User talk:Svrznik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

September 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glagolitic alphabet. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Laveol T 10:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Clement of Ohrid. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Laveol T 11:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Clement of Ohrid. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Svrznik (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I have been as pragmatic as I can. I have discussed in the talk page, I have provided sources and I have been reverted all the time. You can see in the history log of the page that there are three meat puppets that have ignored all sources, reverted and vandalized the page. I have filed for dispute resolution on [noticeboard], and I am awaiting resolution. I can see that meat puppetry is an effective way to avoid the 3RR, so maybe next time I will try to raise a whole community of editors to support whatever I write. Does this mean that Wikipedia is a place where the most numerous may write whatever they please?

Decline reason:

It is good that you went into dispute resolution and attempted to discuss changes on the talk page. However 3RR is a hard rule and you do not get to break it just because you are also doing the right thing. --Selket Talk 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

Svrznik (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Sanctions[edit]

I am also going to notify you of the general sanctions in place on articles related to the Balkans.

Nuvola apps important.svg The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision.

--Selket Talk 22:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

At the Arbitration page for Macedonia, under Final Decision you can read:
1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.
... and yet Wikipedia is not a "neutral encyclopedia" as far as the history of the Balkans is concerned. The article of Clement of Ohrid is just a beginning. And I was not being nationalistic on this article. I have just tried to remove references to certain nations that did not exist in the middle ages. The problem here is that the Balkans share a common history, and all of today's Balkan nations want to nationalize and monopolize parts of history that are not exclusive to anybody. Clement of Ohrid is a pan-Slavic educator and saint and is respected and celebrated among all Slavic nations. All I did is tried to change an article that was written as he is a Bulgarian national hero. And I have presented sources!
And I will not stop here. The article about Samuil is full of historical speculations and the Bulgarian POV is all over it.
Other articles concerning Macedonia are full of biased and over cited sources. The website www.promacedonia.org is cited on all most all articles concerning Macedonia. Most of the articles on this site are a product of Bulgarian national propaganda, and the rest are just supporting or quoting it.
If Wikipedia wants to be neutral on the subject it should find a solution where the most numerous editors will not be be allowed to game the system. Svrznik (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I see you know more than anyone else trying to edit around here and that your word is the final blow to every debate. You even moved the article without seeking any consensus despite the fact that the current name was a result of a whole survey, which you did see on the talkpage. Moreover, instead of trying to discuss you tried to get some help in your quest, spicing it with some personal attacks aimed at part of the editors. Sorry, but in the light of those actions your words here just seem to float away from the truth. --Laveol T 00:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The sort of passion that shows up in these disputes is outside my cultural sphere of understanding. I don't get it -- and I recognize I don't get it. I mean, we have a Congressman who can't even get main article status over a second tier English footballer, but we're not getting blocked over it. I am not at all interested in the details of the historical conflicts in the Balkans, whether Clement of Ohrid was Macedonian, or whether a Bulgarian invented the jet engine (I saw that one today too). You may be right, but I don't care. If you are right, I have total confidence that dispute resolution will work out for you in the end. However, that does not mean you get to be disruptive in the mean time. --Selket Talk 00:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I'm no sock puppet, thank you very much. And I believe Check User can confirm that too. Oh wait, do you have that here? - Reanimated X (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)