User talk:Nedko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Contents 1 Saints Cyril and Methodius day 2 Saints Cyril and Methodius 3 User notice: temporary 3RR block 3.1 Regarding reversions[1] made on May 29, 2006 (UTC) to Saints Cyril and Methodius

[edit] Saints Cyril and Methodius day

There seem to be conflict between macedonian citizes and bulgarian citizens about meaning of this day (in Bulgaria at least it is official national holiday), see Talk:Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius. I created Bulgarian Education and Culture, and Slavonic Literature Day to represent the holiday, as celebrated by bulgarians. Since it is mentioned in the main page as the bulgarian holiday i think it should be fixed. If it is national holiday in Macedonia, then there should be additional link to the holiday they are representing. This will represent that Macedonia citizens are not celebrating the Bulgarian holiday and vice versa. After all national holiday is per state, not per ethnik group or something other. Nedko 15:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and merge and redirect your article. It is the feast day of the two saints which is celebrated as a public holiday, and it makes the most sense to have a single article about the feast day, and to mention there its manifestations in different countries. See Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius Day where I have some questions about the Bulgarian and Macedonian translations. Thanks. Evertype 14:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saints Cyril and Methodius

It is very easy to point at someone and say that he is pushing propaganda, cause he belongs to a specific nation. u should be aware (since u checked my userpage, and i bet my contibutions as well...) that i am never pushing my POV on articles. on the contrary, i try to discuss things in talk pages first. it is such a same that some users remove sourced info in order to place speculations that satisfy their POV. why don't we all stick to the reliable sources intead of edit-warring? most (and most reliable) sources say they were greeks. this should be mentioned in the first paragraph, and if someone wants to dispute this (always should be backed-up by reliable sources), he should create a paragraph were the other theories should be analysed. it is simple. --Hectorian 02:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If I understood you right, you are telling that I removed sourced info. You are either missed the point that the paragraph contained this same link, or you are telling that moving the link is synonymous to removing. Nedko^{self bias resist} 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources about brothers ethnic origin... I wish we had much of them, and ones for particular subject. I'd say that centuries of propaganda in whole Balkan penisula, including mine and your country, made all secodary sources unreliable. Sad buth true. Nedko^{self bias resist} 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what u mean. i believe that the most reliable source about their ethic origin should be in the top of the article, and the rest later on. Propagandas occured and occure there and here as well. this is why i am not using (nor am i reverting to) greek sources. sorry, but to be honest, in this case i have not followed the whole discussion going on in the talk page, but i have read a lot of it. all of my reverts have been done in order to mention in the first paragraph that they were Greeks. not according to my POV... if there was no reference/source, i would never had reverted it. Regards --Hectorian 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Was this a threat, or it just seemed like one? Instead of adding a POV tag for the whole article, why don't u add "citation needed" in the facts u dispute? ooops, maybe cause there are already sources for them?... I did tell u yesterday, and i will say it once more: why don't u create a paragraph concerning all the other secondary theories? --Hectorian 02:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia officially is considering brothers to be significant part of their culture, as is seen form the national holiday, 24 may. This is not seconday source. This primary source. Nedko^{self bias resist} 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include Czech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, etc as well under the definition ('significant part', 'holiday') u gave? the thing is that we already have 'Slavic Culture'. hence i think all these are included. seperate entries just push POV over the others and against the article... Afterall, Bulgarian Culture (the one of the slavic cultures in which they contributed the most) is already included seperately... --Hectorian 03:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know, I'm not that aware of cultures of other Slav nations that much. For Russia it is only religious holiday so I'd not list it unless someone gives more strong reason. Nedko^{self bias resist} 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on May 29, 2006 (UTC) to Saints Cyril and Methodius

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Oh, and deleting previous 3RR warnings is not a good idea.

William M. Connolley 08:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I admire the strict of application rule. As stated in the WP:3RR article, 3RR intent is:

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

If you find you have reverted a page even once in a day it may be a sign there is a problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting always with the article's talk page.

The reverts are (as can be seen in the article history), to represent POV discussion in the talk page. Several editors (I'll not make personal attacks, their names can be easily seen in the article and associated talk histories), were refusing to dispute the neutrality of the article. I tried to dispute, with only partitial success. Some of oponents are refusing to accept other opinions, if they are contrary to their own bias. Even when the other opinion is that article is biased and should be improved. When their arguments finish, they start edit wars by changing parts of article with disputed neutrality. I never changed disputed text. I only added the POV tag stating the fact that article is being disputed. So yes, I was violating the 3RR rule. Too bad even it cannot stop edit wars (that I don't want to participate). If anyone is wiling to create his own opinion about the causes, please check the article and assiciated talk page revision logs (history). --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 09:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think every other editor and adminstrator invloved in the article would agree that you're the one starting the edit-wars. The fact that you can't realise that is what has forced me to report you. Miskin 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Whom wants to build opinion by himself will check the history logs. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the editors and I have to say, I agree with Miskin. And that is my own opinion. Evertype 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)