User talk:Anti political shills

March 2019

Hello, Anti political shills, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clear some things out

I am the user with IP address 123.51.66.226, I use this account for Talk pages only. Edit: I will also be using this account for edits too, not my IP address anymore.

Regards

2019 North Macedonian presidential election

Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections and referendums. It is date first not last. As to North being included then you should open a discussion on the talk page first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of the word vandalism

This is not vandalism as defined on Wikipedia. See WP:Vandalism. It may be right or it may be wrong but it was done in good faith and is not by any means vandalism. Accusing other editors, incorrectly, of vandalism is seen as a personal attack and can lead to blocking. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of my usage of the term 'vandalism', even in the context of wikipedia. What you, or your affiliate preformed is 'link vandalism' (WP:VANDTYPES) where a nationality redirects to a wikipedia page about a state, rather than a nationality. Blatant agenda pushing which involves undermining the Macedonian nationhood is against wikipedia's guidelines (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion) so you should be the one to exercise caution to avoid getting blocked Anti political shills

I'm not actually promoting or undermining North Macedonia. It seems to me that you have some sort axe to grind. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Taga za Yug. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 10:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats mean nothing,Jingiby has been abusing WP:NPOV since 2006. Anti political shills

I mean it, they're not threats. In fact, I'm reporting you to AIV for not taking your warnings seriously. Maybe a block can teach you a lesson or two. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I have done is nothing in comparison to agenda pushers like yourself and Jingiby whom have wasted their lives shilling propaganda on wikipedia, especially Jingiby whom has a negative reputation outside of Wikipedia (just google his username). Your blocks are meaningless and I will also report you for abusing WP:NPOV. Anti political shills

Stop saying that everyone is abusing WP:NPOV. Instead, take a look around you and see how many people are warning you. I'm trying to keep you from getting blocked due to content disputes. Take care, and don't say we didn't warn you. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ani notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 18:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not here

You're not here to build the encyclopedia. You will thus be blocked soon. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still beating a dead horse? Are you that offended that I questioned your life choices? I'm a full-time working man, therefore I don't edit much, that coupled together with the fact that you don't agree with my edits and you trying to supress my speech doesn't make me a sock puppet Anti political shills

April 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jingiby. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions concerning other accounts

Do you use any other accounts on Wikipedia? Have you ever edited Wikipedia while logged out, and do you still do? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 13:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no User:Anti Political Shills

"The edit appears to have already been undone."

Got that when trying to revert myself, having reviewed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. But you had already quickly reverted. Terribly quickly.

And so, your approach resembles the term "Righting Great Wrongs". You _may_ not know how often Wikipedia is subject to textual wars between nationalist groups, such as over just this country's naming. But you _may_ eventually realize how much your efforts appear to resemble those irritating struggles. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Shenme (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I abide by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC, which you are breaking. One use of the full constitutional name is enough, on the basis you use the full constitutional name of the other states once as well. You are entering the region of vandalism by inserting redundant "Republic of"'s when not necessary, unless you also do that for all the other republics stated for consistency sake.

May 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a sources, which are the past Albanian censuses that mention nothing of Bulgarians and their distribution. You are best of refraining from pushing POV that there are Bulgarians in Mala Prespa when there are no official sources to back it up --Anti political shills (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last census in Greece also did not mention nothing of Macedonian presence there, but we have article about that issue. Jingiby (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians in Albania

Please, read the article Bulgarians in Albania. Also check attached there sources and then discuss the issue in case you have a questions. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in heavily biased articles such as that. --Anti political shills (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, you may start a discussion to change it. No problems. However do not remove some parts from articles, only because you dislike something. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history at Leska 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. 82.132.213.222 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 ~~72 hours~~ indefinitely for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 06:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evading your block will only serve to lengthen your block. If it happens again, likely indefinitely. El_C 07:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your talk page and am troubled by your edit history. I, therefore, have blocked you indefinitely. You better have a really convincing unblock request if you wish to see the block undone. El_C 07:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

Anti political shills (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Most of the edits I have made are to clean up misinformation from other users, in particular Bulgarian users in regard to Macedonian matters (as the history shows). I don't delete information that other users have posted, only providing an alternative perspective to that of the Bulgarian point of view. Blocking me, and not blocking users that are active on Macedonian matters presenting biased POV is hypocritical and unfair. I don't soley edit Macedonian articles either, in addition I am a new user and still learning the rules. Such a block is disappointing and a suppression of any attempt at making wikipedia less biased from reoffending users

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2019 (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.

Honestly, in light of that unblock request, I estimate your chance of getting unblocked as approaching zero. El_C 08:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]