User talk:Toshko Vihrenski

First Bulgarian Empire

If you continue with the vandalism of the Page for the First Bulgarian Empire I will turn to an administrator. Kandi (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do it now! Your edits are vandalism, because you delete a reliable sources and push your nationalistic POV over the article. I told you why Koledarov book is not a good source, but obvoisly somebody do not want to use the talk page of this article. And this somebode isn't me.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Koledarov. I can point out a large number of maps in which the territory of Bulgaria is the same. Bulgaria ruled territories over the Danube in the 10th century and this is confirmed by sources. Suffice it to recall Duke Salan. Kandi (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salan is mythological figure from Gesta Hungarorum, 13th century chronicle. No one historian believes in what was written there. Look the source I added in infobox. In "Europe. A history" by Norman Davies Bulgarian empire during the reign of Simeon is showing without territories northern than Danube. There are many sources says. Look the talk page of this article.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salam and a Bulgarian leader lived in the 10th century. Kandi (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Salan exist only in Gesta's author imagination. Even he was real, it only shows that my map is coorrect, because it confirm the Hungarian conquest of that area in 896. --Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Sex differences in human physiology, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Stop deleting this well-sourced content. Per WP:BRD take it the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sex differences in human physiology. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sex differences in human physiology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You appear to have made four reverts (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4) in the last half hour. Please self-revert your most recent edit on the article as a sign of good faith, and then discuss on the article's talk page why this content should be excluded. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Sex differences in human physiology has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Sex differences in human physiology) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

The sources, cited in this article shows wrong and non-scientific information, often based on controversial views, considering as sexist and mysogynistic. I just added a reliable academic source and remove the old fake sources. This new source criticised the mysogynistic point of view, which editors there stubbornly defend, which damages the reputation of Wikipedia as whole. Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:EW but don't address this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2023 (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 don't think so. --Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=The sources, cited in this article shows wrong and non-scientific information, often based on controversial views, considering as sexist and mysogynistic. I just added a reliable academic source and remove the old fake sources. This new source criticised the mysogynistic point of view, which editors there stubbornly defend, which damages the reputation of Wikipedia as whole. [[User:Toshko Vihrenski|Toshko Vihrenski]] ([[User talk:Toshko Vihrenski#top|talk]]) 00:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)}}

You've already had that exact unblock request declined. By reposting it and continuing to refuse to address the reason for your block, you are courting an expansion of your block. I strongly suggest you take a different approach. --Yamla (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. --Yamla (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or 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 a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Yamla (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand. No edit wars. Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK, but this does not address the use of multiple accounts. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2023 (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 now a Checkuser block. Meters (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the CU blocknotice from your user page does not change that. Meters (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry, but I do not use another accounts here in this article. If my IP have another accounts in Wikipedia, there are old usernames, created because of forgotten password or because another users have registrations from this IP. But I never use to push my edits or POVs with socks. Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not a question of this article (which article?), nor of the other things you mention. Checkusers have access to more evidence than merely the IP you use. Bishonen | tålk 07:54, 12 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

It's probably your mistake, because this is not true. I think you need to improve your system (just an advise, don't judge me!). Cheers! Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just one unblock request at a time. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2023 (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.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

The accusations are false. I have not done such a things and I promise not to do that in future. I understand it's something bad and I'm sorry if I violated the rules here. Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My use of the checkuser tool indicates you are the same user as Targatron (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again. This is not true. I'm 100 % sure you are wrong. I have not used fake accounts, as you said. Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2023 (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.

What a bizarre statement. Nobody has accused you of using fake accounts. --Yamla (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I caught and blocked your most recent violation of WP:SOCK, Prosveshtenets. You aren't very good at this, I strongly suggest you stop. --Yamla (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with me? How many times I said I'm not related with Targatron or another accounts! Obviously Checkuser doesn't work. Make something! Yes, I create a new account, because obviously I will never use Toshko Vihrenski, but I want to edit in Wikipedia. What I gonna do? Tell me, please! You are the God here! I'm just a mortal with block account. --Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I create a new account: User:Prosveshtenkov. To be honest.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You personally are now considered banned by the community under WP:3X. No admin is free to unilaterally lift your ban. --Yamla (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I have declared honestly here that I am creating a new account.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to create another account. This is a direct violation of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, from what I read there, I just understand it's allowed, when I declared a new account. Maybe it's my mistake. Sorry!--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Evasion of blocks or sanctions" is specifically listed as an inappropriate use. Your mistake has directly resulted in your ban. --Yamla (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look what I read: An editor using multiple accounts for valid reasons should, on each account's user page, list all the other accounts with an explanation of their purpose. --Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help that you didn't bother to read the entire page after it was pointed out to you multiple times. That's on you. You are clearly just trolling at this point so I won't respond further. --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a losing battle and there is nothing I can do to save the account. OK, Yamla! Thank you for this information and sorry for all! Have a nice day!--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made a lot of mistakes. I promise to read the rules pages!Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Once you've read the relevant rules, you can then make a statement in an unblock request for community review in which you demonstrate your understanding of the issues here and explain what will be different in the future. My advice is that you take your time doing this and not request unblock for some time. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2023 (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.