User talk:Batvanio

Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2013
Please stop adding pro-GERB, anti-BSP material to this article. The material you are adding is not supported by the sources. Thanks, Number  5  7  21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it seems that the sources you are citing are biased or have some agenda. More thorough research on the topic would avoid posting one-sided comments. Regards. Batvanio (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how Al Jazeera are biased or have an agenda. You have left the article with false claims (Al Jazeera say nothing about anti-GERB campaign). If you continue to edit in this manner, I'm afraid I will have to request that you be blocked. Number   5  7  08:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I mentioned before, Al Jazeera (and probably you) have no clue what is happening in Bulgaria in the last 20 years. Stanishev and party did almost what Pinochet did to Chile, - killings, kidnappings, people disappearing, corruption on an unbelievable scale - go check the facts. The EU stopped all the development funds for Bulgaria during BSP government due to massive fraud and corruption. All of the funds were released again when GERB came in power. BSP desperately need their power back, and together with the (ethnic) DPS, and (ultra-nationalist) Attack party, are determined to get it. Unfortunately they control judicial, prosecution, news (obviously)and have lots of power. However, in order to to defend and promote them you need to be one of the two: 1)Ignorant 2)Biased (one of them). I will let you select which one you (or Al Jazeera) want to be. Sorry but I will keep reverting what you (and Al Jazeera) wrote because it is simply not true. Batvanio (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that you have a massive issue with the BSP and pro-GERB. As a result, you seem unable to edit in an WP:NPOV fashion. Furthermore, you will not keep reverting, because if you do, you will be blocked. Positive contributions are welcome, but your current efforts are not. Number   5  7  21:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Everyone who has a clue about the situation, is somewhat honest, and does not directly benefit from associations with BSP has issues with that. And judging from your avid backing of BSP, I must conclude that you don't fall into any of those categories or have some vested interest in protecting them. I am sure that Wikipedia does not welcome biased opinions, neither it supports spreading misinformation and one-sided agendas, so you should probably take a note of that. I am sure if you take just a little time and research your information, you will get my point - there is plenty of data out there. If you don't have this time however, please at least do not spread misinformation. Batvanio (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Batvanio! Thanks for stopping the edit war at Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2013, and for beginning to edit in a more thoughtful and neutral way! BigSteve (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Further problematic edits
Unfortunately it seems that you are unable to edit Bulgarian election articles and adhere to the WP:NPOV guidelines, so I am going to ask you one final time to stop adding the same biased material to the 2013 article.

You cannot add the sentence "GERB came in power after as a result of the Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2009, after the Bulgarian Socialist Party lost because of alleged involvement in massive corruption, links to criminal groups and siphoning EU funds to private individuals[5] and organizations." to the article, as this is not backed up by sources. Sources state that EU funds were siphoned, but they do not say that the BSP lost the election because of this or any other reason.

If you readd this material again without a source stating that the BSP lost the election due to the reasons above, then I'm afraid that I will request that you be banned from editing in this sphere. Number  5  7  18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ANEW
I am reviewing the report you filed at WP:ANEW, and it appears to me that Number 57's points about your edits are well-founded. The material you are trying to add to the article is inflammatory and unsupported by the cited sources (as a side issue, the material is also unencyclopedic). Non-neutral editing at Wikipedia is unacceptable. You should consider this a warning that if you persist in these kinds of edits/reverts, you risk being blocked. You are welcome to use the article talk page to discuss your edits, but you should not continue any battling in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

an answer from me
The last few weeks Number 57 very systematically has stripped the article from one side of the story and added to the other. This is not just about my edits - just take a look. There is a palpable agenda in this single-sided editing and it is very sad that this is not only tolerated but defended by Wikipedia editors. I have continuously supported Wikipedia with donations because I believed in its objectivity. It is kind of awakening for me to find out that my donations are used for grants for this kind of partiality and unfairness. I was hoping to restore the balance of the article, but it is getting hopeless. This is sad... Batvanio (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The only information I have added to the article is about the electoral system and the results. There is no "side" to these stories, only facts and figures. I assume you are confusing me with another editor, as I have no interest in Bulgarian party politics. Number   5  7  08:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? How come then your quotation of Al Jazeera is impartial (about the 350000 "fake" ballots which turned out to be scrap ballots) and the very next quote (about the vote buying and smear campaign war) done by me, from an adjacent Al Jazeera article, is considered "inflamatory" and removed? This is clearly supporting the very same smear campaign quoted by Al Jazeera. Since when is this considered impartial by Wikipedia? Batvanio (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, really. I have only added the results and electoral system sections. The Al Jazeera information is not my quotation, but was added by Lihaas (see here). Please stop making unfounded accusations - it only serves to make your arguments even less credible. Thanks, Number   5  7  20:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see... Is this supposed to explain why you kept removing ANY of my comments no matter what? How come the article is still full of irrelevant information? How come statements like "Rumors suggested.." escaped your vigilant eye? How come you kept restoring information that I deleted because it WAS actually unfounded while deleting pretty much anything that I wrote? No my friend - you simply took this personally and declared a war to help your wounded self-esteem... Congratulations for the grant by the way. Probably part of it was my money. Bye! I would appreciate if you do not reply here!