User talk:FunkyFly/Archive6

Hi FF[edit]

Check the talk here please. Niko Silver 00:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria FAC[edit]

Hi! Today I've nominated the article Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria for a featured article, believing it meets all criteria.

This is the article's third nomination (see the previous ones), and because the previous ones received relatively little attention, I'd like to invite you to voice your opinion about it, be it as a vote or a comment, on the article's nomination page.

Thanks! :) Todor →Bozhinov 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

Please stop the lame revert war on Pogradec. I see this has been going on for months now, and you should know that sterile revert-warring in this way is forbidden, even if you don't technically touch the 3RR limit. If you continue this, you may be blocked even if you wait another few hours now to fall outside 3RR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier reasons have been given for those reverts, and I'm sure the other party is aware of them. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know the rules. Whether you think you have the better reasons is of little importance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I know them. Reasons are never better or worse. /FunkyFly.talk_ 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a problem?[edit]

"Your IP has been blocked for 24 hours"

As you can see, my IP has not been blocked. It is very rude from you to accuse me for incident that you had with another user. You can ask that checkuser compare that IP with my own and you will see that it was not me. If you continue to accuse me like this in attempt to discredit me, I will report your behaviour to Wikipedia administrators. PANONIAN (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funky, while Panonian is far from being a saint on Pirot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), did it perhaps occur to you that the IP in question is perhaps a Macedonian chauvinist who was wikistalking you or Keckarev, rather than the editor with 20,000 edits and (well, almost) clean block log? Some basic AGF and common sense suggest so. Now, plese, both of you, walk away from each other and go edit something else. Duja► 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful "Serb buddy" words. Will keep that impressive demonstration of civility and good faith in mind. Good bye. Duja► 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am deeply offended by your implication that I pick up my "buddies" based on their ethnicity 2) but I suppose it you know it very well judging on your response [1] which I can't but characterize as trolling at its lowest 3) You're apparently so convinced that the IP in question was Panonian's, so you don't even mind what would happen if you were proven wrong; 4) I consider this discussion over. Duja► 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether you admit it or not is of little importance to me. Do it again and I will request further measures."

You can request what ever you want - I told you, ask for checkuser and if I broke any Wikipedia rule, I certainly should be punished for that. But until you prove that I broke any rule, please stop your false accusations. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Census statistics[edit]

Hi. I see you've reverted my changes to the Macedonians (ethnic group) article. The reason I changed the label from 2002 census to 2002 Community Survey is because there wasn't a US census in 2002. The data used is from the 2002 Community Survey (see here). The last US census was in 2000 and the next one will be 2010. Cordless Larry 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and for re-intserting my edits. Cordless Larry 10:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bulgarians" versus "Macedonians" in August 2[edit]

Thanks for your input FunkyFly. After reading it seems like Macedonia may not be the appropriate name, but several regions like Thrace and Macedonia as well as Bulgaria also rebelled as well. I looked into the history and think that the most appropriate name to put in is probably the name of the organization which revolted. This is what I changed it to.

1903 - Fall of the Ottoman Empire: Unsuccessful uprising of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization against Ottoman Turkey, also known as the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising.

If you have any concerns please tell me. Sifaka ^talk 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism[edit]

Would you stop to edit Serbia-realted articles with your Greater Bulgarian POV? Also, term "zapadne pokrajine" do not exist in Serbian - it is just Serbian translation of the English Wiki article, but Serbs never use this term. PANONIAN (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime![edit]

:-) Niko Silver 16:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCFN Macedonia[edit]

This is a formal warning. THe WP:RFCN for user:Macedonia has been closed. Opening it again to prove a point is disruptive behavior. Several people agree the consensus is not going to change and it is appropriate to close it. If you have ruther issues with this user, please take it to an alternate venue. Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough time for all potential users to voice an opinion. /FunkyFly.talk_ 00:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis is also a formal warning that replacing that WP:RFCN for User:Macedonia will put youhave you break the WP:3RR. Should you continue your current actions, I will be forced to reluctantly block you per policy. Thank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be an ass about it. Most WP:RFCN's play out in about a day. After that, there is very little discussion. THere would have to be a massive influx of editors who disagreed with strong arguments based on policy in the next 24 hours for anything to change. There was going to be NO CONSENSUS on the and re-opening will not fix it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the fact that people on different time zones dont have time to react to this, Mr Eastern Standard? /FunkyFly.talk_ 00:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - let's stop this now, before we all say things we regret. RCFN doesn't seem to be the place for the more controversial cases. A full RFC is needed and we already had one (I think it's still in progress).--Domitius 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you, there would have to be a masssssive influx of people all of the sudden, all with excellent counterarguments + great arguments based strictly on policy, not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It could run for a week and the major players would be the currently existing players. As well, there is a current RFC in progress. The WP:RFCN is not the appropriate venue to express the issues you have with this editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coulda-woulda-shoulda? Are you talking out of experience, or citing some specific policy? /FunkyFly.talk_ 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think RCFN is the right place. It's his username that is the problem because he is using his userpage as an article (a WP:POVFORK of existing articles in fact).--Domitius 00:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris I've cited 4 very strong arguments taken directly from WP:U. You chose to ignore them. I bet in the next couple of days when people would actually have a chance to see this issue we would have a flood of disallows. Personally I find it quite poor form from your side, just because you predict it's going to be nasty and you're bored of long talks. -- Avg 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, I am not the only person closing this. 2 other editors, activly involved in WP:RFCN have also closed this argument. I dont care how long it is, i dont care how nasty it gets, that has never affected my closing of anything. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a comment above,"It's his username that is the problem because he is using his userpage as an article" that it is based on the content of there userpage. IF they had no userpage, would the issue be the same? Userpages can be deleted. The issue here is delete a userpage, or ban a users name. If there userpage is innapropriate, let me know and I will delete it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm holding you on that. What about his edits that are signed by the government? Niko Silver 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to remove any innapropriate edit he makes. IF he gives you trouble, give him a warning then you can let me know, I will kindly get involved. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of banned user?[edit]

Exhibit A, B and C.--Domitius 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. /FunkyFly.talk_ 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try Dr. Scholl's for the record? Niko Silver 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The law seems to have already been enforced upon him. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR reports[edit]

I will look at them, or someone else will, don't worry. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poemsnewly[edit]

Yes, it's him. Blocked indef. BTW, you can remove the note on your talk page because it is no longer protected (see log). Khoi khoi 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for persistent edit warring, especially in light of your previous blocks of the same nature. Your behavior at Banat Bulgarians is unacceptable: 3 reverts in the space of an hour, and no attempt at discussion whatsoever. You've never even made an edit to Talk:Banat Bulgarians. You've been making similar mechanical reverts elsewhere. Please the spirit of collaborative editing to heart, and use polite discussion to resolve disputes, as lined out at WP:DR. Dmcdevit·t 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlawful blocking[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked unlawfully, I have not violated any policy and made only three reverts on Banat Bulgarians. I believe the reason for "persistent edit warrning" given in the block log is grossly exhagerrated. I kindly request unblock

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:3RR. It does not guarantee you three reverts. — Yamla 18:13, 28 March 2007 (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.