User talk:Stefka Bulgaria

Welcome!

Hi, Stefka Bulgaria. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Kleuske (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Tian Shan Astronomical Observatory

Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Stefka Bulgaria, thanks for creating Tian Shan Astronomical Observatory!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Architecture of Almaty

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Architecture of Almaty, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Just checked this article. Good work, and I'm glad to see it survived the AfD process. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the encourgament, Nishidani, this is always appreciated. Also for your help at WP:RSN :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

MEK request

I would appreciate if you could "slow down" - e.g. do a small set of edits each day. Since some of your edit chains are blanket reverted by one of our colleagues (a behavior which I do not endorse) - it seems both of you need additional input to break the logjam (which I've been trying to provide). However - it is very difficult for me to get involved when the issue being contested is a very large diff, with an even larger talk page wall of text. If we could tackle smaller edits one at a time - it would be easier for me (and I presume others) to get involved. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Icewhiz, good to know, and will work on small edits at a time from now on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle

It's much easier to file SPI reports with this tool, so I recommend activating it in Preferences/Gadgets. Cheers. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Mujahedin of Iran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algiers Agreement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Stefka Bulgaria, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to People's Mujahedin of Iran have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Dianaa, will paraphrase more and quote less from now on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Stefka Bulgaria! You created a thread called Question about paraphrasing from copy-righted material at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on timeline of People's Mujahedin of Iran

Please see this RFC on article's timeline which you opened in September. I would consider this an 'exhausted' RfC because it looks like it didn't get support and is unlikely to get more in the future. (The only interested people were User:CaroleHenson and maybe User:Pahlevun, who aren't currently active). Do you want to withdraw it, and possibly add a more specific proposal in its place? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, will withdraw it. Thanks for the notice! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC close

Please note - this - I suggest you implement this (I'm frankly confused at the flux in the article) - please do cite the closed RfC talk section clearly in your edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Dear Stefka Bulgaria, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially your recent creation of Villa Malta (Cologne). Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

:-) Thanks! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Mujahedin of Iran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Institute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, may i suggest you to quote what the sources say instead of misrepresenting them as you did here ? This is a US claim which confirms Iranian claim, therefore, not only an Iranian claim, right ? Please let me know if you think i'm mistaken. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: - Sorry about this. I kept reading this part of the article: "The Iranians have no doubt who is responsible – Israel and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, known by various acronyms", but missed the part where the US claimed it as well. Will be more careful; and thanks for letting me know. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: No worries, everybody can make mistakes, me the first;-) Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Great article creation in Fritz Selbmann! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Merci :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria. 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)

Deletion discussion about Christa Ehrmann-Hämmerle

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Christa Ehrmann-Hämmerle should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christa Ehrmann-Hämmerle .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Stefka Bulgaria! You created a thread called Is this Harassment / Wiki-bullying? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Forbes

Hi Stefka Bulgaria. I wanted to let you know that Forbes contributor articles, such as this one that you referenced, are not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. You can learn more here: WP:RSP#Forbes contributors. - MrX 🖋 12:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi MrX, thanks for the RS list, good source to have handy. Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI thread closed

I have [I have closed the ANI thread you were involved with. You are strongly warned to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view." Please read through the comments there, and keep them in mind, so that a sanction does not prove necessary. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

So.. you warn Stefka and and allow the disruptive editors to continue roaming (even Pahlevun)? Wikipedia gets more and more incompetent as each day goes, nice. Here's to a ton more articles being the target of pov-pushing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: No, I warned four editors, including Pahlevun. The discussion was open for over a month, and in that time no consensus for any sanction developed. If you want to open another discussion, feel free. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know, but let's be honest, you think a simple warning is gonna make any difference? This issue has been ongoing for so long (at least one year). This is just gonna be another major headache later on, if not several. Also, it's amazing that Stefka is getting grouped with the rest of those editors. It's clear that enough research has not been done on this issue. I mean, what's even the point in opening another discussion? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude, but frustrated and annoyed I indeed am. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I, personally, don't think a warning is going to make a difference. The community disagreed. I cannot implement a sanction for which no consensus exists. If you want to rail against the general editor body, go ahead, though it won't do you any good; there was no other possible outcome for that thread. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for your advice, but could you please help me understand this? Pahlevun removed vast amounts of information backed by RSs, made deceitful POV synthesis in polemical political articles, made libelous BLP violations, and continued to do so after being warned 4 times to stop. This is also been happening for over a year. I bring this to ANI, which is what I was told I should do, and I end up receiving the same sanction (warning) as them, even though all I did was express my concerns of POV-pushing at a RfA in commons. Did I miss something here? There were valid long-term issues with Pahlevun's edits, all of which Pahlevun failed to address or justify. Could you please help me understand this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I doubt there's anything I can say that will satisfy you, but here's a couple of things you should remember. First, if there's genuine issues with an editor's behavior on en.wiki, they should be addressed here; opposing their RFA at commons, without making an effort to address your concerns here, isn't appropriate. Second, I did not warn you unilaterally; I did so based on a lack of consensus for anything else at ANI. Finally, you were not sanctioned, you were warned. There's a fundamental difference. If your behavior really is beyond reproach, then you won't face anything further. If Pahlevun stops editing disruptively, then the warning has worked. If he doesn't, he will face a sanction himself. To put it another way; misconduct by another user isn't an excuse for your own; it also makes your claims of misconduct on Pahlevun's part less tenable. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

apparent typo in one of your somewhat-recent edits

On May 5, in the article Albrechtsburg, you changed "The masterpiece of" to "The w of work of". I am pretty sure the "w of" should not be there, so I'll remove it myself in a little over a week if you neither do that nor respond here in the meantime, but I'm commenting in case you meant something else. JumpDiscont (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Just fixed it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Excessive reverts

You can't keep reverting three times, just shy of 3RR, and not face sanctions for edit warring. I'm telling you now (count it as a warning): that just isn't tenable. El_C 16:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I understand. The issue for me rises when several consecutive edits that violate policies (BIO, NPOV, etc.) are done simultaneously without any consensus, such as these recent ones: [1], [2]. It's a problem. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like both the pro- and anti-MEK camps, if you will, are doing that. The proposal I made for a new approach to editing the article might be able to address that zero-sum game. Providing everybody is on board. El_C 20:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Mansour Varasteh

Dear Stefka. You have now removed these same sources several times from the page, without explanation! There has been a talk topic about Mr. Varasteh's MEK membership for months now but you have not participated. The man is on video introducing himself as an MEK spokesperson. Why is this not good enough evidence? Please let us know in the talk page. Thanks. Iranians (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Have replied on the Talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again

[3] He's back at again with his mass removal of information, applause to the admins for looking the other way. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Iuventa

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Iuventa should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iuventa .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing the Article from see also

Hi. I find that you removed three relevant article which named, Somayeh Mohammadi, Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars from the Maryam Rajavi's Article. They are relevant Article and I don't know why did you delete them? Please, return the article back to the see also section.Forest90 (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

These are more relevant to the MEK page than Maryam Rajavi; we've used MEK categories to help link these. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please learn the problem

User Icewhiz fights a war against Polish people. This is a problem for Wikipedia, not for me. Regarding the Lublin spitting, it's a part of a long controversy. Spitting on a Polish ambassador is a bigger issue than spitting on a tourist. The person who spat on the ambassador has not been punished, the one who spat on the tourist was harsly punished. It's only one of thousands such incidents and historical fact manipulated by Icewhiz. Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A typical page by Icewhiz Disruption of Holocaust conference in Paris.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you know Icewhiz' creativity, but you see me. He creats 100 more edits than me. His method is to select anti-Polish statements using Google, to create a page or section, to oppose any corections. A non-real example Poles are pigs, let's google, let's write.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship, disruption aside, was in fact a celebration or international recognition of the groundbreaking work done by Polish scholars in this field in the past twenty years. While the New school has faced reactionary government (PiS) push-back in recent years, it is very much a scholarly accomplishment that took place (mostly - there are two significant Polish expats as well - but they worked off Polish archives) inside Poland.[4] Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xx236, making claims such as "how Icewhiz manipulates", etc, without evidence (as you've done here), constitutes WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS. If you have an issue with the sources Icewhiz is providing, then I'd advice that you focus on those instead. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)