Edin balgarin|Edin balgarin]] ([[User talk:Edin balgarin#top|talk]]) 09:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 == Kosovo and PARITY ==