User talk:LionKing

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I would like you to reconsider again. I can't be banned for 2 reverts. There's is a hope to behave nice, no revert wars but I can be unblocked now.

Decline reason:

This does not deal with the accusation of sockpuppetry. — Yamla 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

what troll? are you kidding?

Decline reason:

No information or justification provided to warrant removal of block — TigerShark 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Welcome!

Hello, LionKing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Khoikhoi 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

But keep in mind that here at Wikipedia, we have a Neutral point of view policy - this means including every point of view no matter how ridiculous you peceive them to be. I can show you some examples of neutral articles if you want - in the meantime, happy editing. ;) --Khoikhoi 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop falsely claiming minor edits

Read the rules about what minor edit is. Falsely claiming minor edit is a breach of Wikipedia rules and it has concequences. --Realek 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again! Please stop doing it. It's transparent anyway - you're just trying to avoid the 3RR rule (wich leads to the conclusion that yor're not a new user, like you want us to belive). Furthermore, the reasons you give for the changes you make are totaly unrelated. Please read the discussion page and the archives. --Realek 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I must admit I'm suspicious that you're not really a new user. But I might be wrong and if I am I apologise. In that case welcome to wikipedia. Here is some stuff that might help:

You should not claim a minor if its not. It really looks like an attempt to avoid 3RR.
3RR is a wikipedia rule that you can only edit 3 times in any 24 hour interval - to limit edit warring
Don't revert with edit summaries like "it's better this way" (like you did for the Ilinden uprising article). You should give good reasons especially for disputed articles
Don't revert with edit summaries that are unrelated to the changes you make (like you did on Republic of Macedonia article). Take time and read the discussion and the archives about the specific point you make.

Regards --Realek 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Realek and LionKing. The 3RR states that you should not revert, it is not concertned with editing the way Realek claims. Everyone is free to give summaries and judge their value, or even not give any summaries at all. All the edits are checked nonetheless. FunkyFly 20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called the 3RR then (three revert rule) ??? --Realek 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Advice

Be careful when u say that it is a minor edit. also, take a look at the 3RR, so as not to find yourself into trouble. keep contributing! --Hectorian 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand, what's wrong with ticking the "minor edit" box? I'm not making big changes. Where is this policy? --LionKing 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When u are making a revert concerning something that other users dispute and u tick the 'minor edit' box, it's like misleading that your edit was not important. i am not aware of a policy about 'minor edits'. if i were, i would had given u a link:).just be a little bit more careful when ticking the box. --Hectorian 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided

There's nothing wrong with the link. Howerver it doesnt proove what you say. That's why i told you a few times already to read the discussion and the archives. I know it's a lot, but if you don't want to do it, you shouldnt persistantly change things that were agreed. Everybody here is aware of the naming dispute and the article reflects that. A compromise was reached back while (unfortunately it's not fully respected) that the naming issue should be adressed in a separate text and a link should be provided. Don't be sensationalistic about the link. Everybody here is pretty aware of the facts. The link will surprise nobody. But it's not a "proof" for changing the article. Regards --Realek 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who does not respect the compromise,Realek...When did u say it was reached?a while ago?no...u are wrong. we are working for a compromise, but it seems that u have nothing to say about NikoSilver's edits in the talk page...I guess cause he has provided all the information and citations needed and u cannot support your claims...Be my guest and prove that i am wrong, if u can! --Hectorian 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Well then, if you need something, you can count me. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je si li ti Korisnik:Makedonac? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ne. --LionKing 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! --Aldux 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Despite what it may seem at the dispute, I am not inherently biased towards the Republic of Macedonian side in this dispute. Conversely, I think the Greek point of view, and a quite nationalistic one at that, is making itself heard much more. Your proposal is fair, however I think that in some cases there are some neutral names that can be used universally. Firstly, I think Macedonian Slav could be used in most contexts. I don't see a problem saying "the Macedonian Slav minority in Greek Macedonia" even in a Republic of Macedonia context. Macedonian Slav in itself is not a derogatory term and doesn't imply anything. Greeks who live in Macedonia are, IMO, as Macedonian as Republic of Macedonia nationals. That doesn't, however, cancel out RoM's right to use its own name. I do think, however, that the term Macedonian Greeks is better than Greek Macedonians, particularly since it mirrors "Macedonian Slavs". Finally, my main issue is with the name FYROM. Macedonia is a region in Europe that includes Greece, Bulgaria and the "Republic of Macedonia". This is similar to the Moldova case - Moldova is a historical region that includes Romania, Moldova and parts of Ukraine. The Republic of Moldova uses the name of the region, and it can use that. I think the perception should be the same for Macedonia. It is similar in a way for Ireland too - there is the "Republic of Ireland" and then "Northern Ireland", in the same way that there is "Republic of Macedonia" and "Greek Macedonia" (the name Aegean Macedonia is, IMO, a very poor term to use for the Greek region and does seek to separate the region from its Greek administration). Thanks,

Ronline ✉ 00:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Macedonian Slav is a very neutral term. By looking back at history, it can be seen that both Greeks and Slavs lived in this region historically. Thus, both are as Macedonian as the other, and the disambiguation "Macedonian Slav" can be used when necessary. Just as the Greeks should accept Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonians should accept that "Macedonian Slav" is a more detailed form of their name. Of course, the FYROM name should be mentioned in the first paragraph, and it should be explained in a detailed fashion. Mentioning it at the bottom misses the point (see Transnistria article, and the multiple names mentioned there in the lead section). But I think some Greek users are actually wanting the FYROM name to be used as the primary name in references to the country, and the main name of the article, and that is a Greek POV and not neutral. These disputes are often very "dirty", confusing and take place over long periods of time. The same problem was experienced at Moldovan language, a dispute which just kept going and going.

Ronline ✉ 00:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian language

Please discuss your change on the talk page. Macedonian language is a controversial article. - FrancisTyers 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something personal?

Hi, do you have something personal against me? If I reverted your changes to Macedonian language because I, like many other editors, disagree your persistent reference to "slavomakedonski" in that article, why do you go after me and revert quite unrelated Peć District instead of defending your position? I'm trying to Assume good faith, but it looks like you're just trying to be annoying. If you don't agree with me on some points, it's not a reason to disturb other articles: see WP:POINT. Duja 21:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sou eixa pei

mesw grammatos. To eixa steilei kai stous ypoloipous. Mou apanthse amesws oti tou eixe 3efygei kai oti 8a to ekane sthn epomenh epe3ergasia xwris polles e3hghseis, opws kai egine hdh. Den pairneis ola mou ta grammata? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"here some fyrom nationalism" as you refer to it, what about the greeks?

as i said you cant convince me and i cant convince you, so it has no point to go further on this. one thing i have to say to you is: first, after so many years and you are still denying the macedonian minority in greece??? so everyone is just lying, there is no minority and greece is 99% greek.

second, our friend gligorov was a politician, history should be done by historians, not by politicians. and specially when the RoM was in the transition of independency, when it needed the world the most, so of course he is not going to raise any tensions. --Makedonia 08:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]