Verginia's star

Verginia's star, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Verginia's star! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Aromanians has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Aromanians was changed by Verginia's star (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.89469 on 2018-04-15T02:07:02+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please read WP:VANDALISM. Then explain to me how my edits constitute vandalism.

My edits were an honest attempt to make the prose of the article more in line with the normal Wikipedia style, please see WP:MOS. Among my edits were also several grammatical, syntactical and typographical corrections, all of which were reverted. Can you explain why you would revert such obvious corrections.

Your use of the name "FYROM" for the Republic of Macedonia is not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please read WP:MOSMAC to learn how Wikipedia treats the name of that country.

You have been adding valuable content to the article during the last weeks. That does not, however, give you any right to dismiss other editors' contributions. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Disagreements should be discussed in the article's talk page. Falsely accusing other editors of vandalism is not the way to do it. Regards! --T*U (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Your Comments on My Edits

Thank you for your concern, but that’s not what Wikipedia is about. This page was on a list of articles that needed copy editing. If there is an edit that I should make, I should make it. And Wikipedia articles should have proper spelling, grammar, and formatting whenever possible. This article had major problems, so should I leave it alone if I could fix it? The Cypress Station (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC) The Cypress Station (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also appreciate that you would not undo my edits. This article was, to be blunt, poorly-written and I did nothing to change the actual meaning of the article. 24.32.11.49 The Cypress Station (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No FYROM

Please read carefully WP:NCMAC for a full explanation as to why the use of FYROM is not allowed on Wikipedia. Dr. K. 23:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

Regarding your comments on my talk page:

1. First of all the official name of that country is FYROM, not Macedonia!. Wrong! The official name is the name the state calls itself, Република Македонија. The country has become a member of the UN under the provisional description "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". In Wikipedia, however, we do not go by official names nor UN usage, but by common usage in English. The current Wikipedia guideline is described in the guideline WP:MOSMAC. Please read that closely.
2. Second, there is no logic in the changes you have done regarding the text. Please point out to me what is not logical in the edit that you blankly reverted here.
3. Third, there is no Macedo-Romanian. I will not insist on the use of the term "Macedo-Romanian". However, the term is used as an alternative name both by Encyclopædia Britannica and Ethnologue, so claiming it to be "Romanian propaganda" seems a bit far-fetched.

In general, it would be a good idea to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. Some important ones are WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As to your further comments, I am not trying to give you lessons about Official names and UN Charter! - The history of Aromanian language and Aromanians! I am, however, trying to teach you about Wikipedia and how Wikipedia works.

Also, I would like you to be careful about how you address other editors. I have still not got any explanation to

1. why you think my edits here constitutes vandalism
2. what is not logical in the same edit
3. and in your last message: how you can conclude that I have no idea about these issues

Here are some more guidelines for you to read: WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --T*U (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You obviously either have not read WP:VANDALISM or you have not understood it. Here is one quote: "you should avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user in question means to harm Wikipedia". If you still maintain that my edits constitute vandalism, you should report me at WP:AIV. If not; falsely accusing other editors of vandalism could be considered a personal attack, so an apology might be appropriate.

Regarding the term Macedo-Romanian, I have just noted that it is mentioned as an alternative name in sources like Encyclopædia Britannica and Ethnologue. I could add Glanville Price: Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe plus a number of books and scientific articles in different languages on the Internet and/or from my own library. The Romanian propaganda conspiracy you suggest must be very widespread... I have already said that I will not insist on its use, but if someone else adds it, I can see no reason to remove it. --T*U (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Some practical advice

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia with enormously many articles. To secure a consistent presentation, there is a need for rules about how the content is to be presented. These rules are collected in a Manual of style (MoS). This is a very large document with lots of rules, but it is a good idea to try to get a grip of some of the main ideas. As an example, you seem to be fond of using bold text to enhance important words. The MoS has a section about bolding here, where the use of bold text is recommended to be kept at a minimum. Also, there are useful rules about for instance punctuation and about bulleted and numbered lists, just to mention a couple of the things I have tried to implement in the Aromanian language article. Feel free to ask and discuss solutions, but please use MoS as a general guideline.

On another note, I will ask you to start using edit summaries when you make edits to articles. Wikipedia is a community project where editors are supposed to co-operate. Edit summaries, which you can read more about here, is a way of explaining to other editors what you do and/or why you do it. Normally, just a few words are needed, in other cases it may be necessary to explain in detail the reasons for an edit.

Happy editing! --T*U (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Istro-Romanian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Istro-Romanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 23:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. --T*U (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary alert for articles relating to the Balkans

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 18:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

What the alert above means for you

Note first that it includes your behaviour. This includes your use of talk pages. It means you stop shouting (using all caps), talking about propoganda, telling people THE REVERT IS COMING, using the word bullshit to describe other editor's posts, etc. If you can't find several sources meeting WP:RS to back text you want to add you shouldn't add it, no matter what you think you know. And remember, this is the English language encyclopedia, we use the terms found most often in English language reliable sources. For languages these will be almost always academic sources. I hope all of this is clear. You're lucky you haven't been blocked before. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Verginia's star. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 20:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doug Weller talk 20:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Verginia's star. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note I'm going offline soon. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruption, battleground editing, and WP:IDHT. 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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not sanction you

I gave you an alert. It was nothing to do with any interaction you had with Drmies. If I'd seen your first edit I'd probably have given you an alert then, simply because you were editing in the area. You need to understand that I could have blocked you but decided to give you an alert instead. The block you were given had nothing to do with the alert. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Some advice

Seeing that your block is soon to expire, I will give you a few words of advice. I shall not give you lots of "do" and "don't", but you may save yourself much trouble if you follow a couple of good rules.

One of the reasons given for your block was "battleground editing". Wikipedia is a community project, based on co-operation between editors. That means that disagreements should be treated not as a place for "winning" or "loosing", but as something that can be solved through discussions. A central factor in this is to assume that editors usually wish to improve Wikipedia, even if they have another view than you. In Wikipedia this "rule" is called to "assume good faith". You can read about it here.

That brings me to my second point: Wikipedia is an enormous project, and to get it working, it has a lot of rules and guidelines. They may be boring to read, but they define the framework editors have to work inside, so it is necessary to know at least the basic ones. If someone asks you to read a certain guideline (as I have done), it is a good idea to read it, at least to understand what their point is. Generally speaking, it is a good idea to listen to what other editors say. They may have experience that you have not got yet. Happy editing! --T*U (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• TU-nor gave you good and friendly advice, NeilN blocked you for edit warring, Doug Weller showed more patience than most admins would have--and yet I find you return from this short block making inflammatory edit summaries like this one, and [this, and this, and this, clear evidence of a battleground mentality which is the antithesis of collaborative editing. It is not even clear who you are yelling at, but I assume you are taking issue with Romanians. Now, it may be that Doug Weller in his infinite wisdom and patience has another option than an indefinite block, and I will be more than happy to leave the matter to him or to any other admin, but I will not unblock you until we have some clear guarantees that a. content changes will be reliably sourced and b. you drop this particular attitude. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Question for administrator

I would like to know how can I raise a flag. Verginia's star (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "raise a flag"? If you want to file an unblock request, the instructions are given in the block notice above. clpo13_(talk) 18:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, The specific link Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks may also be helpful. --joe decker^talk 18:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, appreciated.Verginia's star (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Can someone show me how can I bring this up to Administrators' notice board attention?

To Doug Weller. Dear Doug, I would like to bring to your and to Administrators' notice board attention, two issues: I started to edit on Wikipedia with the genuine intention to improve and update the existing information regarding the subject that I consider I have enough information. You can check it by analysing all my edits until now. Are they an improvement of the previous information or are just disruptive and battle ground editing? I’m a new editor, I admit that I don’t know many things about rules, procedures, how to edit, how to use links, to provide sources and so on. By saying this I’m not trying here to justify myself, but I do want to bring up the two issues.

a-COMPLAIN ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE ADMINISTRATOR DERMIE’S! Taking into consideration his position, his behaviour is unacceptable and is damaging Wikipedia! Specifically, I complain about his behaviour against the editor, as being: 1) abusive 2) provocative 3) intimidation So, while I was editing, and changing step by step the info that I was considering as wrong, on the page The Megleno-Romanian language, he reverted all changes, giving the explanation: unexplained and unsourced. When I gave my explanation he continued by repeating the same, insulting and provoking me using the expression bullshit. When I explained that I don’t need to give sources for exonyms and endonyms, because the info is well known he insulted and provoked me again using the expression May be Wikipedia is not for you. From that point he escalated instead of deescalating, the dialogue was out of control, and I was obliged to answer using the same language. Also he insulted me by using the expression you completely don't get it, (meaning I'll show you now), and texted to user:Shellwood, he is the editor you dealt with at the page:Proto-Romanian language. [what does he mean by 'dealt? Those changes are right and sourced, but Shellwood explanation was that I need consensus and I stopped there]. When he couldn’t face the arguments in the dialogue he informed you and other administrators giving partial info from our dispute, also, digging back and finding my mistake on my first edition on Wikipedia almost two months ago. That sneaky move shows his mentality and his character. His ARROGANCE didn’t stop in the first episode. When I started to edit again after the block of 48 hours , (again I’m not trying to justify my mistake about my comments) but to show that he comes back with the same mentality, with a show of force and desire for revenge, using the expression: I find you return from this....  ; I will not unblock you...; meaning that : ‘’ I’ll show you who is the boss here’’. All these details from the beginning of the dispute until now, are clear evidence that he puts his EGO above Wikipedia and that he really believes that Wikipedia is his property. Remember that he is an administrator and all the dispute was provoked by him and not by me! Given the fact that just two days ago, he was involved in a dispute with the editor is he entitled to block?

b-MY ALERT & FIRST BLOCK. You wrote to me that the alert had nothing to do with my dispute with Dermies. If so, why were you mentioning in your explanation of the alert parts of my dialogue with him? When I asked you : what about his behaviour? Your response was: ‘’I see no reason to take action against User:Drmies as he's shown no evidence of any behaviour violating our sanctions regime for Balkan related articles‘’ and later you went off. My question is clear. I’m not talking about the regime. I’m talking about his behaviour. After the alert, when you went off, I was trying to understand what was all about [about my dispute with Dermies , or Balkans regime?]. Different administrators jumped in the discussion. NeilN brought up my first edit. Administrator Dermies insulting me using the expression:Oh dear--thank you Neil. I'm not surprised..... When I was asking them if the alert has nothing to do with the dispute, why was it raised today[by Dermies, exactly after the dispute] for something I did by mistake more than one month ago and without repeating it? There was no answer!To my question: what is the sanction applied to administrator Dermies for provoking and intimidating editors? The answer was the block. All the issue is still unclear to me.

Thank you, and please don't try again to talk about my behaviour as that is clear to me. I assume my part of the responsibility. I want to know what sanction will be applied to your administrator about the three points, I have mentioned regarding his behaviour.

RegardsVerginia's star (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There won't be any sanctions applied to "Dermies," not based on his handling of your case anyway. It's just not happening. I marked this request as answered to prevent you from having your talk page access revoked though it'll probably happen anyway if any of the admins involved watchlisted this page. I'd strongly advise you to, while you still can, delete this section, and then write an unblock request where you focus on what you did wrong which includes, but is not limited to, inventing nonsense words such as "Meglenian," refusing to hear about the need to source your contributions, misusing edit summaries, and, in general, failing to follow, or even consider, advice given to you. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thx for your response but there are two separate issues here. My behaviour as an editor and his behaviour as an administrator.

As for the term Meglenian it is true that it is unsourced, but is real and full of sense. Nonsense and invented is the term Megleno-Romanian. The second component was added in the previous century to all Eastern Romance Languages by scholars (mainly Romanians), who supported the theory, that all Latin speakers from the Balkans are a Romanian minority, and treating their languages as being dialects of the Romanian language. Theory that has been proved as being wrong! Aromanians, Meglens, are not a Romanian minority and their languages are not dialects of Romanian.Verginia's star (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

IP socking

Evading your block by way of editing from IP addresses is a surefire way to make any return even more problematic. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: This account might be a sock of Remenu who insisted that Vergina Sun was the symbol of the Aromanians, a rare claim. The account to which this talk page account belongs to, made more than 100 edits in their three first days, indicating they were already experienced in editing. I do not have time to write a SPI now, but if similar accounts appear in the future, they need to be compared with Remenu and his confirmed socks. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really very probable. This editor has only edited language-related articles, and they may have made their first 100 edits in a short time, and also the next 100. But their partly strange edits were not looking very experienced. --T*U (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:KrakatoaKatie, User:Callanecc, can you have a look? I think y'all ran CU on some socks. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies, Ktrimi991, and TU-nor: Confirmed IP block evasion, but no registered socks. I put down a rangeblock. The Remenu SPI is stale, but the behavior is consistent, including the gaming of autoconfirmed status. Katie^talk 12:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for you help and input. Much appreciated. Cheers to all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verginia's star, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)