User talk:Aleksd/Archive

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, Aleksd! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kleinzach (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi, thank you for welcoming me, but I am actually here from quite a while. However, now I am writing in Bulgarian Wikipedia issues for classical music and I am just meanwhile adding some language links here. Please, for further talks write me here bg:Потребител беседа:Alexd Regards, --Aleksd (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor's notices

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bulgaria. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kostja (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bots

Uploaded Paltraw images

Thanks for uploading Image:Paltraw1.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Paltraw2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Aleksd! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Rosen Plevneliev - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Problem solving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connectivity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article improvements

Proposed deletion of Alek Popov

The article Alek Popov has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  –Joshua Scott ^[who?] 14:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing this article! The notice on the Talk/Discussion page should stay in place - it's supposed to be there to let people know about the WP:BLP policy.  –Joshua Scott ^[who?] 17:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aleksd. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Questions about article's names

New economic history

Hi, Aleksd -- It was suggested on this article's talk page to rename it to "Cliometrics". I infer from the article's edits of 5 May 2010 that you might want to comment on that. Please do. We can also gather views through relevant WikiProjects. -- Econterms (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cliometrics does not talk anything to non experts. --Aleksd (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor's notices

Aesthetics

Hi! First, I'd kindly ask you to remain WP:CIVIL because your comments are clear-cut personal attacks that will get you blocked. It's always a good thing to assume good faith and a friendly attitude towards people who are here for the same purpose as you: to enrich this encyclopedia. As someone who has been here long enough, you ought to know this. Also, forgive my lack of modesty but I do believe I deserve some respect seeing as I've started a large portion of all articles in Category:Sofia...

Second, I don't think I've ever taken terrifying/tragical/depressing images and I haven't seen any of your retouching work. If you really did retouch a photo I took, then thanks, it's always appreciated. If it's not clear enough, only one of the pics in File:Sofia Collage TB.png is my work, the photo of Sofia University.

Now, apparently with your comments you're requesting for my argumentation as to why I selected these images to represent Sofia. Here's the logic I followed:

• The photos had to depict Sofia's more famous sights. The parliament building, Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, the Monument of the Tsar Liberator, the Hagia Sophia Church, the National Theatre, the Sofia University rectorate and Eagles' Bridge all fall into this category as far as I'm concerned.
• Also, I felt I had to show architectural diversity. I wanted both ancient buildings (Hagia Sophia) along with examples of post-Ottoman architecture, socialist architecture (National Palace of Culture) and post-1989 architecture (Mall of Sofia). If you want me to remove the mall, that's cool, although personally I find it's photo better taken and more pleasing than your shots of the ringroad constructions and the Business Park.
• Of course, I also had to include a panorama of the city centre, so I selected Boby Dimitrov's panorama of the Eagles' Bridge junction. Nenko Lazarov's panorama of National Assembly Square was also included because it neatly shows three major landmarks.

Here's also my commentary about your changes to my collage:

• Personally, I find the architecture of these buildings on the ringroad (top left pic) distasteful, boring and not at all characteristic of Sofia. They have nothing to do at the top of the image in particular because they do not help the reader in identifying Sofia in any way.
• The photo of Business Park Sofia that you added is badly taken or cropped. Half of it is random greenery and only a small fraction of it shows some (unrecognizable architecture).
• The building of the Ministry of Transportation is not particularly remarkable. Also, the photograph itself is way overexposed and has severely blown highlights. It is of too low quality to be featured in the infobox.
• I'm not opposed to including a picture of the Largo in the infobox, it certainly is notable enough. However, this particular shot has weird colour (it's pinkish) and is not in any way striking.

No offense, but I maintain my opinion that your version of the collage is much worse and does not improve the article. However, if you remain civil and show some respect and good will, I'm confident that we can discuss this issue and reach a consensus. Just make sure you stay on topic and don't resort to incivility next time :) Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 13:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of aestetics - there isn't anything personal, as a person I think you are very intelligent (know you from other places), but still, I think you lack aestetical perception for images. And changing your collage with other - its only you who takes it personally with removing the better and improved collage. Please don't write novels on my discussion page. --Aleksd (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that I'm employed as a graphic designer and I'm very interested in photography, I do think I have a very decent 'aesthetical perception for images', thank you very much. Also, I explained quite clearly above why I believe your image to be of inferior quality. I'm not taking anything personally (except for the personal attacks that you used straight away), on the contrary, my goal is solely to improve the article and I sincerely believe that your version is not an improvement.

Seeing as you started the discussion by posting incoherent personal attacks on my talk, I understand "Please don't write novels on my discussion page" to mean that you're not interested in discussing this matter any further. Your lack of response to my points above also leads me to believe that. I hope you understand that if you're not willing to discuss, all I can do is replace your collage. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 14:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything about to discussing. On the back of the issue /discussion page/ is written: BETTER IMAGES/ --Aleksd (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Article name

ACTA split

Hi Aleksd, thanks for helping out with the ACTA and the split suggestion. Could you start the discussion in a new section on the talk page on that so we can get things going in a few days (...or not of course... ;-(). L.tak (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what has to be discussed? --Aleksd (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to split an article, you always need to discuss that. the template is the first step, but in the template it has a link to the talkpage for the discussion on the topic... Splits are sometimes opposed, and this is just the simple way to go. The arguments should be rel. obvious... L.tak (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you need discussion than why don't you discuss on page's talk page? --Aleksd (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did; no problem! L.tak (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor's notices

POV

Hi Aleksd, you placed yesterday a Non neutral point of view template. I am eager to hear your input on where the article is in your opinion non-neutral, so that we can discuss/replace and resolve. Could make a statement on the talk page of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to specify the areas/sections of concern? Thanks! L.tak (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think I can put such a template if I think an article is balanced. I really don't understand your question. That is first. Second, the template is removed after improving the contents not after discussing its necessity. After an editor finds the contents not balanced than such they are for any of the possible views. Third, but not the last, stop writing on my discussion page and start using the article's talk page that is intended for the same purpose which surely is "talking on any topics concerning the article". Now if that comes clear to you I think you should have no further questions for me or rather manipulative positions. And by the way, improve your writing, its worse than mine and I type really awkward. --Aleksd (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality reliable sources

Hi, please take care with some of the sources you are adding to Organizational culture. Websites such as http://www.1000advices.com are verging on being spam sites and for a standard business topic, there are a wealth of high quality reliable sources to find in any library or via Google Books before resorting to promotional websites such as this. You may find it useful to take another look at reliable source and Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am using different sourses from Springer to whatever comes around. But I will clean up. --Aleksd (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

But you are right, the article was having a lot of not so reliable sources and still has them. These stemming before my edits.

And by the way What is Corporate Culture? http://www.1000advices.com is textualy fine with me, a lot better than the How to books, and many steps better than the initial wiki article look, which was stunning. --Aleksd (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Edit summaries?

I don't see any edit summaries in your contribution list. I find it helpful if editors leave a brief note about what they did (and why) during an edit session and I'd appreciate it if you would do that. Thanks. Jojalozzo 00:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh? I think history of edits makes it obvious. But summaries, ok. --Aleksd (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is the new display of history (changes) which is very uncomfortable, I will put a discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) on that. --Aleksd (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Administrative

FYI

Acadēmica Orientālis formally pushed as Miradre. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OMG, thanks. --Aleksd (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bots

Organizational culture, Firing on the base of culture, English

Aleksd,

I appreciate your section: Organizational culture, Firing on the base of culture. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Organizational_culture#Firing_on_the_base_of_culture

May I improve the English wording of the title of that section? It would be more idiomatic to title it "Dismissal on the basis of culture" or "Dismissal on grounds of lack of cultural fit" or "Dismissal on grounds of poor cultural fit".

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dismissal_(employment) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Termination_of_employment http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Employee_exit_management

Please comment, Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Cascio (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed this section since sources are unreliable and do not support the statements being made, perhaps due to a lack of English comprehension. The statement "firing on the base of culture means the employer does not accept and desire to be inclusive for the culture of the employee" references an unreliable blog that does not address the "culture of the employee". This statement appears to be OR. Furthermore the writing lacks logical connection. For example the previous qupotation is preceded by "As the corporate culture may mean almost everything" though the sources make no such connection. In addition, I see no support for the statement that "there is still not law or case law resolving or addressing the question making this practice possible and available for businesses for now". While I appreciate the effort, overall, this is neither sourced well enough nor written well enough to improve the article. Jojalozzo 01:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects info

Clarification from WP:AE

Hello Aleksd. I wanted to clarify for you why your request at WP:AE was closed as unactionable. It is not a finding that you are correct or incorrect in what you say.

Rather, however, we cannot do anything about the request. Each Wikimedia project operates autonomously from the others. The English Wikipedia has no more authority to take action against an editor or functionary on a Bulgarian project than the editors there have authority to sanction or ban an editor who edits here. Nor could we reverse actions taken by the community on that project, just as they cannot reverse actions undertaken by consensus of our community. So even if we found that wrongdoing had occurred (a difficult thing in itself, given that most if not all of those reading the request are unfamiliar with that project's language, policies, and practices), we couldn't take any action based upon that finding.

The arbitration enforcement page, additionally, has a deliberately narrow scope. It is only for reports of violations that the English Wikipedia arbitration committee have already put in place. Even ArbCom, however, has jurisdiction only over the English Wikipedia. Any rulings it made regarding any other project would be unenforceable there.

You are not blocked or (to my knowledge) sanctioned on the English Wikipedia, so any sanctions against you on another project are irrelevant to that. You are still welcome to edit and participate here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Aleksd (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Edit summaries

I notice you have stopped using edit summaries for a while now. Edits that do not have summaries require other editors to take extra time to review them. Edits without summaries make it difficult to scan the page history to find out what's was going on. I would very much appreciate it if you would make the effort to add edit summaries to every edit. It would be a great favor to all the editors who work with you. Thanks. Jojalozzo 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't use summaries. Just sometimes.--Aleksd (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Templates

June 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Protests against the Oresharski cabinet. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The Banner talk 22:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been in Wikipedia for many months and years, and I don't think you are aware of how to use banners (templates), despite of your nickname. --Aleksd (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to {{POV|date=June 2013}}, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. And could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 23:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor's notices

Protests against the Oresharski cabinet

I hope you have slept well and that the emotions have settled. As I said last night, anger is seldom a good adviser when you are writing articles for Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia needs distance and impartiality, as you write them for history and not for some news service. I know that it is difficult to switch of your emotions when writing in the heat of the moment. Don't bother too much about the English, somebody will correct that anyway. You are correct that my English is also imperfect, my native tongue is Dutch.

In short my advice is: don't write on Wikipedia when emotion run high. Sleep a night over it so you have a clear mind.

Good luck with the whole affair and mind your safety. The Banner talk 09:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with editing issues, I am not quite sure you have the knowledge how but it seems that you have the desire. --Aleksd (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Protests against the Oresharski cabinet, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. The Banner talk 22:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop editing content that you have no understanding for. --Aleksd (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

When you have a problem with the merger, discuss it on Talk:Protests against the Oresharski cabinet. I only placed the templates, the proposal is from somebody else. The Banner talk 22:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont see how to discuss a topic with someone who has no desire to learn about it. Are you trying to ridicule the meaning of writing in Wikipedia or this is your style of editing? --Aleksd (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Calm down please! The Banner talk 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And I do want know more about those protests, Aleksd! But Wikipedia needs articles that are neutrally describing the facts. Not emotional stories. The Banner talk 22:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) And I am really impressed by your 21 articles on ENWP. Especially, as I have only 296... Don't play games with me!

Your recent editing history at Protests against the Oresharski cabinet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Banner talk 22:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Listen, do not use sock puppets to introduce fantasy 'facts' created with the imagination of your own. I told you: find a place to write where you have a minimum knowledge on the subject. Also I will remove all icons (and bold) from my discussion page, this is not a traffic line and I am perfectly able to read you. --Aleksd (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For your information: it is an absolute nono to change somebody elses edits. And when you like to stay working here, you better stop throwing personal attacks. I take you accusation of sockpuppetry as an insult and want that removed! The Banner talk 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Even when it is you talkpage and I am your guest, you should not insult me by making false accusation. The Banner talk 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Aleksd that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 19:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambigs

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plamen Oresharski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BSP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Protests against the Oresharski cabinet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Banner talk 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Twitter trend

Template:Twitter trend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Banner-Spammer. --Aleksd (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Aleksd. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The Banner talk 13:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop writing on my talk page, you are not welcome. I don't like your presence, writing and spamming on my page, and I would like to kindly ask you for an nth time to not bother me with your beurocratic nonsense. If you would like to say anything on the issues I write in and stalk me, please write there on their talk pages. I would like to talk on my page with editors who have human feels like understanding, compassion, etc. --Aleksd (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Category:Articles with Bulgarian-language external links

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles with Bulgarian-language external links requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor's notices

Complaint about your edits

Please see a complaint about your edits at Talk:Protests against the Oresharski cabinet#Protection was requested. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I will like to respond here: the freedom of speech, expression and also information is something that communists like to suppress, for that reason I understand the edits of Bulgarian and fellow other countries editors who obstruct my well sourced edits and giving of information to the situation with our government for a gesture of exactly this: refusal of free (written) speech and refusal of information for the readers of Wikipedia, a gesture of a communist kind since we are talking about political issues, and never of linguistic, etc. --Aleksd (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Free speech. Editing here is a privilege, not a right. Your changes can stay in the article only if you can get other people to agree with them. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and therefor it cannot be a privilege since this is a quality of expensive services which Wikipedia is not. Privileges are characteristical only to certain social classes based on social position or welfare, there isn't anywhere pointed in Wikipedia to have accessibility only for certain classes. In fact, to a greater extend privileges are removed from modern society. --Aleksd (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has quality standards that are not based on privileges but on accuracy and of course style, and grammar. I believe I am accurate in writing, providing true and only core information based on sources. On the question of style and grammar: I do believe Banner is a foreign language speaker who is also not a linguist and I seriously doubt his ability to give correct judgments on this matter. In my opinion his style is grammatically correct but also simplistic and social networking alike, which stops him from understanding more complex syntactic organization of writing. With this I am not trying to say I don't make mistakes but that he is biased by his own style which he tries to enforce as mandatory while I believe simplicity and especially social networking style is not mandatory in writing in encyclopedia settings. It may be preferable when you try to explain something especially scientifically to use simple formulas but not always necessary, and I believe it is an own choice of expression. Whether you sound like Derrida or like artificial language source code is a matter of own choice. However, I think non of these is very much applicable for encyclopedias, since encyclopedic and dictionary writing has its own standards and I am very much aware of them. :) Also I prefer nice collaborative editors who are giving a hand and not making other's edits difficult. --Aleksd (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that my Dutch-Irish English is not perfect but I am also aware that it is still much better than your English, what is often nearly unreadable. For the rest: it is sad to see to what degree you miss the essential points of Wikipedia, like neutrality. The Banner talk 09:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is strictly your own opinion and as I said before you are neither a linguist, neither native speaker. Truth is not always neutral especially in political aspects. --Aleksd (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Truth can be worded in a neutral way, you just have to be willing to do so... But what is the truth? Your version, the version of Peevski, the version of the Pope, the version of president Obama? The Banner talk 10:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Laveol added some more reporting and journalistic style if you are convenient with journalistic neutralism, I like it very much, I agree. It is sometimes about the patience because there are capable editors. It is about contributing, someone enters information, other something else. --Aleksd (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:The Banner. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The Banner talk 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you refer to yourself in third person? :D--Aleksd (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:2013 Bulgarian protests. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please, please, stop with this behaviour. You will only create problems for yourself. The Banner talk 19:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Visual Editor

Hey Aleksd

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor's notices

Hannes Swoboda

I don't follow Bulgarian politics and I don't really understand everything in your recent additions to the article, but can you, as a first step, reduce it to what is related to Hannes Swoboda? Either to him personally or his political functions in the EU.

Swoboda supported Stanishev in what? If he took a public stance in Bulgarian matters, stating that fact, whom against whom, their political function and a sentence to briefly explain the issue should be enough. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you again for clarification. For now I don't see much that is relevant enough to stay in the article. Swoboda supported Stanishev in his bid for president of the PES, but I don't find anything that says he ever did not, that he had to change his opinion before.

Siderov ... that part is too vague, so Swoboda generally spoke against radical, anti-democratic right wing elements, Siderov, Berlusconi, Urban, ... in European politics. I don't know what of that is important enough in an article about Hannes Swoboda, but it should not turn into a biography of Siderov.

Another problem I'm facing is that I don't speak Bulgarian and auto-translated versions of the references are pretty much incomprehensible. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here is my thought with a few words: every politician has a renome, at the time of the annual conference of PES in Sofia, Bulgarian people were and still are questioning Stanishev's abilities as a political leader because of his verbal insisting for the appointment of Delian Peevski and the support by Siderov in multiple ways for the government with Stanishev's puppet Oresharski as a prime minister. --Aleksd (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but this doesn't really have anything to do with Swoboda, does it? Gerald Jarosch (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Bulgarian help needed

Hello Aleksd, I'm contacting you because we need some Bulgarian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on bg.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Bulgarian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like the visual editor, it makes things overcomplicated instead of easier as it should. But there could be new users who might like it, still I don't feel like working on it since it is not exactly my type of gadget. But there is one thing I am glad, it somehow disappeared from my English wiki, I really hope the visualeditor to be pushed only on new users and not everyone. --Aleksd (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Understandable. Thanks for your reply. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Professionals - notice of discussion

You may be interested in the deletion proposal related to Category: Professionals. Regards, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor's notices

Уточнение

Аз съм българин и нямам руски произход (никът ми в Уикипедия бе произволно избран). Не съм влизал в руската Уикипедия, а и не разполагам с нужните познания, за да правя промени в статията за протестите в Украйна. Не смятам, че съм пристрастен (винаги посочвам източниците си като редактирам/добавям материали и се старая да се позовавам на медии, които са що годе неутрални). По принцип не би трябвало да е проблем ако англичани допринасят към статии за България или руснаци участват при доизпипването на статии в българската Уикипедия (стига информацията да не е погрешна или изреченията да са неуместно формулирани). Oleg Morgan (talk) 11:33, 20 Dеcember 2013 (UTC)

По принцип лъжите ти и обясненията не ме интересуват, платена писарушко. --Aleksd (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Кое точно от написаното в статията е лъжа (всичко може да бъде проверено съвсем лесно)? Източниците, които цитирам са mediapool.bg, blitz.bg и т.н., които определено не са медии с лява ориентация. Не съм платен (и за да бъде доказано едно такова твърдение трябват сериозни доказателства), а целта ми е да предоставя допълнителна информация във връзка с България. Както и да е - въпросната статия ще бъде прегледана от админите и останалите редактори ще подкрепят истинността на думите ми. Oleg Morgan (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.27.226 (talk)

Nonsense. --Aleksd (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambigs

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scales of Justice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles

Nadezhda Neynsky

This article was in terrible shape and was not really an article. Even after a major attempt at fixing the flow of the article, I find myself unable to find sources for its content. Can you please help me fix this article so that it does not have to be nominated for deletion?

Thank you for your cooperation. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambigs

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emotional security, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arrogance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geostrategy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Value and Conception. 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) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor's notices

Script and alphabet

In linguistics, "script" means a writing system of any kind, it doesn't have anything to do with programming. It's a broader term than "alphabet" because the latter specifically refers to one kind of script: one that has separate characters for consonants and vowels. This distinguishes it from an abjad (only consonants), abugida (consonants with an inherent vowel + vowel modifiers), syllabary (consonant with vowel combined) and logographic script (encoding meaning directly). In some of the changes you made to Cyrillic alphabets, the change to "alphabet" was not correct as not all the scripts it refers to are in fact alphabets. CodeCat (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was always Cyrillic alphabet. Script is a writing system of nonexisting kind in human language linguistics. --Aleksd (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

We are proud of our Cyrillic alphabet, not of our script!? Do you see how ridiculous it sounds. --Aleksd (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "script" means writing system in linguistics. Just google for "Cyrillic script" (with quotes) and you find plenty of sites other than Wikipedia that use the term in that way. CodeCat (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to Google, as obviously I am Bulgarian and I know that the alphabet I use is called an ALPHABET both in everyday use and in academic use. Sofia University is too close to where I am to "Google" that it is called Cyrillic alphabet. I don't need to discuss such simple matter because if we stumble here I don't see how are we going to reach any progress at all as human race. This typical petty thinking devaluates what is important in our society and makes ground for the wrong ideas, I am very much against it. --Aleksd (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me give an example, we keep the article "woman" even though some people may use 'skirt' with the same meaning. --Aleksd (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you are socialist? Say no more. I suppose it hurts the Russians that we created the alphabet they write at, gave them literature, culture and even Religion that they abuse harshly and make us be regretful that we gave them all these attributes of the civilised nations while they are not civilised and respect not our God, such a great shame for them. We have a very different rhetoric about them outside Wikipedia that I shan't use here. --Aleksd (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem that you can be reasoned with. In any case, both of your changes have been reverted by other editors, for exactly the reason I stated. CodeCat (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambigs

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russophobia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DW and Georgia. 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) 08:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cultural identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Locality. 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) 08:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles

Foreign policy of Margaret Thatcher

Hi and thanks for your work on this. I would encourage you to work on this in your user space before putting it in mainspace. The article as it stood was so poor and short that it was not worth linking to or keeping. I have redirected it and removed the link from the main article meantime. --John (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambigs

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden Age of medieval Bulgarian culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcript. 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) 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles

Page move

I think the word "intervention" was used as Russia does not acknowledge having any forces inside Ukraine(despite evidence to the contrary); "military invasion" suggests an official operation. As someone who has posted there I can say that the title has been somewhat controversial(some not even wanting to use "intervention") so you may want to discuss your move on the talk page(someone likely will anyway). Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrative

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aleksd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles

Nomination of Foreign policy of Margaret Thatcher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foreign policy of Margaret Thatcher is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign policy of Margaret Thatcher until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Nevé–selbert 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Communist era listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Communist era. Since you had some involvement with the Communist era redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrative

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Aleksd. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)