User talk:Makedonovlah

Makedono-Vlachs

Do you have a source saying that today, in English, Aromanians are called Makedono-Vlachs? Not a book published in 1813 in other languages. — AdiJapan 07:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. — AdiJapan 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CUcuta.NeaPaidagogia.jpg

I have fixed the image description for you. Please do not declare images like that as "your own work", because obviously it isn't. Please be so kind and also add the immediate source you got this from, i.e. the web page or the book you scanned it from. (The ultimate "source" is, of course, the 1797 book itself, and that's okay because it means it's in the public domain now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

In addition to the above, please also be aware that postings like this [2] to User talk:MacedonianBoy are quite unacceptable here on Wikipedia. This is not the place for cheap national polemics and personal attacks. We are all here to collaborate politely and constructively with each other, and if you are not willing to do this, this is not the place for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megleno-Romanians

You may want to take a look at this and give your input: User_talk:MacedonianBoy#Megleno-Romanians. But be cool, you saw the warning above ;-)--Codrin.B (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in contentious area

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. It bears restating that this notice does not imply that you are doing anything wrong as yet; its just that you have been working in a part of Wikipedia where your editing is going to attract extra scrutiny. Please be sure that you remain civil and your edits abide by the core Wikipedia principles of neutrality and verifiability and that, when challenged, you engage in discussion rather than resorting to unproductive back-and-forth reverting, known on wikipedia as an edit war. Again, you are not being accused of anything, merely being notified of the special scrutiny placed on an area where you are working. --Jayron32 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Bună! I've been working to set up the WikiProject Dacia to organize better the articles about Dacia and improve their quality. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Maybe you find it interesting and wish to join. Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tabercil (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you.

May 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Aromanians, you may be blocked from editing. Constantine ✍ 17:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page maliciously, as you did at Romanians. Constantine ✍ 17:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tabercil (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The punishment has expired

Decline reason:

No it hasn't. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block has been set to expire: 17:58, 2 June 2014 - ??

Decline reason:

Yes, and? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:20, 2 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please, can you give me the right to edit again? I do not contest the punishment but it has expired. Thank's a lot!

Decline reason:

As of this writing there are, I think, eight minutes left. You really can't wait that length of time? This display of impatience does little to encourage any belief that you won't be right back here again fairly soon. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2014 (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.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gheorghe Hagi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Gheorghe Hagi''' ({{IPA-ro|ˈɡe̯orɡe ˈhad͡ʒi|-|Ro-Gheorghe Hagi.ogg}} was born on 5 February 1965 in [[Săcele,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cristian Gațu. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gheorghe Hagi 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. 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mina Minovici. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dreadstar ☥ 00:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeta Samara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aromanian (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) 08:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians

Hi Makedonovlach. I don't want to give you any more warnings. It wouldn't make a big difference anyway. I think you got most of them. But please stop edit-warring at Aromanians. You don't have consensus for your edits. If you continue this way, in the end you will be blocked for disruption. If that's really what you want, that's fine. Please continue doing what you have been doing so far. But if you don't want to get blocked again, it is imperative that you stop reverting at that article. Finally, please no more personal comments about Kostas Plakidas. Kostas is a great editor. He is also definitely Greek, but the ethnicity of editors doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Here we do not edit by ethnicity but by reliable sources. So no more of this nonsense please. Good luck. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a beer Makedonovlah

. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello. In my homecountry i can drink a beer whenever i want. But if this beer comes from a greek brother, well, i am happy. :)

About Mister Plakidas, i dont know what to say. We must respect him and his work. But the changes made at the aromanians article are false.

Look what we encounter with: the bulgarians invented the new macedonian ethnicity. The romanians invented dialects in Greece, you know, that place where the mathematics came from.

And Mister ABC pretend to be a greek when he state the aromanians are a part of the romanian people. Every greek, macedonian or attican can't accept this. So i dont believe him. But doesn't matter. The aromanian article belongs to us and we must take care of it. Is a part of the history of Greece (Macedonia). Kind regards! (Makedonovlah (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Makedonovlah, I am sorry I could not persuade you to stop your edits which have no consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

Makedonovlah[edit] What a scum this user, he also posted a Hungarian source. Simply a vandal, trying to modify the origin of the Aromanians not to be confuse at all with the Romanians. Only with Latinized people from this area. He did this before editing the page of Simona Halep, Hagi, Iorga, etc. Thanks for your help. Tenneesfan (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The odd thing is, he is probably not even Greek, judging from his atrocious use of the language (I've come across plenty loons of the Greek far-right who cannot spell properly and avoid large and complicated words, but they certainly can spell the word "Greek" correctly), so I cannot figure out why he persists in this agenda. Anyhow, the remedy for persistent edit-warring and POV-pushing is known, tried and tested. Constantine ✍ 09:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why so??[edit] Hello Mister Plakidas. First of all congratulations for your important wiki-contributions. Mister Dr.K. told us you have a truly greek ancestry. But sorry, when i read the words above (accepted by you) i have many doubts. As i said many times, the aromanian article belongs to all greeks, macedonians or atticans because we have a common history. If you take care the GREEKS article i can't understand why don't care with the same "angry" the elino-vlachs article. Moreover, i can't understand why you accept the term aromanian for those with whom the greek state was made. We all know what means a team. The bulgarians invented a new macedonian ethnicity. The romanians invented a new dialect in Greece (Macedonia) and you, as a greek, as you claim, accept these teories? Against whom? Against the benefactors of Greece (Macedonia)?

I can't believe it. Anyway i send you Good Luck! (Makedonovlah (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC))

Against my better judgement, I will reply, and will be frank: First, in my book, judging people by their ancestry/nationality is the quickest way for your opinion to become utterly irrelevant, so if you want my attention, if you want me to even consider what you claim, you need to stop this. That is even more the case when you yourself have obviously no capacity of expressing yourself correctly in Greek and are obviously in no position to judge or comment on the Greekness of anyone. Second, you need to realize that what you believe in terms of ethnic origins is not necessarily the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, simply because you believe it. Historical sources on the origins of the Aromanians are quite clear, and they are not "Ellino-Latins", but Latinized Balkan populations, just like the putative ancestors of the modern Romanians. Certainly the bulk of the Aromanian population has identified itself as Greek and made common cause with Greek nationalism in the last few centuries, but that is a different thing. Third, instead of trading accusations, indignation etc in poor English, if you want to do your cause a favour, what you need to do is get down to work finding and quoting reliable, third-party sources that support your view. So far the couple of instances you tried to do this were underwhelming, and supported rather the opposite. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Makedonovlah reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Aromanians and illogical moves of articles

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Aromanians. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

The full report of this case is at the edit warring noticeboard (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aromanians. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Makedonovlah reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion leading to this is at [3]. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The same mistake receives punishment three times? Nobody read the source given? At The "Aromanians" talk page the user asked consensus. Nobody read the explanations. Blocking is not the best way to solve the edit conflicts.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (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.

That's not why you were blocked. You can read the AN3 report and see why. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Ok. I understood why i was blocked and please accept my apologies. I promise i wont make an edit before obtaing consensus at the "Aromanians" talk page. I will wait one week for each proposal for the "Aromanians" article coming from me. Please consider this. I will respect my promise. Thank you!

Decline reason:

You've been blocked four times since May 31. Anyone who would rely on any assurances about your future behavior would be an optimist. Your goals seem to be incompatible with those of Wikipedia. Consider trying to publish your ideas elsewhere, since you are unlikely to get support here for a clearly non-mainstream idea to which you are fiercely devoted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understood why i was blocked and please accept my apologies. I promise i wont make an edit before obtaing consensus at the "Aromanians" talk page. Please consider this. I will respect my promise. I respect the wiki-project and the admins and also the contributors. But at this aritcle there are some who plays with our name. It doesnt matter the ethinicity but if they show such an angry, hurrying getting me blocked for indefinite time, there is a problem. I repeat with all my respect, i gave sources for many edits but all of them arent even read it and quickly deleted. Such an attitude cant be nothing else then political hate. Please understand i made edits only at the articles belonging to my people. Thank you!

Decline reason:

Please find another venue to push your ideas. Given that you've been blocked four times for the same thing in such a short period of time indicates that Wikipedia is not for you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:14, 16 July 2014 (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.