User talk:Evlekis/Archive13

 🇲🇳 Mongolia - Please do not modify; you may start from fresh on my current talk page.

Hi
Keep this link in case they keep on the same patern of editing. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks. I do hope there will be no need to revisit the issue again though. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Keithstanton (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks a million, Antidiskriminator. This means a lot! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

an/i
Evlekis, damn, i am so busy these days, but you should close an/i and open that in wp:ae, his disruptions are way beyond ani now. Close that with info that it was moved to ae. You must be shorter, i propose just list of blind pov pushing, and all those problematic data. It MUST BE A LOST SHORTER, it is tldr now. Also, you must be neutral, without your own thoughts. Edits will speack for them self. I will help, i wanted to do that my self, but i dont have time at all this month... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Evlekis. We discussed this issues and I believe you know:
 * what I think about Albanization of widely accepted English language names of places on Kosovo and Serbization of Yugoslav forces in connection with massacres on Kosovo
 * that I understand your position because the edits you reported are continuation of the long term editing pattern (i.e. see who is struggling to keep the quote written by one American journalist that in case of Serbs "ideas of national liberation are inextricably linked with killing your neighbour and burning his village").
 * that I also believe there is a much bigger problem here. The edits you reported are also a part of the editing pattern of many new editors correlating with the campaign of Kosovo government to use wikipedia to promote its political agenda by organizing wikipedia editors and paying prizes of 10,000 EUR (explained at this website and with this comment and this websites (link, link)). When I noticed this correlation I knew exactly what would happen if this is reported to ANI or AE which are anyway way below the level necessary to deal with this issues which can only be resolved without the influence of involved editors and admins.
 * Therefore I think it is better not to go to AE but to some other place. Right now I am uncertain what would be the best address. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * All right we'll see how it goes. However I shall continue to restore English language text until I am given a satisfactory reason why foreign language naming is preferred. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Kosovo history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marino Sanudo (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) 18:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Hi. Can you please say something to this? It's all about this edition of the list. Hvala in advance.--Plk (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * North Kosovo crisis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Mitrovica and Goran Bogdanović


 * Foreign direct investments in Kosovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Macedonia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply
No, I am not happy since errors and biased sources from you and other editors are still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.247.195 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I was simply removing YOUR POWs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.247.195 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Since I’m the author of the article Cinema of Kosovo, I think that it would be fair and in line with the consensus rule to discuss the changes before editing on my article. Venus fzy (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Venus fzy (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No Violation. End. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hello. In my preliminary assessment of the request, I conclude that you are editing tendentiously, in violation of WP:NPOV, by consistently making edits that are in favor of the position of Serbia in the dispute about Kosovo. If you would like to rebut that conclusion, I invite you to submit evidence in your statement at WP:AE that shows recent edits by you that change Kosovo- or Serbia-related content to give more prominence to another point of view. I ask you to do so as concisely as possible, in a bulleted list of dated diffs, and no later than within 24 hours of your next edit. I'm making the same request to Bobrayner. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for a WP:BLP violation as discussed here on the page Talk:Rita Ora, you have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  17:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.


 * Thank you Beeblebrox. I shall try that route and see what happens. I am less than impressed as to the time it took for this simple decision. I will be raising many issues regarding many editors both now on e-mail and after my block is lifted (I don't refer to you as I fully accept the rationale in your statement). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This wasn't a "decision". You were provided with the link to the Guide to Appealing Arb Enforcement Blocks when you were first blocked.  I'm not sure why you then went and tried to use the "normal" unblock process - any delays are therefore your own fault.  I'll WP:AGF and assume that you weren't trying to trick some new admin into improperly unblocking you :-)  (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 17:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for assuming good faith as indeed I was evidently addressing the person to block me. I just wasn't sure of the procedure. It is not one's favourite position to be in, blocked that is! Highly uncomfortable. Either way, I am in the process of contacting the arbitration team. Thanks BW. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Outline of events overlooked by univolved admin
The Rita Ora talkpage incident needs to be looked into in more dept, the surrounding scenario and the aftermath - not just my comment and its restoration. Here is a detailed account of events:


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora&diff=537232944&oldid=536921381 The first action which would spark an altercation
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora&diff=537233876&oldid=537233141 The ONE AND ONLY alleged BLP violation from me
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora&diff=next&oldid=537234983 The next comment was a personal attack aimed at me
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora&diff=next&oldid=537240161 I then removed the revision which contained the insulting remark thinking this is acceptable on talk pages
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora&diff=next&oldid=537241560 The other user responded by removing my comment
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora&diff=next&oldid=537270770 ...and other people's comments to rid more of Evlekis...
 * 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora&diff=next&oldid=537271121 ...then some more
 * 8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rita_Ora&diff=next&oldid=537271419 So if you care to examine this edit with closer inspection, it is a mere restoration of wrongly removed contributions from talk. It forms the basis for my block yet ANY editor to encounter the talk page would have made this same edit

I reported the other user, JamesBWatson arbitrated and immediately admonished me for the personal attack.

Then when I explained the misgiving to JWB, he acknowledged the situation. Now this comment marked an end to the drama, however note that neither did the admin mention any BLP violation NOR did he block or even warn me for my action, yet he dealt with it. I in turn realised how comments can be misinterpreted and I have not returned to anything remotely similar. This as you see was all completed 8-9 February, two and a half months ago and I believe it is much too late to block someone and grossly inappropriate when the matter has been dealt with by a colleague of yours.

I ask that you consider this package and let me know your position on it. Now I do not expect the block to lift just because of this as I realise there is another issue. Could you just explain that one to me in more detail so I may see if I have grounds for appeal. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I maintain the block. In, you write: "The reference "pig ignorant" was NOT directed at the editor, it was uttered to describe the personality of the article subject who has chosen to involve herself in political commentary on the side of her own nation on a matter on which her ignorance is unequivocal." That is precisely why I blocked you. It is a violation of WP:BLP to describe named living persons as "pig ignorant", and to restore such insults after being criticized for them.  Sandstein   19:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandstein are you paying attention or picking out bits you fancy? I restored the passage that was removed by a one-time only editor, comments that should not have been removed, comments that any editor would have restored once seeing the round of deletions from the other user. Nobody criticised my edit, the one person to deal with it merely focused on the order of wording - even explaining how I should have phrased it. I was never cautioned before that for any BLP violation. I heeded the warning, and in the two and a half months from that time, I never sumbitted anything which remotely appeared to create a BLP issue. What does it take to make you realise that this has already been dealt with? You treat it like I was warned for it recently and I repeated the offence the next day which in turn was today. It's dead and buried, and you know as well as I do that it only came up as part of Rayner's defence. I suppose if you look back to my contributions from 2006 you might find a few skeletons in the cupboard that I too have forgotten about. How about resurfacing them and you can extend my block even longer. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem remains current, and the block remains a preventative necessity, because even when the matter was raised at AE, you neither acknowledged that you were violating the BLP policy nor did you remove your "pig ignorant" comment from the talk page. This leads me to believe that it is likely that you would continue to commit similar WP:BLP violations if you were to remain unsanctioned.  Sandstein   19:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you're keeping an eye on this page because personal restrictions affect how often I can log in and it is not quite as frequently as when Dramafest was happening. Reading your most recent post you put a different light on things. I now see the issue so I'd like to take this opportunity once and for all to clear the Talk:Rita Ora incident. First of all, my reason for not acknowledging the BLP policy is two-fold: firstly the passage of time and the status of the matter having been dealt with, and secondly the timing and circumstance surrounding its return to the spotlight meant that whilst I am involved at AE, it does not occur to me immediately to retract the comment. Naturally I accept that the comment violates BLP, I noticed the alarms it raised when it happened and that is why I haven't repeated the offence just as I shall not make such a remark in future. As for removing the comment, I would gladly do so. The only obstacle is that an uninvolved admin to mediate actually restored the comment containing the personal attack on me so if I remove it now, there will be a non-sequitur passage. What I can do however is strike the comment out if it is the best thing to do. I am serious that it was not my intention to violate BLP, that it had not been mentioned to me prior to that or even on that occasion; I assure you of no such repetition just as there has been no similar contribution since the time. Can you accept this passage and pledge to strike out the comment with my first free edit so we can atleast move on to the other things? This chapter really needs to be confined to the past. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, on that basis and with the expectation that you won't make similar edits again I have unblocked you.  Sandstein   08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)