User talk:Ceco31

Ceco31,

Please, comment on this page if you'd like 681 retained in the info box, it is not over yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board&pe=1&#Bulgaria_-_InfoBox Ximhua (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria clearly states the following

National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria (2011), 2011 Census (Final data) (PDF), National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria, p. 4

Турската етническа група е втората по численост - 588 318 лица. Те представляват 8.8% от населението.
[Translation] The Turkish ethnic group is the second largest - 588,318 persons. They represent 8.8% of the population.

Turco85 (Talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not understood correctly. It is 8.8% of those that voluntarily declared their ethnic group, not of Bulgaria's population. I am beginning a long clarifying from here- Bulgaria's population is 7,364,570 as of the census see the final data (PDF), p. 3, yet some 680,000 people have not gave any answer at the question for ethnic group and therefore 6,680,980 is the figure from which the percentages of the ethnic groups are taken in the final data: according to the Statistical Institute's ethnic statistics here. 588,318 out of 6,680,980 is 8.81%, while 588,318 out of 7,364,570 is 7.99% (caluclated with percentage calculator, - {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)). The quotation itself starts on this way:

Българската етническа група обхваща 5 664 624, или 84,8% от лицата, доброволно декларирали етническото си самоопределение.
Турската етническа група е втората по численост - 588 318 лица. Те представляват 8.8% от населението.
[Translation] The Bulgarian ethnic group comprise 5 664 624, or 84,8% from the persons, voluntarily declared their ethnic affiliation.
The Turkish ethnic group is the second largest - 588,318 persons. They represent 8.8% of the population.

and as you see here in the statistics both 84.8 and 8.8 percentages are taken from one figure - not from Bulgaria's population, so as the current statement claims 8.8% from the Bulgaria's population it is misleading.--Ceco31 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how we do things at wikipedia. We have to stick to what the sources say, not make our own interpretations out of it. The source says 8.8%, unless you can find official sources which states 8% your edit will be reverted.Turco85 (Talk) 22:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the sources - it is from the persons voluntarily declared their ethnic group. It claims "The Bulgarian ethnic group comprise 5 664 624, or 84,8% from the persons, voluntarily declared their ethnic affiliation." and I can prove that both percentages of 84.8% of the Bulgarian ethnic group and 8.8% of the Turkish are from one figure, here proven by the Statistical Institute: here. See now from the source behind, not from my own interpretations, that 8.8% and 84.8%(the percentage of the Bulgarian ethnic group) are percentages from one figure, and remember again what was claimed for 84.8% "from the persons, voluntarily declared their ethnic affiliation". See in it also that the percentages are taken from the total of 6,680,980 and Bulgaria's population was 7,364,570 as of the census. --Ceco31 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to compromise with you, but I don't see why you keep removing my edits when I am merely trying to improve your sentence structure. Your grammer is not the best.Turco85 (Talk) 16:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand the point you are trying to make now. Nonetheless, the sentence still needed a cleanup for clarity.Turco85 (Talk) 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your desire to contribute! Can you please conform to the romanization system officially established in Wikipedia? You can make yourself familiar here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Bulgarian. The system in question is the official one, as used on identity cards, and you can see it in action here: [1].

Please note that this is not a discussion about which system is better or worse: I like other systems better than the one you are using or the official one, but we have to be consistent throughout Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you go through the romanization changes you've made and revert them. Thanks!

Do let me know if you need help with anything else, I'd be happy to assist. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Todor and thanks for the readiness to assist, I will seek you for help and opinions when I need. I myself will revert the changes I made on romanization if it need be according to the rules of Wikipedia. Just confirm shortly once again with "revert them" and I will revert them. Because I first want to ask you, as currently on the pages I made changes it conforms to the official system as on the identity cards by all odds except the emphasis in "a", and wouldn't be better to have the emphasis to distinguish "a" from "ъ" because they are diferent sounds in general and in the Wikipedia:IPA for Bulgarian and Macedonian and as this change from "a" to "ă" is not changing of letter of the official system, only adding a stress?--Ceco31 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I realize why you made this change and I am also unhappy with the way the official system fails to distinguish between "а" and "ъ". There's not much we can do about it, though: the system is official and it has been intentionally designed without diacritics. So please revert these changes you have made. Of course, if you want to make sure the readers correctly understand the pronunciations of placenames, etc. (but not of "български" every time), you can always add an IPA pronunciation guide.

By the way, see here for my arguments as to why the passage you added to Musala should be removed. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 10:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kingdom of Bulgaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingdom

Principality of Bulgaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Berlin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bulgaria shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threats with administrative action are a very bad idea. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...has scored only one goal in Euro 2012 for now. The first goal against England is an own goal by Johnson, according to the FIFA official report. Thanks! --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria". Thank you. --Ximhua (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ==[reply]

We need your help to save 12 centuries of Bulgarian history!

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria". Thank you. --Ximhua (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceco, Please, help and participate in the Bulgaria dispute. The more folks participate the better.

ximhua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ximhua (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceco31, we need your help at the Bulgaria dispute. If you feel that 681 and 1185 have to be included, please post on the dispute page (Ximhua (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Ximhua, chill out man, the truth is one, doesn't matter what Wikipedia says. Аnyway as we have embarked on with this, I expressed my support, the independence users cannot contradict 681 supported by the smarter than them experts, but they may invent a justification again. We will do that is within our reach, but if the mates Gligan and Apcbg for example participate in discussion would be better, the more cool users the better. Regards :D. --Ceco31 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted this matter to the mediation committee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Bulgaria Please review! (Ximhua (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Ceco,

I am Espor and I am a new editor in wikipedia, who is interested in Bulgarian history. I invite you to the dispute on the infobox of the Bulgaria page. Currently I have noticed that the founding year of Bulgaria is missing there. I tried to revert it, however the page is now protected and can no longer be edited. If we convince the opponents that they are wrong for various of reasons, truth will be victorious. For now only Ximhua is participating in the talk. I am busy and cannot reply all the time to the nonsenses the opposite side. Therefore we need more defenders of the cause. I saw that you were involved in a previous dispute, it is time to renew this discussion and settle the account once for all. cheers.Espor (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgaria". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 August 2012.

The request for formal mediation concerning Bulgaria, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Ceco31,

Please, comment on this page if you'd like 681 retained in the info box.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board&pe=1&#Bulgaria_-_InfoBox

Ximhua (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Demographics of Bulgaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Turks

Principality of Bulgaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National holiday

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulgarians in France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WWF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meglena Kuneva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rakovski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP noticeboard

The discussion is here. Bielle (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has also been opened at Talk:Sergei Stanishev where your input would be useful if we are to avoid edit warring. Bielle (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources (not yellow newspapers or blogs) when writing for a living person - WP:BLP and WP:BLPGOSSIP , you are trying to claim that every single Bulgarian Prime Minister was Jewish and it looks like you are having something negative in mind with this?

WorthlobbyBugaria (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to double User:WorthlobbyBugaria's request. And also, Ceco, please, try and take active part in discussions on the talkpage. It seems like you are facing opposition from a number of other editors. As things are now going, you might soon find yourself blocked. Please take notice of WP:BLP and of all comments left on various talkpages. Thank you. --Laveol ^T 21:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be precise, he doesn't claim that ALL prime-ministers have been Jews, for example he's trying to make Ivan Kostov a Gipsy -- again based on his own (Ceco's) hateful agenda, and no reliable sources whatsoever. He obviously enjoys vandalizing the articles about people he personally doesn't like, by inserting rumors propagated by the yellow press. I strongly suggest banning him indefinitely. 88.203.176.7 (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boyko Borisov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fireman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you to revert these changes yourself, first because they're not "more significant" (whatever that means) and poorly illustrative of the purpose of each section, and second because such a massive change of images is not acceptable without having been discussed. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some are by far less significant, for ex. the Bulgarian squad for the 2010 winter games, it is outdated and Bulgaria have never performed well at the Winter Olympics to be one of three pics for her culture. Others are not more significant, but more appropriate, i.e. the Bulgarian men and women in the Demographics, but this may be only mine opinion. My question is do you oppose all of the changed images or some of them, if so could you replace only these that you disapprove? I don't know about you, but I personally prefer we not to start a new discussion again. Second which poorly illustrates the sections? I've carefully read the text and put the images next to text about them. There is also a text that I updated, for example the religious distribution according to the 2011 census as presented by CIA. I could revert my changes but it would be better if you change only the images that you dislike, not to undid the whole revision. So what would you say?--Ceco31 (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not argue ? It's not about who "likes" images and who doesn't, the entire edit is tendentious because of things like "Cyrillic script whose birthplace is Bulgaria" and "The Bulgarian church is the earliest church which used..." which are not globally significant yet stink of a tourist advertisement. The picture of the cathedral is probably one of the worst that could've been chosen, the treasure is vaguely representative Bulgarian culture unlike the rare printed book, and tarator is not even Bulgarian. There's enough issues making this article a battleground already, so once again - please, revert your edit, images are the last thing we need to argue about right now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to argue, things here should be disputed to be adjusted. Now there are some inappropriaties. I don't say is about who likes, is about to choose the more appropriate for the article. This about the Cyrillic script is sourced in the text, about the church is also true, so these details are just of more significance there is nothing peacock with showing them. Such facts are highlited in other articles, so then most articles are tourist advertisement. The picture of the cathedral is the best that could've been chosen, this is the traditional religion in Bulgaria, the Sofia University is nothing unique. I am amazed for your statement about the treasure, it is unique dating to the 5 cent. BC and 24-karat at the same time, which picture would be better than it? If the tarator is not Bulgarian then what is it, are you aware what is its origin? Then can you define any dish as Bulgarian, if you can we can replace with picture with it? On that way none Bulgarian dish is Bulgarian then as most dishes are Ottoman and international, I did't found a Bulgarian dish on that criteria except Shopska salad but it is a version of the Greek salad. You only want to criticize mine images, but have you seen the negative in yours? There are some ridicilious points, nothing personal, don't want to offend you, for ex. as the point about the book instead the Map of the Cyrillic that originated in Bulgaria and this about the treasure. Finally, I don't want to be impudent and to push all my images without discussing and so please replace the images you want to replace and I will not edit-war prior to the discussion's end.--Ceco31 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain in detail why the ones you placed are inappropriate, but I am very unwilling to waste the little energy I have on this issue right now. Starting from the technical quality of the pictures to how suitable they would be for a Featured Article (I suppose you haven't read the points by reviewers). So what I propose is for you to simply revert your edit, and we can discuss placing different images once the current discussions are finished. Doing so will save a lot of bragging , and more editors will take part in the future discussion. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK don't explain it, you are tired I see. I can't disagree that other editors should take part in the discussion, but as you I prefer it postponed for the future and to find a temporary solution here. As I corrected the religious distribution and I can not understand the point for some of the images, I propose the following: change the images you want to change with brief explanation in the edit summary, not in the discussion, and afterwards I will not revert or edit-war until our discussion ends and you will not give lengthy explanations on my talk page. --Ceco31 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, I'd change all the images (maybe except one), I just can't bother explaining why right now. Images were a significant issue during the last FA nomination and all of those you inserted both bring the article back where it was before the nomination, or clearly contradict some of the guidelines from the MoS on images. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy right now and I will respond after the weekend. During that time do what you wnt to do in the Bulgari article and we will discuss it afterwards if is necessary.--Ceco31 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert your changes and explain in detail why I did it, though I won't be willing (or able to) go into that discussion as well. Feel free to comment, but I won't be quick on it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attack (political party), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MEP and Dimitar Stoyanov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Movement for Rights and Freedoms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MEP

Roma in Bulgaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gypsy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not bothered reading neither this nor this nor this, I'll have to make a final warning. Stop edit warring. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not bothered to read the questions I raised several times on the talk page and on the edit summary. I am also not going to answer you then.--Ceco31 (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions are not raised in the edit summary, and whatever you asked has already been answered on the aforementioned pages. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Ceco31 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: ). Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bulgaria. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turks in Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MEP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attack (political party), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Macedonia and Dimitrovgrad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ceco31,

please note that Wikipedia is written from a WP:neutral point-of-view. It is based on neutral, third-party WP:reliable sources, e.g. accounts of independent scholars. The self-presentation of an article's subject (in this case Ataka party) is not primary. If the self-view of the party and the outside view by reliable observers and academics diverge, we follow the independent scholars, not the party. There is consensus among international political scientists to consider Ataka a far-right, ultranationalist party. The characterisation is referenced to several reliable sources, as you can see. Whether the party agrees with this classification or not, is irrelevant. Thank you for your comprehension. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noted, but a problem remains, first and most important - you can't claim that thet these scholars are independent, because you have not evidences for that, all they could be dependent of some organizations and implement directives against the party from there, which is evident from the same hostile attacks from them - Attack is "radical" nationalist, "ultra" nationalist and "anti" Roma and against all the peace and humnanity. It is not known from what underground organizations these authors depend, masons, gay clubs, etc. and is not known from what depends this one who wrote it and who is behind the one who wrote it, especially this frauds happen when it comes for parties. When you prove, that the sources you use are independent I will agree with you, but so far I disagree. Until we do not have sources from independent scholars, we should follow the self-view of the party, aren't we? The party deny e.g. - for xenophobia and anti-Roma and should be moved to paragraph controversy, second there are no reliable sources to say that it is closely related to the Bulgarian Church, this reamins an claim, and is not known from who depends this one who wrote it. I don't know whether there is consenus that Attack is an ultranationalist party and don't know what the term means too, but I will move some of the statements to Criticism because there is controversy for them. So, if you have time could you post citations for the so-called consesnsus that Attack is ultranationalist party and that Siderov is ultranationalist? Are these sources states that all its ideology is only ultranationalist, because besides nationalism it also has Socialism and etc. Thank you too, regards, --Ceco31 (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attack (political party), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages TV7, BTV and Nova TV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shumen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mortar and Lev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Timișoara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Banat Bulgarian

Varna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ruse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John Atanasov.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Petar Petroff, an important inventor.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing articles related to Bulgaria shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jingiby (talk)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Bulgarians, you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing on Bulgarians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Jingiby (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Shopi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Nis and Jireček

Etymological list of provinces of Bulgaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ruse

Haskovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Antiquity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John Atanasov.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for your disruptive edit-warring at WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceco31, please see EdJohnston's comment at the bottom of the AE request. I'd be grateful if you could respond to his suggestion. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring, as you did at Bulgarians. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for administrators: This is not an AE block; though he has been warned below. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceco31, you are warned about discretion sanctions relating to your edits on articles relating to the Balkans, broadly interpreted. Should any uninvolved administrator believe you are engaged in a future edit-war or other disruptive editing, they are free to invoke the discretionary sanctions linked above for further sanctions. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lovech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Attack (political party), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have already discussed this before, I suggest at least to move again your statements in another paragraph outside the introduction. All statements of the party leader against racism were deleted with the aim to define the party xenophobic. The statements of the party leader are contradicted by the slanders on first position in the intro, when the party clearly says that is against this. And now instead to show what the party claim on first prosition, on first position in the intro the article relies on a cheap propaganda of possibly corrupted sources, totally contradicting with what the party declares. Wikipedia only approves reliable statements and such minority views of unidentified authors and objects are definitely not for such a site and should be deleted immidiately! Yesterday Siderov declared: "I have always been against racism"?

The discussion is continued at Talk:Attack (political party). Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Volen Siderov 2013.jpg, which you've attributed to www.radar.bg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sergei Stanishev 2013.jpeg, which you've attributed to www.radar.bg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Boyko Borisov 2013.jpeg, which you've attributed to www.radar.bg/Agence France-Presse. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Volen Siderov 2005.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Your recent editing history at Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria and Attack (political party) shows that you are currently engaged in edit wars. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --RJFF (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Talk:Attack (political party) and let's discuss it. Regards.

A tag has been placed on File:Borisov 2013 elections.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RJFF (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Sergei Stanishev 2013.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RJFF (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reinstating your edits to the article. They were reverted, and per WP:BRD, the onus is now on you to get consensus for their reinstatement. The material you are adding is poorly written (it is not formal English), it is unsourced, and you are adding stuff to the infobox which should not be in there (i.e. the number of votes received at the last election).

Can I also ask you not to make blind reverts - you reverted not only myself, but an editor who corrected a spelling mistake. Thanks Number 57 11:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working to make this intro, so if they are poorly written can I ask you to correct them? I've been working hard to create this description so don't delete it if possible, please. I would appreciate this. Tell me what exactly else you dislike there and I'll remove it. Regards.

How about you tell me what information you want to include, and provide some sources, and I'll draft something? Number 57 12:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The major events could be included, you can search in the net, but I can't provide you something right now, I gotta check some bsness.

Please do not remove correct information and reliable sources from articles, as you did to Bulgarians. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. You have a long history of edits in this article as removing reliaqble information. If you believe the information and sources you removed were incorrect, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you continue in this way, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

Your recent editing history at Bulgarians and Bulgaria shows that you are currently engaged in edit wars. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --RJFF (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're back at WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Please, don't blindly revert my edits. If you think about it you will see that I possibly don't violate any policy but some other editors do. Tell me what wrong I have done?[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for continued edit-warring and other misconduct as discussed at WP:AE,

you have been blocked from editing for 3 months. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  15:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):

You are indefinitely topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from everything related to Bulgaria

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this Arbitration Enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  15:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hallo, and thanks for writing. No, this guideline applies only to articles dealing with living persons, since in that case one must protect them from false or unverifiable info. Moreover, if you put a tag [dubious-discuss], you should go to the talk page of the affected article and start a thread which explains why you think that the info that you tagged is dubious. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got it for dubious claim. But Where is said in articles about living people? as what I read it says just for living persons but doesnt clarify for which articles, and furhermoreto delete without discussion whether it is positive or negartive 8nfo so I thoughtI shoulddo it. thanksbye.

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your Bulgaria topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein  09:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator;--or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Why was I immeduately blocked? I thought the topic ban expired. I will revert myself on thr topic edits. I am sorry please reconsider that block--Ceco31 (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Ceco31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to ensure you that I was unaware and later confused if my topic ban had expired. I had been not editing for two years and before two days I started again without noticing or remembering the topic ban. So I please you to reconsider this ban due to the memory problems two years may affect. After edits on topic related articles I noticed on my talk page in addition to the three months ban - a topic ban. I was sure it had expired because I thought a block means that my account would be in fact blocked of editing certain articles related to Bulgaria, I was in fact able to press the "EDIT" button and save edits on Bulgaria topuc articles instead of showing me "VIEW SOURCE" button and this I was mislead by mine conclusions on this and because there has nowhere been any sign that I am topic blocked except on my talk page. Unfortunately when I translated the world idefeinite period to my language it meant that the block is still in force, so then I stopped editing topic related articles and asked Sandstein if the topic block is still in force or was it a block inflicted for three months. Instead of an answer I get blocked. I think this is fair because laws apply for everybody and I must be blocked, though only on theory but in practice it is not perfectly just because some users are unfairly more sanctioned than others, eg I was topic banned idefenitely at my first ban while others who editwar much often are given opportunities. Though I believe it would also be fair if I get my appeal approved and get unblocked because I was unaware of the ban - evidence of this is my question on Sandsteins talkapge. After questioning the user I stopped editing topic articles(actually an article) and havent violated the rule in more than one article. I believe three months is an unfair amount of time for violating the topic ban on just one article due to unawareness, and I please a second chance to be given to me. If you decline my appeal, I would be disappointed for that I abstained two years from editing by which I think I already waited the three months you are enforcing me now, and if so I would suggest if avilable a penalty not regarding time but something else would be better for me especially for small mistakes like this.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would like to ensure you that I was unaware and later confused if my topic ban had expired. I had been not editing for two years and before two days I started again without noticing or remembering the topic ban. So I please you to reconsider this ban due to the memory problems two years may affect. After edits on topic related articles I noticed on my talk page in addition to the three months ban - a topic ban. I was sure it had expired because I thought a block means that my account would be in fact blocked of editing certain articles related to Bulgaria, I was in fact able to press the "EDIT" button and save edits on Bulgaria topuc articles instead of showing me "VIEW SOURCE" button and this I was mislead by mine conclusions on this and because there has nowhere been any sign that I am topic blocked except on my talk page. Unfortunately when I translated the world idefeinite period to my language it meant that the block is still in force, so then I stopped editing topic related articles and asked Sandstein if the topic block is still in force or was it a block inflicted for three months. Instead of an answer I get blocked. I think this is fair because laws apply for everybody and I must be blocked, though only on theory but in practice it is not perfectly just because some users are unfairly more sanctioned than others, eg I was topic banned idefenitely at my first ban while others who editwar much often are given opportunities. Though I believe it would also be fair if I get my appeal approved and get unblocked because I was unaware of the ban - evidence of this is my question on Sandsteins talkapge. After questioning the user I stopped editing topic articles(actually an article) and havent violated the rule in more than one article. I believe three months is an unfair amount of time for violating the topic ban on just one article due to unawareness, and I please a second chance to be given to me. If you decline my appeal, I would be disappointed for that I abstained two years from editing by which I think I already waited the three months you are enforcing me now, and if so I would suggest if avilable a penalty not regarding time but something else would be better for me especially for small mistakes like this. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to ensure you that I was unaware and later confused if my topic ban had expired. I had been not editing for two years and before two days I started again without noticing or remembering the topic ban. So I please you to reconsider this ban due to the memory problems two years may affect. After edits on topic related articles I noticed on my talk page in addition to the three months ban - a topic ban. I was sure it had expired because I thought a block means that my account would be in fact blocked of editing certain articles related to Bulgaria, I was in fact able to press the "EDIT" button and save edits on Bulgaria topuc articles instead of showing me "VIEW SOURCE" button and this I was mislead by mine conclusions on this and because there has nowhere been any sign that I am topic blocked except on my talk page. Unfortunately when I translated the world idefeinite period to my language it meant that the block is still in force, so then I stopped editing topic related articles and asked Sandstein if the topic block is still in force or was it a block inflicted for three months. Instead of an answer I get blocked. I think this is fair because laws apply for everybody and I must be blocked, though only on theory but in practice it is not perfectly just because some users are unfairly more sanctioned than others, eg I was topic banned idefenitely at my first ban while others who editwar much often are given opportunities. Though I believe it would also be fair if I get my appeal approved and get unblocked because I was unaware of the ban - evidence of this is my question on Sandsteins talkapge. After questioning the user I stopped editing topic articles(actually an article) and havent violated the rule in more than one article. I believe three months is an unfair amount of time for violating the topic ban on just one article due to unawareness, and I please a second chance to be given to me. If you decline my appeal, I would be disappointed for that I abstained two years from editing by which I think I already waited the three months you are enforcing me now, and if so I would suggest if avilable a penalty not regarding time but something else would be better for me especially for small mistakes like this. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to ensure you that I was unaware and later confused if my topic ban had expired. I had been not editing for two years and before two days I started again without noticing or remembering the topic ban. So I please you to reconsider this ban due to the memory problems two years may affect. After edits on topic related articles I noticed on my talk page in addition to the three months ban - a topic ban. I was sure it had expired because I thought a block means that my account would be in fact blocked of editing certain articles related to Bulgaria, I was in fact able to press the "EDIT" button and save edits on Bulgaria topuc articles instead of showing me "VIEW SOURCE" button and this I was mislead by mine conclusions on this and because there has nowhere been any sign that I am topic blocked except on my talk page. Unfortunately when I translated the world idefeinite period to my language it meant that the block is still in force, so then I stopped editing topic related articles and asked Sandstein if the topic block is still in force or was it a block inflicted for three months. Instead of an answer I get blocked. I think this is fair because laws apply for everybody and I must be blocked, though only on theory but in practice it is not perfectly just because some users are unfairly more sanctioned than others, eg I was topic banned idefenitely at my first ban while others who editwar much often are given opportunities. Though I believe it would also be fair if I get my appeal approved and get unblocked because I was unaware of the ban - evidence of this is my question on Sandsteins talkapge. After questioning the user I stopped editing topic articles(actually an article) and havent violated the rule in more than one article. I believe three months is an unfair amount of time for violating the topic ban on just one article due to unawareness, and I please a second chance to be given to me. If you decline my appeal, I would be disappointed for that I abstained two years from editing by which I think I already waited the three months you are enforcing me now, and if so I would suggest if avilable a penalty not regarding time but something else would be better for me especially for small mistakes like this. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I recommend that this unblock request (or appeal, if copied to WP:AE) is declined. In the message above, Ceco31 was advised as follows: "You are indefinitely topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from everything related to Bulgaria. (...) If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period (...)". This is unambiguous. By making ban-violating edits prior to asking for and receiving any required clarification, Ceco31 assumed the risk of being blocked for these edits. In addition, I believe that the editing history of Ceco31, including subsequent to the topic ban, is not such that an unblock would be beneficial to Wikipedia, what with them returning after two years only to resume edit-warring immediately.  Sandstein  13:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if I separately appeal for canceling the topic ban, will be the threemonth block cancelled if my appeal gevaccepted because I didnt violate any other rules I think? Its for two years, thats pretty enough for a lifetime. And should I copy this appeal here or at WP:AE?

You may separately appeal either the block, or the topic ban, or both. If you do, you should provide reasons why either is not necessary to protect Wikipedia from your disruption, see WP:GAB. So far, I've seen nothing convincing. You cannot edit WP:AE now, but if you make a well-formed appeal a reviewing admin may choose to copy it to WP:AE if they think the appeal has some merit or chance of success.  Sandstein  14:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why are you so biased towards me? Is the appeal not well formed that I should correct or it something else? Should I first remove this appeal, edit it to get better and then post it? Anyway why I must be blocked forever? I am neither stronger than Wikipedia and may be reblcoked always and my edits reverted. I have to get an oppurtinty and it will show. How I could be more convincing? That is reality, I am not dangerous to Wikipedia because I am not stronger than it neither you can not predict the future of any of the users you unblock, you just give them opportunity to follow the rules. I was also a new user and did not know much of the rules here, why I was blocked for topic idefinetely for the first time? And if probably the topic ban get repealed would the threemonth ban be repealed together with the topic ban?Ceco31 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]