User talk:Dinner for three

September 2011

Please stop your string of reverts, before this issue escalates into an edit war. Given that you are making so many edits in such a short period of time it makes sense to discuss the issues, so as to not make the changes look like vandalism from a newly registered account. On what basis have your 50 or so edits to places in Greece been made? Lunch for Two (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really get enough to revert your vandalism today, falsification of sources, etc. If you check the names in both Bulgarian and Macedonian Wikipedia in the villages you revert you will see that they are the same. What I did in Greece was updating where Bulgarian names already existed and never adding mew ones.

I have to agree. Since Macedonian Slavic *is* Bulgarian, why are we saying it twice? Anyway, this would seem to be the kind of thing to discuss, esp. given the nationalist problems of the Balkans. If you don't like the way it's handled, I suggest you try WP:dispute resolution. I'm going to revert your edits now, as I see not only redundancy but the deletion of Greek from towns in Greece, which would seem to be a bit extreme no matter what the etymology. If I've reverted things you did that aren't in this vein, feel free to restore them, but otherwise please discuss this rather than WP:edit warring. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my mother, reverted to last version by Lunch for Two?? OK I will feel free to restore them but why I have to waste my time for this nonsense? Better take your attention at such [impudent deletion of source and taking POV] you revert, and such [edit explained as revert but it was not a revert but taking user's POV actually!!]. All these covered POV-pushing by Lunch for Two should be reverted immideately and the reverts in such case are inescapable. To take Latin transliterations in every village where Cyrilic exists is not so easy and fast and they should get back in the page too, as well as the representation of the original Turkish names as Bulgarian should be delted. Dinner for three (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NCGN the foreign names of geographic locations must be ordered alphabetically. Dinner for three (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Bulgarian Empire

I've reverted your edits to Second Bulgarian Empire:

The long name of the state is Second Bulgarian Empire, the short name Bulgaria is separate from that and does not need to be added to Template:Infobox former country.
The Principality of Bulgaria is a logical successor state, but is not the immediate successor. With an interval of nearly 500 years between them, it is inappropriate for the Principality to be highlighted in the infobox; it should instead be mentioned in the lead paragraph.
Language templates such as {{lang-bg}} should be used wherever possible, as they have the same visual appearance, but add metadata to the HTML in the page, providing better accessibility.
Alphabets other than our Latin alphabet should not be italicised, as is stated in the Text formatting section of the Manual of Style.
We avoid using HTML escapes for Unicode characters on the Wikipedia; there are scripts such as Advisor that allow automated correction of these.
The Encyclopædia Britannica is provided as a source for the name Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars.

Please don't revert these changes again. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nicode characters on the Wikipedia; there are scripts such as Advisor that allow automated correction of these. Please don't revert these changes again. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I didn't knew for the script standarts, but the Principality of Bulgaria as successor should be back. That it was not immediate but logical successor is POV, it was called Bulgaria and used the same language as official. The fact that the two countries were Bulgaria is well-known among the sources and this should be back. Dinner for three (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars by Britannica, that was disclaimed in the talk by historical letters, texts, etc. It was only used during Kaloyan's reign altough even then in official letters the state was called Bulgaria or Bulgarian Empire, this name has no place in the intro beacause it was only in a period and not in the entire exsistence of the state.

Warning: You removed Lucian Boia source 3 times today, if you do this again I will report you for breaking 3RR rule. (SamiraJ (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Boia? Wikipedia is not a science-fiction book.Dinner for three (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, I am not going to edit-war. But all this is a nonsense, a newly emerged language in 1944 is stealing originally other names, because prior to 1944 these villages also existed with their Slavic names and the point of view of the late 19th and early 20th century sources is that the Slavic area was populated only by Bulgarians and no source from the period claims by Macedonian Slavs. Some of the villages' Slavic names existed in much earlier period, in Medieval Bulgaria, for when for Macedonian language and ethnicty could not be talking- "is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later, disputed to 1940s; cited from Macedonians (ethnic group)", which makes the current situation just stealing of names. I have nothing against the categorisation along with Macedonian Slavic when the present-day soures consider the local dialect as such and I don't disagree this, but the origin of the name is not Macedonian Slavic and an interval seems best. By the way is this model also supported here where a source has been deleted with unsourced replacement? And, Future, tell me honestly where I make 'ideological territory-marking'?--Dinner for three (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

I warned you the other day, but you are not listening. You are acting like a revert-warring-only account. Continue like this, you will be the next person to be topic-banned via WP:AE.

About the thing with the Ser dialect [1]: you are evidently not listening to what people are telling you. Read WP:SYNTH. If you haven't done so, do it now. If you have read it and still don't understand why that passage is untenable, read it again, and then again, until you do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And can you provide the "B" sources for this topic? If there are no such, this passage is not untenable. --Dinner for three (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "B sources"?? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't translated, sorry really! I think then you want to say that the presented info in the table is not claimed by the source? Actually all of the feutares are explicitly claimed by the source with the same examples of words as in the table. Or probably you mean that the provided source is not reliable or something other? --Dinner for three (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. It is entirely irrelevant whether the facts that were being synthesized are from two or more sources or from a single one. The point is that they were being used for advancing a position that the source is not arguing for. Yes, Stoykov lists all these details, but Stoykov isn't comparing them in this way in order to support an argument that this dialect is more similar to Bulgarian than to Macedonian. He couldn't possibly make such an argument, because in his view Macedonian doesn't even exist, so there is no point in such a comparison in the first place, remember? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly for this I deleted the intro section of the paragraph and remained only "List with features of the dialect with Standart Bulgarian and Standart Macedonian", and anyway you had to delete only the intro of the paragraph, the table was as per source. I haven't remained such arguments in the page that "This dialect is more similar to Bulgarian than to Macedonian", so for what were all these warnings actually? --Dinner for three (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table is still designed in such a way as to imply this comparison argument, even if the intended conclusion is no longer spelt out explicitly, so it's still the same OR problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm How only adding a standart language for comparison became POV-pushing OR?? We don't know whether Stoykov recognize the Macedonian language or not. But how can be called pushing of an argument in comparing some dialect features with a standart language from the region?? That extremely difficult can be called WP:SYNTH, it is clearly a different thing and was removed in the intro of the paragraph, and the table should not be removed without discussion. The table is only useful when is compared with other languages, and that the dialect in reality have more similarities with one of the two languages is completely different thing. --Dinner for three (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see that Dupnitsa and Samokov dialects were added, they probably make the design in such a way to imply this argument. But no reason to remove the table, at least only the dialect features should remain in a table, and no reason also to remove the two standart languages. --Dinner for three (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was mentioned

Just to inform you that I mentioned your name at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nipsonanomhmata Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you success to belie all nonsenses with which you are judged. I will support you soon on the Arbitration request, but I am busy now. Regards and all best. --Dinner for three (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. That's very kind of you. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk)

Reported

Since you were heading to WP:AE anyway, please see the report on yourself there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, for the reasons stated in this AE thread, and under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed across all namespaces, for six months. This topic ban is consecutive to the username block: the six-month clock will begin to run when the account is unblocked and renamed. T. Canens (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change the username? I've tried but I haven't found the way. Maybe I should create new account with new name or what I should do?--Dinner for three (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and request the change there. You'll be unblocked for the purpose if you want to do that. If you simply want to create a new account and abandon this one, you can do that too, but you must disclose that you are the same person, and the new account will still be under the same restriction imposed on this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But actually the 6-month block period for the Balkans haven't started to ticking yet, is that right?

Dinner for three (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I can't rename my account, I tried in Changing username/Simple, following the instructions, but everywhere there appears to me "view source" and neither "edit" so I can't save my request. Any advices? Thanks.Dinner for three (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]