User talk:Radosveta Evlog2

Nord Stream gas leaks

Did your account already get deleted? Fephisto (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fephisto What?--Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your user/discussion page was red, and coupled with the rather aggressive edit history, I assumed they attempted to delete or ban your account already. Fephisto (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fephisto Yep. After all this is NATOpedia. What do you expect?--Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, I was expecting it to not be so heavy handed. It's not just you, there are plenty of other editors that the same has happened to them. I've also noticed that those arguing for the narrative pretty much ALWAYS use "No original research" (even when one quotes primary sources in journals) and "synthesis" (whatever that means). It's the standard playbook.

However, on the flip side, I've noticed that those arguing against mainstream narratives almost always:

Try to make 100 edits in a single day on the same topic while constantly getting easily reverted.
Try to wholesale revert the mainstream narrative piece as well.
Fail to ask around for a single second opinion.
Fail to least leave something about their edits on the talk page.

I think a lot is to be said for going slow. Also, I know it seems futile, but at least stuff on the talk pages don't get reverted. As such, they're often a better place for information than the actual article. I find that going on the talk page and at least saying, "That's not OR, that's a primary source," will at the very least force others to revert to screaming "synthesis!" It also takes a lot more effort and anguish to respond on the talk pages, anyways (the alternative is clicking "revert" and banning you with little effort). Finally, and most importantly, the information you wanted to post is actually kept somewhere. Fephisto (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

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 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks, you may be blocked from editing. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IntrepidContributor I understand as a Ukrainian this is an emotional topic for you, reason for which you should not be editing Wikipedia on matters related to this conflict. Even though I know it is your human right it will be very difficult for you to stick to policy on this matter. There was no synthesis in the paragraph which has been deleted. There was just an attempt to misconstrue it as synthesis since no real better valid argument was found. Please see WP:GAME.

Thanks. --Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Radosveta Evlog2. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2022 (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).

Radosveta Evlog2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Have been blocked without warning for political reasons by an admin with a gigantic picture of Ukraine on his user page at the beginning of an ANI. This is actual political persecution on Wikipedia and is actually newsworthy. Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If what you are claiming is true, this is far, far beyond the ability of unblock reviewers to investigate. WP:ARBCOM is your only option here, assuming the open thread on WP:ANI does not resolve in your favour. I will, however, note that the diffs of your comments, raised there, are deeply, deeply concerning. Regardless, WP:ARBCOM is your only path forward if you wish to pursue these claims. Yamla (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2022 (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.