User talk:Serdik

Serdik, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Serdik!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Serdik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 13:11, Monday, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your contribution of creating the Street dogs in Sofia article! ~Euphoria42 21:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Street dogs in Sofia

Hello Serdik,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Street dogs in Sofia for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the articles Street dogs in Moscow, Street dogs in Bucharest and created on e for Sofia, they are the same subject, maybe you should either nominate or not nominate all these.--Serdik (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sofia

The article Sofia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sofia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the List of Bulgaria province name etymologies page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia, images, collages, etc.

Hallo, Serdik! I want to tell you to use Talk page for discussions and opinions, before to make a changes. What are the problems with some your editions:

1. Architectual styles

According to your vision of article, Sofia exist during the Roman Epoch and then does not exist for 1400 years until the Liberation. This gallery is for representing of different architectual styles in Sofia. Roman architecture - yes, it's well shown. But the architecture of Bulgarian Empire and Ottman period is lacking there. Централни хали is not a very good example about post-Liberation architecture. Panel buildings are not a good example, because exist everywhere around the world and they are not a architectual style in this sort of the concept. I think you can read some books about that before to make a changes.

2. Collage

You are free to present your vision in talk page, but PLEASE do not make a changes before consensus there. Thank you in advance!--Stolichanin (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation, I'm going to join the discussion at the talk page of Sofia as soon as I have leisure time. But I'm quite busy right now. Best--Serdik (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Sofia

Hi, again! It's a very interesting adding as whole, but it broke the encyclopedic view of the article, because these are details of another type of content. You are free to create a new article for Sofia's crime, like was made in Crime in London or Crime in the United States. Thank you for your contributions and have a nice day!--Stolichanin (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Take a look at Bucharest. Your deletion is not an improvement.--Serdik (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many bad written articles in Wikipedia. It's not a evening news on TV. We talking about an encyclopedic material. About the collage - I don't see your opinion in Talk page again. I reverting to old collage, not because I'm the author, but it was there before your editing. You are free to create a new collage and to suggest your contributions in talk page. If you want to replace one object with another object or to suggest a new variation of the collage or what it must seems by you, you can share your suggestions on Sofia's talk page or in my talk page. --Stolichanin (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a serious reason what was when. I point you out obvious absurds at your image, there is no collage with 3 churches, or 3 mosques, or 3 malls, or 3 stadiums...if we are going to give examples with other articles. Do you really fail to see this? It is obvious from a third-party. I can't create an article Crime in Sofia with so little information, it is as much as for a section. Create such an article if you can. Regards. --Serdik (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Than we can replace some of these churches to another building or landmark. Any suggestions?--Stolichanin (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't now if it must be a landmark, a view or detail is also possible. Maybe you can shoe all type of buildings the largo or the parliament, nice panoramic view better that that form Tsarigradsko shose. Instead I think of something better from Tsarigradsko to be shown, such as the skycrapers there and Capital Fort. And the statue of Saint Sofia is a fictional image of an actual person that existed, I would be glad if it is removed. --Serdik (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! About the other problem. Maybe we can understanding each other. What are the problems with your addings:

According to the director of Sofia District Police Directorate the largest share of the crimes are thefts - 62.4% of all crimes in the capital city. Increasing are frauds, drug related crimes, petty theft and vandalism. Source? Some internet site. It's not a reliable source.
The street dogs in Sofia are acknowledged as the number one problem of the city by mayor Yordanka Fandakova.[76] Although according to officials Sofia hosts 6600 street dogs currently, unofficially there at least 35,000 street dogs and other figures put the number much higher. Number one problem for Fandakova! The elections are coming! What is the encyclopedic content here? You was created article for this problem. No need to add similar details in leading article.
Stray dogs have become part of urban life in Sofia but after a pack mauled a prominent Bulgarian American to death in 2012, the problem spotted into light, prompting the government to suggest a large-scale euthanasia program for aggressive animals and construction of emergency shelters to remove other strays from the street.[79] The victim was Botyo Tachkov, US professor of the prominent Columbia University and some German universities... It's not a criminal chronical, no evening news, no Нощен труд's first page. When you opened an encyclopedy, you don't see the breaking news. This article is about Sofia - her culture, administration, sport, etc. not about who killed who, who was eaten by dog, or something similar.

I hpoe it will be useful!--Stolichanin (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC) See WP:NEWSORG, news sources are permitted. the sources are primarily the people, secondly the publishers. The mayor of Sofia says this is the number one problem of the city, do you think she is not a reliable source? You don't provide me shortcuts to any rules, I'd advise you to read WP:RS and figure out what is a reliable source. There is no such a rule for which we have to remove the crime section. It is data from an official source by the Ministry. --Serdik (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Sofia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
Please, provide more patience and stop undoing whole bunches of changes instead of issue by issue!! ZH8000 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User Talk:ZH8000 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. As already said before, provide a "bit" more patience!! I was writing an answer, while you were already tagging me!! ZH8000 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly warning of edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sofia. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. samtar ^(msg) 13:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got it, thank you--Serdik (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - thank you for being civil. These things happen, and I'm sure it can now be sorted out :) Cheers, and happy editing. samtar ^(msg) 14:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sofia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Nevsky Cathedral. 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) 09:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collage of Sofia

It's not bad as well! But I think your collage is too modern. Maybe some historical building from Roman epoch will be a good addition. Sofia is important center in the Roman Empire and even your username is Serdik :). For example - Saint Sofia Church or the Amphitheatre of Serdica, which is considered as one of the greatest in Roman Empire during the Antiquity or even the fortress of Serdica.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And one small correction. Nezavisimost Square is located on Largo between Presidency and the former Party's House. In the collage is shown the National Assembly Square. I correct it.--Stolichanin (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please help with modifying the collage if you have any suggestions. Add whatever you'd like. The article is not mine or your own. Do you have any photos of the amphitheatre, other than those in Commons? No details, outlining a building or a structure can be seen at them, just a few pylons. I have the ability to pick up stupid nicknames, I am personally not a fan of Serdika, the Romans or something similar, but the database do not permit me much choice, so I realised that only strange names are available to pick. :D Regards.--Serdik (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you replace this picture of Vitosha with another of the same mountain, because seems too darkness and not very beautiful?--85.118.69.17 (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what language is this? Scottish dialect I guess? I've never heard it. Sorry, I can't understand you.--Serdik (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh! Any problem? Typical Eastern European racist.--85.118.69.17 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, take it easy, I don't allege you with adjectives, whatever your request is, post it at Sofia's talk page. I understand that you say the image is dark or darkness, or whatever, but I wonder why. The sky is blue?! Weird statement of yours. I don't understand such an unargumented contradiction. And there are not many uploaded pictures of Vitosha here, if you can find better - upload it. Even if not beautiful, the mountain seems high, none European capital has such a high mountain.--Serdik (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Few suggestions for the collage:

The amphitheatre. This image was using by me in one previous version of the mosaic.
Serdica fortres under the Nezavisimost Square. Good photo as well.
Saint Sofia Church, depicted by myself :)
And something interesting: Lion's Bridge after the reconstruction

--Stolichanin (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice photos. What I think is that the structure of the amphiteatre of Serdica is unfortunately not well preserved, the pylons and the bricks seem brand new, it is located in some sort of hotel or a building, what is so historical at such an image? The Fort of Serdica, although renovated does not have an image of a complete or preserved semi-structure. The only preserved antique buildings in Sofia in their whole structure are the Saint Sofia and Saint George of Rolanda Church, as far as I remember. Lion's Bridge, along with Eagle's Bridge have been the best bridges in Sofia so far, choose preferably the better photo. Do you think that these images should replace others(which?) or you think to use them as additions? --Serdik (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Май не се разбираме добре на английски, затова давам на български. Прави каквото си искаш, слагай каквито си поискаш изображения, дори вместо НДК да сложиш снимката на някой квартален клозет, все ми е тая! Гледам, че по време на моето отсътствие сте натрупали гигантски количества спам в беседата по тема, която дори не би трябвало да има място в тази статия. Защото това е енциклопедичен материал и всякакви вестникарски писаници за мутри, улични кучета, чалга певици и др. такива не би следвало да се споменават там. Освен това не е и естетическо. Ако погледнеш статиите за Лондон (откъдето дори имам житейски опит от 5 месеца! Очевидно не си излизал много от България. Поживей в покрайнините на East London и ще се убедиш колко спокойно и очарователно местенце е София!) или Рим, ще видиш, че въпреки, че в тези градове има сериозна престъпност това не се споменава никъде. И то не защото някой го прикрива или го е срам, а защото не му е мястото там. Пък и не е естетично: аз лично не мисля, че в една статия, в която се говори за Народния театър, Гена Димитрова или Боянската църква трябва да виси и информация за мутри или всякакви извращения на прехода, които са феномен тип "от ден до пладне" и с нищо не говорят за истинския образ на София. Но пък вече ти си РедакторЪТ (с главно "Р" и главно "ЪТ" дори) там, така че прави каквото си поискаш, без консенсус, без обсъждане - все пак ти си Велик и Непогрешим, а ние, другите редактори сме шайка идиоти с много свободно време и винаги бъркаме. Ако искаш замени Гена Димитрова със Сашка Васева, или снимката на Народния театър с фото от концерт на Планета или от някой мутренски разстрел, все ми е тая. Все пак това си е ТВОЯТА визия за София. Вярно, малко чалгаджийска, ама визия. Аз просто се опитах да направя нещо хубаво, но както казва поговорката "Направи добро, изяш ла*но!". Помагам ти с изображения, защото ме помоли по-горе. Иначе напускам статията и вече въобще не искам да имам нещо общо с тази страница! Дори отвращението си има някакви граници. И без това имам да редактирам доста страници в българската уикипедия за Древна Гърция, Ирландия, Индонезия и за някои животински видове и да се занимавам и с триенето на тези глупости в Англо- Уикито вече ми идва в повече. Така, че Enjoy!--Stolichanin (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Да не си автора на новата песен за София, че е най хубавият град? Ти си живееш в някакво минало, не гледаш в бъдещето, и да не е София като Лондон, ще стане. За София и Лондон най-вероятно ще има да пишеме за нови престъпления, терористични актове отдавна се плануват, в Лондон се промениха народите, а и в София също. Аз ти казах да си редактираш каквото искаш. Спрямо желанието да се заяждаш, ти си си трола дето ми вика расист и т.н. Ако искаш се заяждяй, ако искаш редактирай, много си пък важен да ме занимаваш кое Уики ще редактираш вместо да се придържаш към прадмета на разговор. Ако не можеш да комуникираш цивилизовано иди и в северно корейското Уики, нали си пътевал извън Бг и знаеш езици. Може и да си живял в Лондон, не казвам че не си, но това че пишеш с такива грешки, заедно с другия трол по-горе, е чиста преструвка, нали? Невъзможно е иначе. Бас държа, че ще гласуваш за Фъндъкова. --Serdik (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

А бе, като гледам, май ти живееш в миналото и по-точно в 1990-те години. Още малко ще запееш "Радка пиратка", пък може и да съчиниш ода я за Карамански, я за СИК и като нищо да я публикуваш в статията... Лошото е само, че таквиз люде като твоя милост вандализират страниците на този проект, който претендира да е енциклопедия, но губи репутацията си и то именно заради люде като твоя милост.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

А като говорим за езици и граматика, то: "Най-хубавият" - пише се с тире, не "пишеме", а пишем и не съм "пътевал", а пътувал. Макар, че "пътевал" звучи много яко - като мексикански вулкан. И "прадмета" е забележителна дума. Ех, Брезински! Никога не съм те наричал расист, но който ти го е казал, очевидно не е сбъркал.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Тука не си прав, нищо освен английски не е толкова правилно тука. Започна да пишеш на български, за да ми отправяш лични нападки от три различни страни, а Стоичков? Реших и аз малко да се понаправя, както ти се понаправяш с английския. Не съм казал, че те поправям или критикувам, даже го одобрявам и ми звучи много яко как се правите на неграмотни(а не сте) по същия начин заедно с другия по-горе. Не че имам против имиграцията към София, почти всички са по-малко или повече части от нея, но "таквиз" със сигурност идва от далечен диалект на софийския, както и другите ти езикови забележки, столичанин. Иначе, тия гласове никой не ги брои или всички гласуваха за един и същи?--Serdik (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ич се не праим! Я съм си неграмотен отсекъде. А па ти де си видел шоп да не е заядлица? Я ако не сплетам по некой или не оратим по важни въпроси, оно ми се губи целата шопска принадлежнус! Затва драскам тъдева.--Stolichanin (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion: why don't you both keep arguing and here in Bulgarian between each other, and accusing each other of things, and leave Sofia alone with your (opposite) partisan views? LjL (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Ljl! I leave this article.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SO YOU SAID THAT YOU LEAVE THE ARTICLE, BUT INSTEAD YOU RETURN TOGETHER WITH YOUR ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT TO PUSH THE IMAGE YOU UPLOADED ?!? I HAVE ANOTHER SUGGESTION - EITHER LEAVE THE ARTICLE OR EDIT WITH A SINGLE ACCOUNT, PLEASE. --Serdik (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Please use a proper translator. I haven't accused him of anything. He posted his trolling in Bulgarian, not me. --Serdik (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care who accused whom of what, just that the article namespace is spared from biased and partisan stances (and unreasonable sourcing requests). Both of you exhibited some of those. LjL (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sourcing requests for this article.--14:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean your absurd insistence on having a user send a paper copy of a book to verify their source, nevermind your long rant on an RfC section where it didn't belong. LjL (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Serdik. I created a new mosaic, which you can see in Sofia's talk page. И само за информация - нямам навика да си създавам фалшиви профили, за да си тикам мозайките в някоя статийка. И не съм гласувал за този, дето казваш. Още от началото ти предложих снимки и даже ти ми каза по-горе "Please help with modifying the collage if you have any suggestions. Add whatever you'd like. The article is not mine or your own.". Старият колаж с църквите седеше на статията много дълго време, докато не се появи ти. Аз взех под внимание твоите приноси, дори ти помогнах с оформянето на инфобокса (беше объркал Народното събрание с площад "Независимост") и се съобразих с ТВОЕТО желание да намаля броя на църквите. Сега направих един нов колаж и не съм го хакнал директно на първа страница (както нерядко правите ти и другия редактор, дето казваш, че съм аз), а го пуснах в беседата (колко съм добър!) и дори съм включил твоя фотография (колко съм добър!). Иначе предложението за новата визия беше предложено от друг редактор (който пак не съм аз зад друг профил). И както викат братята англосаксонци: Enjoy!--Stolichanin (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again! I follow your advices and I create a new collage with Vitosha and Largo. I add it in the article. You are free to remove this, if you don't like and I will add it in the talk page for other discussions. Thank you and sorry for any bad things I tell you above!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have only advised you to edit the image through the template I created, so any user else can edit it, not only you. As you are the author of your newest collage, anybody can hardly attempt to upload corrected versions at it. I haven't advised you to include any image, I just wrote that you need to explain why some of the symbolic photos should be replaced.

Two of the images of your new collage seem out of place. The image of Borisova Gradina do not resemble any place or structure, looks confusing to me and doesn't lead to any conclusion that this is park or monument, or something else. The grand image of Viotsha is noticable, it takes a lot of space, however it almost doesn't depict the city panoramicaly, but a mountain and a vegetation in the bottom, so that it looks like the photo is of something outside any city, compare with the mountain from the collage of LA if you want where buildings are visible behind the mountain. The previous panoramic image of Vitosha is better, because it is shorter, of wider and panoramic view and is taken during winter time.--Serdik (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Приятелю, моля те, създай един колаж с MS Paint, включи в него нещо антично (Св. София, Ротондата Св. Георги, римските руини в подлеза на Ларгото или нещо друго), нещо неокласическо (тип царска България отпреди 1944 - Народния театър, БАН, Банята...(препоръчвам ти Народния, защото е най-известната забележителност и съчетава повече мотиви)), нещичко зелено (примерно Борисовата градина, защото е най-голяма), нещо от соцреализма (НДК е най-добрия пример, може и Ларгото), нещо неовизантийско (Александър Невски, църквата Св. Неделя) и нещо по твой избор, раздели снимките с едни бели линийки (както аз направих и както са повечето добри колажи в Уикипедия), за да не се смесват и губят изображенията. И дай нещо в по-топли цветове, стига с тоя бетон и сивота! После го сложи в инфобокса и да се свършва цялата тази безмислена дискусия, че ставаме смешни! И престани с тези конспирации, че става тъпо! Доскоро!--Stolichanin (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, dear Stolichanin, edit the template(a practice in Wikipedia to easen the editors) and speak English. Uploading a new, thereafter probably again uplaoding a new paint collage and then again a new would be senseless. I created the editable template to make it easier and quicker for everybody to edit it, Stolichanin. Paint is a bit slower and annoying for everybody. Unfortunately, there are only two images of Vitosha and Sofia and the greener picture does not depict the city's panorama, but some city's trees panorama. Saint Sofia Church and BAN are already included in the image if you have a look. The picture of Borisova gradina looks like a regular home garden, I personally don't like it. It's far different from the image of Central Park with the skycrapers, if there was a good image of the garden it would not have been objectionable, but there is not. What else is needed when we have already depicted all symbols of Sofia at this collage? The theatre especially is not symbolic, it may be included but this would be either at the expense of a symbol or at an overwrought of the collage. Most of Sofia, as all Eastern European capitals, are grey concretal blocks if you haven't realized it yet. --Serdik (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

А бе, мисля си, че ми го правиш напук, ама хайде!--Stolichanin (talk)

Тhink of something more realistic. If so would I remove your image from all other Wikipedias? How old are you if it's not a secret?--Serdik (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were just asked by this talk page's owner to speak English, and this is the English Wikipedia; please speak English. LjL (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content from Sofia

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sofia, 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.

As I have already explained to you, offline sources are fine to use on Wikipedia, and per WP:SOURCEACCESS, you must not reject a published source merely because you have to pay to access it. Please do not revert again without a valid reason to reject the source, and preferrably, not at all without prior discussion. As I already mentioned, your insistence that the editor who originally provided the citation send you a printed copy of the book is ridiculous and given your attitude on the talk page, I am very nearly running out of good faith towards you.

LjL (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. I don't want t argue whether 4 is 2+2 or 3+1 for such a minor thing. Regards.--Serdik (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sofia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BSP. 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) 10:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sock"

If you're going to openly accuse User:Green skokljo of being a sockpuppet of (I assume) User:Stolichanin, you'd better start a sockpuppet investigation and provide evidence; otherwise, it can be seen as just a personal attack, which should be avoided.

You should all calm down with the Sofia wars, Wikipedia is not a battlefield but Stolichaning, this other editor and you are basically treating it as one.

From what I can see, it's unlikely that the two users are the same editor, given they've actually talked (in Bulgarian) to each other. LjL (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the grammar, the points "angry user" "in talk page", "the mall is not a landmark" and much more. I am 100% certain that Stolichanin is the sockmaster of the IP and the Green skokljo account. How to deal when a user manages three accounts to deceive editors at one article? I'd help reverting these socks.--Serdik (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal? Easy: file a sockpuppet investigation, as previously suggested. That's how you're meant to handle evidence of sockpuppetry (WP:DUCK counts as evidence). LjL (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got it, thank you for the instructions. This account is currently blocked which I appreciate. If this or another account continues to deceive when the block expire I will file this, but for now my time does not permit. Regards. --Serdik (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade names in history

...are located at History of Belgrade. Do not add the box to Belgrade. Thank you.--Zoupan 19:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think Singidun should be moved to the article you are talking about?--Serdik (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

What exactly you mean with that "sock-puppetry"? I explained my registration on Sofia's talk page. My IP is 151.237.102.118, but I make a registration with the name: Vargala, like everybody can see. It's not sock-puppetry according to that text Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.--Vargala (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia

What do you have against me, my friend? Maybe I made any mistakes in the past but they were in the past. I support your idea of collage (and I have some new ideas about this). According to what I read on Sofia's talk archieve, you add this template because you want "everyone to be free to edit the puzzle." I see the page history, but I can't understand your principle "my collage or no collage." It's against your old idea above and seems not very nice. Sofia is not your page. Everyone in Wikipedia is free to edit. No censorship, please! Good luck and regards!--Vargala (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

A word of advice: they say CheckUser is not for fishing, and in general, I think you shouldn't open too many and too broad SPIs on scant evidence. I remember in the last one you opened, you assumed someone was a Sumatro sock after they made just one inconspicuous edit that simply added information about a museum (which seemed fine). Now you opened one with a large number of IPs... why don't you just ask for semi-protection? That is what's usually done when IP hoppers are disrupting a page, not an SPI for them all. LjL (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason were the two user accounts mentioned at the bottom of the request. The IPs were mentioned in order to reveal their similar edits to these of the accounts. I probably didn't structure/explain it well. Do you think I should cancel it? Serdik (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an account insisting for images uploaded by a confirmed sock user of Sumatro, see the bottom.Serdik (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know, but you're aware that CheckUsers never really reveal whether IPs correspond to an account, right? (although I'm not sure you asked for CU on this one) Last time I did anything like suggesting I wanted CU on an IP - even though I didn't really - I was trout-slapped by an admin. Perhaps trim the SPI down to the users you're more sure about (provide diffs!)? LjL (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you put Nicksss93 in there again? Didn't you see that he was clearly determined to be unrelated to Sumatro? If you just keep accusing the same person of sockpuppetry again after they are shown not to be sockpuppets, you will just risk it to backfire badly. By the way, I even liked Nicksss93's mosaic... LjL (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The master is a very old account, so it is not suprising that any of these accounts are unrelated to it. I also like the mosaic but the edits of the guy with the mosaic appear to be the same articles, that the IP trolls of Stolichanin listed at the case, edit. Please check, if you think that I am totally wrong I will cancel the request as there is still not any disruptive(at least) activity to investigate sockpuppetry, so that there wont be offended people. I filed the investigation only because of curiosity. Serdik (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity is not really a good reason to file an SPI... you need to keep in mind that frivolous SPIs are generally considered personal attacks. I don't want to scare you and tell you what to do, but at the same time, I think you really are obviously mistaken about Nicksss93 (I don't know/care much about the others) and admins won't like two SPIs filed about him two days in a row. LjL (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]