User talk:The TV Boy/Archive

This is an archive of past discussions with The TV Boy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive

All Pages:

... (up to 100)

Speedy request

Hi TV Boy. I declined to delete the page you requested, User talk:The TV Boy/forgotten license tags citing WP:CSD#U1, as it contains talk page history. If you'd like, I can merge that history back into your normal talk page (eliminating the sub page). Jujutacular ^talk 17:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will be fine.--The TV Boy (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jujutacular ^talk 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries of non-free images

Per WP:NFG, the use of non-free images in a table or gallery is not supported. As a result, I've removed the gallery at Investigation Discovery. This has the effect of "orphaning" File:Discovery Civilization 1996.png, File:Discovery Times 2002.png, and File:Discovery Times 2006.png making them subject to deletion. Please do not re-add a non-free gallery to this or any other article. If you have questions, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try fixing them, if there is something mistaken, please tell me.--The TV Boy (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put them on a Thumb, but maybe I should get rid of it ?--The TV Boy (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them again. The technical prohibition of using non-free content in a gallery stems from WP:NFCC #8 significance and #1, replaceability. Whether the images are in a gallery or not, the same principles apply. They're not any more acceptable because they're sprinkled throughout the article than they are in a gallery. They're just not significant to a reader's understanding of the subject. Now, if a given logo received coverage from secondary sources, then it might be appropriate to include that particular logo. Otherwise, the logos are decorative fair use and fail WP:NFCC. If you dispute this, rather than restoring the images please place an inquiry at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. but what about Science Channel. From what you've told me things there are much worse because the logos there are much more and whit a decorative use?--The TV Boy (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to go by policy and guideline, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well I am a hard learner and just learning from the examples, anyway I will look for some good sources and try fixing things up in the next days.--The TV Boy (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

You seriously think that adding citation needed tags and improving the grammar and sense of those articles is vandalism? Would you mind explaining how, because I can't understand. I can see that you might think that my edits weren't improvements, but vandalism? why? Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see youre new here, so let me explane. Template:Citation needed is posted only after one uncertain sentence, which may contain sort of advertising or that kind of thing. If the hole article is that way, it is recommend using the Template:Unreferenced. If the Template:Citation needed is just sprinkled throughout the article after every single sentense, then this may be identifid as vandalisum. Not every article must contain referencies on 100%. They are posted to explain statements that can not be true in other way, to give odd information on the article, or to simply explain the subject on the article. On TV articles, referencies can only be posted to explain the new owner of a station, for example, to give information about the true viewrership, the programe and that sort of things. Other referencies just can't be given. More information can be found on Wikipedia:Citing sources. You can't globaly add unreferenced templates to articles that do not have referencies, just because they don't have them. The article subject is very important in that way. If you need help, just ask.--The TV Boy (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. I didn't understand that. I'll read up on it. I certainly didn't mean to vandalise. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I am happy to help. Wikipedia is allways open for new users and articles. Happy editing and best of luck!--The TV Boy (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations at Commons

Hi, please don't nominate files for speedy deletion if they are clearly too simple to be eligible for copyright, like here - Jcb (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MM

Hi, I saw that you've removed all references in the article MM (television). I have checked them all, and they're still active. I think it's much better for the article to have them in, no matter if they're old or new. Afterall, the article is for a TV that is not existing anymore so there couldn't be any new references about it... --Keranov (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had removed them because the television is closed, and no new info can be given, but I don't mind them, thought.--The TV Boy (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV7

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. John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Wed 12:15, wikitime= 11:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reporting me? I've tried to explain to the dynamic IP editors that this information is not approprite for the article on the English Wiki, where there is only general info about the channel. This information is about a case that even I didn't know it existed and even though it had referencies it has no encyclopedic value. The dynamic IP's come from Bulgaria, so I've asked them to put the information on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. They just keep reverting my edits and say that they are harmed by TV7 and whant everybody in the world to see this. This is a very small thing just trying to give an international bad image to the channel. It violates Wikipedia core values of neutrality.--The TV Boy (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PFC CSKA-Sofia - PFC Litex Lovech

Litex Lovech was renamed to CSKA-Sofia and moved from Lovech to Sofia. I added enouth sources to confirm. All the media here are talking about CSKA Sofia and CSKA-Sofia, but still CSKA fanboys can't understand the reality. Please, return the Litex Lovech page to CSKA-Sofia page. -Chris Calvin (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Litex Lovech is still a separate entity from CSKA-Sofia, and the article becomes too complicated anyway, so Litex has to have a seperate historical article, as shown in bulgarian Wikipedia. For now, there has to be one CSKA article, if there are two different clubs with this name, then you can split them, but for now, this is how it has to look like.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 10:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

И по добре на български да го напиша - Литекс Ловеч е исторически отбор, за ЦСКА София трябва да се напише отделна статия АКО през юли-август се окаже, че в различни дивизии играят два различни отбори с името ЦСКА. До тогава трябва да има само една статия за ЦСКА. Така че моля - изчакайте до тогава. В БГ Уикипедия е постигнат този вариант.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 10:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

От БФС официално обявиха, че ЦСКА-София наследява титлите и историята на Литекс, защото отбора се преименува и мести в София, а не се създава нов клуб. Не знам, явно този казус тук няма как да се оправи скоро. Съгласявам се с това и няма да правя или местя статия за ЦСКА. Все пак, освен ако ЦСКА-София не изкупи ЦСКА София, не виждам как може да използваме статията на ЦСКА София за новият "проект" с тирето. -Chris Calvin (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Съгласих се, при положение че ЦСКА София ще бъде воден от Тодор Янчев, не можем да говорим за един отбор. -Chris Calvin (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Статиите са за търговски марки, а не за юридически лица, в този ред на мисли Литекс е съвсем различна марка от ЦСКА-София, та като почне първенството и окаже ли се че има две ЦСКА-та - едното оригиналното а другото - преструкторираното от Литекс, тогава вече трябва да се пише съвсем нова статия за този отбор, а тази за Литекс да си остане историческа за отбора от Ловеч. А инфромации от медии-боксови круши за единия и другия лагер са ненадеждни, така че както казах трябва да се изчака да почне първенството, за да се види окончателно кое къде и как ще е.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Статията беше защитена поради редакторска война... Чудесно!--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at First Professional Football League (Bulgaria), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Giant Snowman 19:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to First Professional Football League (Bulgaria). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 06:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What sources do you want for tables and for information regarding history from prior 1980? This is information composed from various sources, most of which can't be found online.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 18:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at First Professional Football League (Bulgaria). Qed237 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was really hoping that at least in Wikipedia people would not respond to me as automated robots...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 22:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First League

Колега, здравей. Само да кажа, че ти отговорих на моята страница. Просто реших да те осведомя, защото все още не разбирам как работят точно тези User talk страници и дали ти ще получиш някакво известие (примерно), за това, че съм ти отговорил на моята. :D Благодаря! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilian.vasilev95 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An official warning

I noticed you are trying to remove my protection request. You have no right to do such thing and if you do it once more I will immediately report your actions to an administrator.--Ivo (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are requesting the same thing, for God's sake! Don't you know English?--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 14:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining me how is deleting and preserving those files is the same thing? The sequence of events is as follows:

There is a month-long content dispute between you and me.
A consensus could not be reached, resulting in constant edit wars during which you deleted a sourced content(UEFA) on numerous occasions.
You requested a deletion of files which I uploaded specifically for explanation and clarification of my viewpoint and which are in accordance with Wiki's rules.
The page became protected until 24th September after you requested it and removed the files from the page just minutes before an administrator restricted the access to it.
You are implying that the protection of the page restricts any future edits and thus the files used from older versions of the page are no longer relevant and that is why they should be deleted.
I totally disagree with 5. and in my opinion the files should remain on Wiki because they can't be considered irrelevant until there is resolution on the content dispute and after that they are likely, at least in my opinion, to be part of the page.--Ivo (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced contend has relevance, only if it is not overpowered by other sources, which it is. It this case the chest, the colors, the emblem, the stadium, the trade mark, and the managerial history of the two entities is the same - which means it is the same club, just pre-registered legally. Your sourced content has no value in this situation whatsoever. I don't requested the deletion of the files - I just putted tags that the files are not used in any article, which according to the policy must be deleted after 7 days. I explained the policy to you several times, but you just kept pretending and kept deleting the tags anyway, breaking the policy. The admins just follow the policy. I just marked the files according to it. It doesn't matter what you agree on and what you don't - you are just breaking the policy, thus vandalizing. I just notice the admins about the problem, thats all. and you continue to sockpuppet via Vivacom IP addresses, which will also be used to notice the admins in further discussions.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You've been acting as if Wikipedia is your own site and you have the right to use is as a (black) PR tool. I'm sick of your disrespectful behaviour, your endless threats and ultimatums and pathetic accusation. You've been calling me names ever since the discussion about CSKA and CSKA-Sofia started. It's ridiculous how you are accusing me of you own sins. You've already reported me and the answer you got is that there is nothing more than a content dispute, so feel invited to do it again. In regards to the alleged sock puppetry, even though I'm a tolerant and open-minded person I'll no longer stand that. I think 24 hours is enough time for you to decide whether to apologise on my talk page or report me of something you know very well I've never done. There is definitely at least one thing worse than sockpuppeting and it's trying to frame another user. Take your time because after 24 hours I'll be the one reporting you and asking the admins to investigate your claims. --Ivo (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BG89, you've been warned many times that your actions are inappropriate. Trying to pretend and invert the case doesn't make you right, or make you "the good guy". I'm accusing you because even thought I made several attempts to clear the topic by providing explanations, you continued to edit war and to push forward your false claims. If you were open-minded person, you wouldn't have edit war and push your opinion so aggressively. My opinion is based on your actions, so far they have been only highly aggressive pushing of your point of view. There is indirect evidence that you edit-war anonymously thought your mobile phone, which has a dynamic Vivacom IP address, to support your claims, see WP:DUCK. The direct evidence would come from a Wikipedia:CheckUser, or from an administrators derision. You may do as you like, no one is stopping you. I am forced to report you for your actions, because you made no change to them after the numerous page protections and warnings on your talk page.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been warned by an administrator when I edited a page after the protection expired. All other warnings concerning the dispute were issued by you and most of them sound like a threat. You are acting as my superior and went as far as making personal remarks. You were asked to stop by other user (Laveol) but you didn't. There are no good and bad guys here. There is a content dispute which is unlikely to be resolved because you are highly uncooperative and your approach is extremely disrespectful. Oh, the only mobile phone I own is subscribed to Mtel (facepalm). Anyway, I'm absolutely serious that I'll refer your accusation to the administrators if you don't apologise. --Ivo (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BG89, threatening me like that would not "erase" your aggressive editing, nor would make any difference. I happend to be the only one around to remove your controversial edits. Unfortunately, that didn't slow you down, it made you even more aggressive, which forced me to take other actions. You are entering an edit war with controversial edits, I told you why they can't be there, but you simply wouldn't listen because of reasons now known. You may accuse me with whatever you want, there are facts that are recorded. There is just no way these IP's just pop in the exact same time as you do. Anyway, I am not an administrator, only they can determine if you edit like that or not. As I said, indirect evidence shows that it was you, it just matches.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about PFC Litex Lovech and the disputed inline template

Don't remove the template which there because the sources you used don't support your statements and actually contradict them. One can read that Litex was renamed PFC CSKA-Sofia but CSKA wasn't included in the deal and the new club will be successor of Litex and won't be related to CSKA. You are claiming exactly the contrary. Not to mention the self-citing source which you want to add.--Ivo (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to you on the talk page of the article, you just won't listen. I won't scramble my keyboard to type the same stuff over and over again everyware...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FC CSKA 1948 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. clpo13_(talk) 20:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clpo13, as you can see on the history page I am reverting a text user re-enters that is highly not neutral and offensive, to the previous stable version. I already started discussion on Talk:FC CSKA 1948 Sofia.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been an administrator decision that this text is neither non-neutral, nor offensive and because of that your request for administrator intervention during the protection of the page was declined. Actually, the history of the pages are clearly showing that you are the one removing sourced content and starting edit wars.--Ivo (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BG89, no administrator knows anything about the topic, they don't comply with the version - they just protect it because of edit-warring. The text is there just to offense and you know it no matter how you try to mask it and twist away the discussion. I already reverted the text to the last version before the edit-war, you keep restoring it without the discussion on the talk page is completed. Trying to manipulate and twist evidence does not speak good for you as a person at all.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's great that a discussion has been started, but reverting back-and-forth before there's a consensus is still edit warring. Both of you need to stop editing the article until you can come to an agreement. Further reverting will only result in the article being locked again or someone being blocked for violating WP:3RR. clpo13_(talk) 22:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry I had to go into this for such a stupid reason. Of course I know that this is not the bgwiki and admins here cannot determine if the information that BG89 re-enteres is vandalism or not, but I couldn't just stay there and watch him put that controversial information on every article that had something to do with the CSKA topic, simply because I, as well as he, know crystal clearly what is the real propose of this text he's entering. I really hope BG89 stops edit-warring form now on focus on other articles, such as the Levski ones and stops entering such text.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing templates

You removed the POV templates from PFC CSKA Sofia even though there is an ongoing dispute. There was partial agreement only about some temporary version until there is a final consensus. From Laveol's recent activity, I see no evidence that he changed his mind and supports you. That's why I asked him about his opinion on his talk page. Even if really thinks like you now, my opinion is still the same and I'm going to add the templates because obviously there are two mutually exclusive viewpoints and mine is well supported (UEFA, BFU, Bulgarian court etc). You are free to do anything you want but in case you remove them again I'll report that to the admins and let them decide. --Ivo (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your last reply was read by:--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vivacom Arena Georgi Asparuhov

Hi, I have noticed that you moved the Vivacom Arena "Georgi Asparuhov" to Vivacom Arena - Georgi Asparuhov Stadium, which I believe is wrong. The official site says "Vivacom Arena Georgi Asparuhov" and its suggested that the word Stadium is cleaned from the name. They are using the european example changing Stadium with Arena, so there is no reason to have Arena and Stadium in the wiki article. -Chris Calvin (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Chris Calvin: the word "Stadium" may not be part of the official name, but it is necessary in naming the article in Wikipedia to clarify that the article is about the stadium and has noting to do with the person Georgi Asparuhov. I know that they are trying to pull the use of the name "stadium" and replace it with "arena" for marketing reasons, but that does not mean that this venue is no longer a stadium itself, the naming here is solely to avoid confusion and to clarify the subject of the article. If it was simply "Vivacom Arena", then that might be OK... but also not quite to come to think of it because there is a TV channel called "Vivacom Arena" and if I were to make an article for it I might have to shift the names of the articles again, adding "stadium" at the back in brackets for example to avoid confusion again. So in both cases the word "stadium" is inevitable to be in the headline either in brackets or the way it is now because there is more than 1 object for both things - a TV channel "Vivacom Arena" and a person named "Georgi Asparuhov".--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. also adding quotation marks ("") inside the headlines of the articles is usually not a good idea as the wiki system tends to break those sometimes, that's why it is generally accepted to avoid them and replace them with brackets for example where can.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ludogorets Arena, Arena Sozopol for example? It's normal to use Arena insted of Stadium. I think that the most correnct naming will be Arena Georgi Asparuhov, because of the Vivacom Arena channel. But Arena insted of stadium is not so confusing and i don't believe peaple will coonfuse Arena Georgi Asparuhov with Georgi Asparuhov. And I agree abouth the quotation marks, they shouldn't be added. --Chris Calvin (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sometimes it can be used for that, but the title "Vivacom Arena" is still part of the official name in this case, as well as "Georgi Asparuhov" is still part of the name. The only solution that I see is to put the word "stadium" in brackets and in lowercase for clarification purposes - to determine that this article is about the stadium venue with the name "Vivacom Arena" and not the TV channel, but also that "stadium" is not part of the official name, similar to the naming in bgwiki: bg:Георги Аспарухов (стадион, София). Either way - in brackets or not makes no real difference to me anyway, so I am happy with both options.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 13:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I have a question for you. Why do according to vandalism on several pages that have to do with WBC CSKA Sofia? And do according to the vandalism without any explanation. I fix vandalism that do, but you re-do. This way would ask you if you can not help, not mine then only to make the damage. — Nn94 14 (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't quite understand what are you talking about? I merged the pages because there is one article for the man and woman division of the club, it's not seperate clubs, it's one and the same club, that's what everywhere in all other language wikis is written, you are creating the article again for some reason and you're saying that I'm vandalising? I don't get that. Please make your self familiar about the club and then make such edits, because you clearly don't get the whole thing.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Across Europe there is a sports societies and in some sports in the sports society there are male and female sections. The fact that in the same sport and sports society is not sufficient reason to the two teams put on an article. For example. to the women's section has a few sentences, then I understand your procedure. But this way, if you can not help, I would ask you not to do not say the vandalism, and frankly I met her on the wiki many times those who make vandalism. — Nn94 14 (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again I can't really make up what are you trying to say, maybe you are using an automatic translation app or something... Anyway, in some cases there can be, but in this one simply can't. There is way two little info, no sources at all, and there ia no other equivalent to the article in other language wikis, in the home bgwiki the article is one just like it is supposed to be here, you are the one who is creating it for some reason... And I still don't get why are you talking about me vandalising as you don't get the whole situation...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, your vandalism is that undo what has been done, but there is no reason for it. I do not know what it is not clear. The way in which something is practiced in the wiki at Bulgarian is not the same as practiced in the wiki at English, because they are different rules. — Nn94 14 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get why are you calling my actions vandalism. The rules are different, but you don't understand why there aren't separete articles in bgwiki - because there is not enought info for a seperate article, becuase it's the same club, just separete divisions, and because your text does not have any sources at all. The articles were like that before, you are the one who split them in the first plase, I am just restoring them back the way they were before.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no references and sources, then add them to the page. Could it be a problem to do it, not only annul edits and contributions. If you do not been functioning autonomously male and female club is no reason to annul edits and to do a redirect. As for sources and references on article of men's and women's club in both articles were similar sources, but there were no references. Due to the rules I got you something kept silent about and therefore be happy. — Nn94 14 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using Google Translator directly, I really can't make out what you are saying. The article looks better this eay and I really don't find anything in your opinion that strongly supports why they should be separete. Please stop edit-warring and please do discuss this on Talk:BC CSKA Sofia so that other people can join in too, my talk page is not a plase for such disscusion.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 19:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for edit warring--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC). 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.[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).

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

Request reason:

Ymblanter, you are just picking sides in the argument now! You should have blocked Nn1 914 as well "as promised". I do not comply that the articles should be seperate and that's why I reverted the page back to the redirect, and I joined in the discussion, but don't expect me to just sit doing nothing while the other user is continuing to revert. This is really unfair, and none of us gave been asked to discuss on the talk page and warned that we could have been blocked, the edit description is not an official warning.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 20:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Borderline incoherent unblock request. Your primary objection seems to be that you were blocked and someone else was not. That's completely irrelevant. Your secondary objection seems to be that you didn't receive an official warning. But... you were previously blocked for edit warring in November. I'm not sure why your block was only for 24 hours this time; I'd have expected to see a longer block given you clearly knew what you were doing. Yamla (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2017 (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.

I would block them but they apparently decided not to revert.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Request for comment

Hi, I'm thinking about filing a request for comment in connection with the whole CSKA thing. I plan on presenting the case in brief (with no talk of who is right or wrong, or anything, in order to keep it as neutral as possible). Let's hope some outside users will help clearing the matter, as I'm really doubtful any Bulgarian user is neutral (or safe from harm) enough. Do you agree with such a proposal? --Laveol ^T 13:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the RfC. You're free to correct any of my wording. I tried to keep it as neutral as possible. Cheers. --Laveol ^T 14:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK by looking at it, just left a comment below.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever takes this might want some outside additional sources, but this would be dealt with when the time comes, and if they would want any at all.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a bit worried about that part too, since no Bulgarian media seems to be impartial on the matter, and foreign ones do not seem to care. But, as you said, this is a matter for another time - provided anyone is even interested in the RfC. --Laveol ^T 19:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was somewhat covered in some foreign media, but I'm not sure. The RfC people are usually experienced editors who know how to handle things, so we will see if one of them takes this on.p--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please, make yourself with what is considered vandalism here. Content disputes, such as the one you are currently involved in are not vandalism. However, calling others' legitimate edits vandalism is considered disruptive. Please, stop. --Laveol ^T 13:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly inserting false information, which IS vandalism. Please stop inviting fans of other clubs into the RfC, no matter how many users that support the "CSKA-Sofia is Litex" theory pop up in they don't have actual trustworthy facts and that would not change anything.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]