User talk:157.228.x.x

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait, so you created an actual user account with a name based on your IP addresses? Genius. :D

Here's the routine:

Welcome!

Hello, 157.228.x.x, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! BalkanFever 01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to the project! Looking forward to your ideas and active participation! I hope you'll enjoy editing for Wikipedia!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

You know, you can do other things on wikipedia, for example try to improve the Greek articles rather than vandalise articles about MACEDONIAN people and events. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. I already warned the administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isavevski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Γελοίος ο τύπος (λιγουλάκι κολλημένος και 'συ μπρε) αλλά έχει ένα δίκιο. ;) Γιατί δε γράφεις περί της "εθνότητας" των Μακεδόνων και πώς οι Ελληνικές αντιλήψεις άλλαξαν, στο Ancient Macedonians; Βλέπω ότι έχεις υλικό. Thanks for the info btw. I had seen Malkin's book before; looks interesting. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Please remember this rule when your third edit today of Constantinople is, as I expect reverted. Breaking it could see you prevented from editing again. - Galloglass 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything is thoroughly explained in the talk page of the said article here. As I said, it was you who had removed long standing and cited (by highly reliable sources) pertinent material, therefore you carried the burden of proof and to build consensus in the talk page. Dispite that I have tried to accomodate you and provide clear and verifiable sources from reliable publishers/authors and to explain that we have a duty to report that "Constantinople" was the capital of the Ottoman Sultanate (Ottoman Empire). And by that name it was treated, in the English language (and not only) in academia, popular culture, media and elsewhere during the 16th up to 19th century, also widely during the best part of the 20th century, even up to the historical treatment of present-day historians and other published authors (21st century). --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually upon closer inspection I must say that it was User:Deipnosophista who was the first to remove the reference of Constantinople as the capital of the Ottoman Empire here. Nevertheless, you have removed that text yourself too, eventhough it was reintroduced by a spurious user. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 300 edits

My apologies if I was unclear in my comments. When you are making a point likely to inspire dissent, it is usually best to take the time to proceed tot he article discussion and resolve any issues beforehand. This is even more important in the case of FA articles, as they are supposed to be more stable than normal articles (they usually serve as templates for other articles seeking to emulate FA anf GA standards). t would be very helpful if you could take the time to seek a consensus in the article discussion before proceeding with an edit that has already been reverted by others. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, I really do. But I have followed that particular issue for some time now and I am engaging in the talk pages of pertinent articles. I do not have to repeat everything in every article, for the same "issue". An accurate summary, directing to the relevant sections and discussions, in the ...'edit summary box' is most sufficient, I think. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I am surmising that not all of the articles where these discussions are occurring are not GA or FA articles. If you are ironing the issue out in those places, could I impose upon you to perhaps wait until some conclusion is reached in those other places before posting a summary of that conclusion in the article discussion for 300? That way, we know that the matter has been hashed out in other venues, and there is consensus for a different view. I am concerned with the practice of reverting the article to look one way when others revert it back or otherwise, which de-stabilizes the article. I am not saying your view is wrong, but I am saying that changes in the face of dissent require discussion. Wait until that issue has substantial consensus before presenting it in a FA article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that you are coming pretty close to 3RR. You might wish to self-revert this, so as to avoid the appearance of edit-warring. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from and to be quite honest that was exactly the reason why I chose to engage in another talk page (not 300's). Plus, many interested editors where involved in that other article, so the chances to get some input were much higher. I was the one who edited out yesterday all that nonsense about plagiarism. The way it was worded implied that Warner and Bates did acknowledged copyright issues on par with Elliot Goldenthal's score "Titus". This is far from true. On that basis alone I had the "right" (in fact the obligation) to remove every single line, ignoring even the intext citations. Anyway there were no given sources for that with the exception of that non-english article/commend, published somewhere on the web, possibly talking about similarities, and that's that. I also knew (from day one, some 14 months ago) every single reference put forward regarding this "issue" in wikipedia and elsewhere. (Yes, I am fully aware about your efforts and long, frustating and often bitter discussions you had in this article). Mind you, there was some minor-edit-war going on between Bulgarian and Slav-Macedonian editors about the origins of a song, affecting the article. Now this and any other issues will be addressed elsewhere, leaving this FA "alone". If, in the near future pertinent, reliable and credible sources surface, then, simply we are going to address any issues in a NPOV way. As it stands though this plagiarism claim is just a non-issue. --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. (re 3RR) I do not wish to sound harsh but 'you choose a somewhat "polemic" way which, in fact, could affect the stability of the article. A simple click on my link and a few minutes to investigate my contributions and edit summaries would had spared us this minor-drama...

Fair enough. If my way of bringing the matter to your attention was unfriendly, please accept my apology, for none was intended. I don't want you to leave the article "alone"; I just want to make sure the major issues are resolved fully before they are introduced in, thereby avoiding the nationalistic, petty nonsense that cluttered up the article last summer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. My initial intention anyway, a couple of days back, was to move the discussion in the song's article so the stability of this FA would not be affected. That's what I've meant by leaving this FA "alone". I also like to apologize for not making myself clear earlier on and for any misunderstanding(s) I may have caused. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Slav-Macedonians? :S --Hegumen (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, what? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not you Arcayne, he refers to my choice of words, I suppose. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".

What misuse of vandalism-template are you referring to? And please sign your posts in my talk page. --157.228.x.x (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The one on Isavevski's talk page. BTW you're about to break 3RR. Calm down a bit. BalkanFever 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very calm, and I do mean it. I would suggest the same to you. Please do not revert reliably sourced material which naming convention and presentation is in accordance of our policies and guidelines. As for the warnings to User:Isavevski, please watch his talk page. I am preparing a hopefully thorough analysis on how and why his actions constitute to "Sneaky Vandalism". --157.228.x.x (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to your recent actions, I can not assume good faith. Your reverts constitute also vandalism (removing reliable sources) and unconstructive, hostile editing (edit-warring). --157.228.x.x (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother any more. Your incivility is beyond help. BalkanFever 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR - 24h

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Since no administrator have reviewed my request yet, I will try to briefly present some specifics regarding this case In response to the User:BalkanFever accusations here. This user has been following me around, removing sourced material (cited by reliable sources per WP:Verifiability) and treated in accordance of other policies and/or proposed guidelines (e.g. WP:MOSMAC) as seen here, here, here or here.

An indicative incident might be the following. He begins his peculiar aggressive editing by reverting my contribution with a personal attack ("problems problems problems") in direct violation of WP:NPA or WP:Civility. He then again reverts the same article claiming that I have not provided an explanation, even though just a couple of lines below my extensive (relevant and informative IMHO) edit summary reads as this. (citing current ongoing discussions and WP:NCGN).

Therefore, in contrast to the claims I did try to provide adequate explanations of my edits (other examples [1], [2], [3]). It was he who in turn did not provide adequate edit summaries , embroiled in sterile edit-warring tactics by systematically removing material treated in accordance of WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:NAME and specific-for-the-purpose guidelines as WP:NCGN or WP:MOSMAC. --157.228.x.x (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pertinent cases

In effect he and some other editors (e.g. User:Isavevski, User:Kobra85) and a cohort of "anonymous" users - IP addresses are wikistalking me. Some very recent examples can be seen here or here (quote "odi si" which roughly translates to 'Go Away') and numerous abuses by various IP addresses (e.g. Special:Contributions/85.18.136.96 or Special:Contributions/89.205.12.164, amongst others) regarding more or less the same articles. --157.228.x.x (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And here they are on their spree again: Special:Contributions/Isavevski. --157.228.x.x (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not begin my editing with "problems problems problems", I made other contributions before then. It's less confusing than you using "ditto" in edit summaries. Let me explain something: we got into an editorial dispute. My edits to the Eurovision articles have been solely to improve the leads, so that they are less-cluttered. No offence, but you make the intros look ugly. Having "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" immediately followed by "FYR Macedonia" when it can simply be "FYR Macedonia" does not look good. And the fact that "FYR Macedonia" is linked to the article which perfectly explains the "FYR" etc. makes having them in the artist and song articles redundant. The fact that the material was sourced is irrelevant here, I don't dispute the material, or the sourcing. I dispute the material's relevance in the specific articles you placed it in. I told you you were about to break 3RR, and you did it anyway. Then I reported it. You refuse to acknowledge you were edit-warring, and portray me as a vandal. And you've been edit-warring in these articles with other users for a long time, so maybe you should look at WP:OWN. Please don't accuse me of sockpuppetry again. I am not Isavevski. Just because others disagree with you it doesn't make them the same person. You've accused me of sockpuppetry before, and I'd like you to stop. BalkanFever 12:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not accused you for sock-puppetry, now or ever. All I know is that there are some highly suspicious looking (coordinated?) efforts by the aforementioned users, including yourself. As for the rest I stand by them. You have entered the editing of Gevgelija (history) article by using this personal attack [4] ("problems problems problems"). Not to mention other instances of incivility and outright profanity in other articles (see [5]). Removing legitimate content, cited reliably according to our policies, especially in the way you went about it, can be considered "Sneaky vandalism" (see Types of Vandalism). The rest are just content interpretations-disputes-choices. --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And the spree goes on. With outright no respect of the sources (e.g. [6], [7], [8]), with outright falsification of the references ([9]) and no other consideration (e.g. WP:NAME, WP:MOSMAC) what-so-ever. --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with you. It's Republic of Macedonia's national basketball team not FYROM. It also says that it competes in FIBA tournaments as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYR Macedonia). The basic name of FYR Macedonia is Macedonia so it will be sorted on M not F, FYR is just adding as Republic of Ireland is sorted on I. Marek Jankulovski's father Pando IS from Macedonia and DID imigrated to Czech Republic and I found page that confirms that and you say that it's 'falsification of the references'. I'm sorry that you think we don't have our history and culture but you're wrong. And don't give that 'I never said so' crap because we all know what you think of us. Regards, Isavevski (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm game but it is extremely hard to assume good faith. You have (maliciously?) altered the reference from Fibaeurope to the acronym FYROM to read as "Macedonia" [10]. Every single international organization (including Fiba, Uefa et al.) are alphabetizing your country under "F" and more specifically under "former" (not under "FYR" even though I have run into some rare instances where some webmasters got it wrong by alphabetizing as "F-Y-R Macedonia" after "France".) The snippet provided for Jankulovski reads "His father, Pando Jankulovski, emigrated to Czechoslovakia from Macedonia." There is no clarification what-so-ever about which "Macedonia" guardian.co.uk is referring to (I presume it refers to your country but I may be wrong) and no mention of "Aegean refugee from the Greek Civil War". I do not claim that he wasn't. I just don't know, that's why I have requested some reliable and verifiable English-language sources. I know that you [your people with which you identify with] have your perceptions of history and culture. Please try to see beyond the superfluous nonsense, I really do. --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, twice) Well here's the dispute; I don't think there is a legitimate reason to include that content in the Mojot Svet article when another article that (legitimately) contains that content is linked to. I'm not going to continue this discussion any longer, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't turn this to an attack page against me (BalkanFever). BalkanFever 13:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never attacked you personally or otherwise. Ever. I commend on the content and the circumstances (as suspicious as they may be) in a civil manner, only. --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)