User talk:Jorkdkskakaksjjsk

Welcome

Hello, Jorkdkskakaksjjsk, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Vasil Terziev moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Vasil Terziev, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted it and it should be suitable now. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vasil Terziev (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vasil Terziev and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jorkdkskakaksjjsk! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vasil Terziev for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vasil Terziev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasil Terziev until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

// Timothy :: talk 22:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Democratic Bulgaria, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boyko Rashkov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. 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) 06:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atanas Atanasov (politician born 1990)

Hi thanks for creating this article. When we translate or borrow from other language wikis it’s a requirement to acknowledge the source. The best way to do this is to include it in your edit summary (e.g. “translated from bg.wiki”) and there’s also a translation template you can add to the talk page. I’ve added it for you. Happy editing and please leave a message on my talk page if you need any help Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Solomon Passy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited 2024 European Parliament election in Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MEP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jorkdkskakaksjjsk. Thank you for your work on 47th National Assembly of Bulgaria. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Andrey Kovatchev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Higgins.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Berov Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union of Democratic Forces.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jorkdkskakaksjjsk. Thank you for your work on Petar Kulenski. Chaotic Enby, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Passes WP:NPOL as a former congressperson, but it would be good to have more reliable sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Chaotic Enby}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Vasil Terziev

Hello, Jorkdkskakaksjjsk. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vasil Terziev, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Bulgaria

Hello. DB didn't stop existing because the greens left it, it stopped existing because it merged into PP-DB, which the greens proceeded to leave. All three member parties of DB joined PP-DB which is a separate alliance and the central electoral commission listed all the parties as separate. I left a message on the Democratic Bulgaria talk page a year ago and no objection has been made. I suggest we get a discussion going over there instead of edit warring. Nikolay4101 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Vasil Terziev

Hello, Jorkdkskakaksjjsk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vasil Terziev".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metodi Baykushev moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Metodi Baykushev. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources need to be reliable and independent of the subject. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 European Parliament election in Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MEP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 European Parliament election in Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ECR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Ivan Portnih

Hello Jorkdkskakaksjjsk, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Ivan Portnih, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Portnih.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Vanderwaalforces}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Revival (Bulgarian political party), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-NATO.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive editing

Hello. Regarding your repeated reverts across a range of articles, please respect the WP:BRD principle, and seek consensus for changes you wanted to make but were reverted.

Several of your edit summaries were unconstructive and continuing in that vein will result in you being blocked from editing. Number 5 7 21:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello, I'm Classicwiki. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2024 Bulgarian parliamentary election without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Hi Jorkdkskakaksjjsk, "vandalism" means intentionally damaging the encyclopedia. Please don't accuse other experienced editors of such behavior. Also, calling others' edits "idiotic" (Special:Diff/1222395568) is of course not an option but pretty uncivil. You have done so before and been asked to stop by Number 57 in the #Unconstructive editing section above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hi Jorkdkskakaksjjsk! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Dimitar Glavchev several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Dimitar Glavchev, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current seats

Hello. Please stop reverting the changes regarding current seats. Current does not mean last election, it means as of now or the dissolution of the assembly. Even your cited example of the Dutch election, there were 6 seats unaccounted for in the infobox prior to the election on the page, and there were changes to particular parties who lost MPs for whatever reason. Quinby (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Metodi Baykushev

Hello, Jorkdkskakaksjjsk. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Metodi Baykushev, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve 2026 Bulgarian presidential election

Hello, Jorkdkskakaksjjsk,

Thank you for creating 2026 Bulgarian presidential election.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

By including a "Potential candidates" section, the article engages in speculation, in breach of WP:CRYSTAL. Such a section could really only be included if multiple independent reliable sources reported that "such-and-such is person is rumoured to be running for election", and even then, it is probably premature.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Jorkdkskakaksjjsk. Thank you for your work on 2026 Bulgarian presidential election. Another editor, Bastun, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

By including a "Potential candidates" section, the article engages in speculation, in breach of WP:CRYSTAL. Such a section could really only be included if multiple independent reliable sources reported that "such-and-such is person is rumoured to be running for election", and even then, it is probably premature.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I fully accept the reasons for my blocks, having violated Wikipedia’s policy of prohibiting personal attacks towards others editors. Accordingly, I take responsibility for my actions and apologize deeply. Furthermore, I pledge to never repeat that mistake again and promote respectful editing. Lastly, I humbly request that I am unblocked so that I can return to my hobby of editing Wikipedia pages, which I so adore.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK but have not addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2024 (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.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I fully accept the reasons for my blocks, having violated Wikipedia’s policy of prohibiting personal attacks towards others editors. In addition, I made the terrible mistake of committing sockpuppetry, therefore once again violating Wikipedia’s policies. Accordingly, I take responsibility for my actions and apologize deeply. Furthermore, I pledge to never repeat these mistakes again and promote respectful editing. Lastly, I humbly request that I am unblocked so that I can return to my hobby of editing Wikipedia pages, which I so adore.

Decline reason:

I do not buy this unblock appeal. Edit summaries like 'cry more', evading temporary blocks with sockpuppet accounts named to target individual editors - you were trolling then, and the tone of this request does nothing to persuade me that you're not trolling now. Declined. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:00, 6 November 2024 (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.

Please provide a complete list of accounts you've used, as well as noting whether or not you've violated WP:LOUTSOCK. I want to be exceptionally clear here. Do not leave out any accounts. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number57s nightmare and @Bgmasterrrrrr are the two accounts are used when violating Wikipedia’s sockpuppetry policies. In addition, I believe I did unintentionally violate WP:LOUTSOCK when connecting to another internet network, which is something I do on a regular basis and sadly resulted in a violation. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This matches what the WP:CHECKUSER data shows. As I've already reviewed an unblock request, I won't be reviewing this one. Another admin will be along eventually to take a look. --Yamla (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don’t want to appear pushy in any way but is there a reason why the processing of the unblock request is taking so long? I just figured that it took less time to review initially and it would be about the same this time. Again, please don’t take this as me being rude. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I shall submit another unblock request formally:

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).

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

Request reason:

With all the reasons, explanations and evidence layed out above in this same topic, I hearby submit an unblock request.

Decline reason:

Please only make one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2024 (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.

Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have completed the steps needed to request an unblock in the topic above but the admin said they could only review one unblock request at a time. So please familiarize yourself with that topic and decide whether you could unblock me.

Decline reason:

You are being deliberately abusive. I want to be incredibly clear, if you make yet another unblock request while the above unblock request is still awaiting review, you will lose access to this talk page. Yamla (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2024 (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.

Unblock request #4

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

In this unblock request, I want to once again admit my wrongdoings and address the reasoning behind the rejection of my previous one. I fully accept the reasons for my blocks, having violated Wikipedia’s policy of prohibiting personal attacks towards others editors. In addition, I made the terrible mistake of committing sockpuppetry, therefore once again violating Wikipedia’s policies. The following accounts were used for that: @User:@Number57s nightmare and @User:@Bgmasterrrrrr. Moreover, I believe I did unintentionally violate WP:LOUTSOCK when connecting to another internet network, which is something I do on a regular basis and sadly resulted in a violation. Accordingly, I take responsibility for my actions and apologize deeply. Furthermore, I pledge to never repeat these mistakes again and promote respectful editing. Regarding @Girth Summit’s accusation that I was trolling, which is true, it was a part of those personal attacks which I already regret. However, my contribution to Wikipedia has been substantial, having made valuable edits and created dozens of pages. It’s common sense to acknowledge that that wasn’t trolling but a positive impact instead. Now that it’s been about a month since I got banned, I am dying of the simple wish to imrove certain things in certain pages. I reassure you that I make changes according to the rules. I’ve taken my lessons by staying on the sidelines for so long. All I’m asking for is a chance that you keep the right to take away from me if I commit wrongdoing again. This shall be the last request I submit and I hope to have convicted you, the administrators, that I am completely sincere about my wish to return as a changed editor.

Accept reason:

Conditional unblock, with WP:1RR, see conversation below. Good luck and happy editing! -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Checkuser needed}} to check for any recent block evasion. -- asilvering (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No recent abuse of multiple accounts found in a checkuser check. PhilKnight (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorkdkskakaksjjsk, I've added two contentious topics warnings to your talk page, since it appears that you didn't receive these before being blocked for making personal attacks. I'll add that blocked editors who create sockpuppets don't tend to get unblocked before several months have passed without block evasion. I say these things to warn you that you need to be really sincere in your efforts to never repeat these mistakes again and promote respectful editing, since you'll be on really thin ice if you're unblocked, and you may not receive much warning before being blocked again if you return to writing insulting edit summaries and vandalizing other editors' talk pages.

It's pretty easy to avoid doing those things, though, and I'm happy to extend you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you've realized that was stupid. But I see in your edit history that you also engaged in edit warring on several occasions, though you weren't blocked for it. I think you should agree to a WP:1RR restriction as a condition of your unblock. That means that you can only revert an edit once. If it's reinstated, you have to go to the article talk page to work out a consensus version. Can you abide by that rule? -- asilvering (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Asilvering, thank you for the detailed response. I’ve taken my notes from last time and I can absolutely pledge not to engage in editing wars again. I’ve now come to realize how pointless they are. In addition, I’d like to present the good example from the Democratic Bulgaria talk page, where I once reached a consensus on a major disagreement between myself and another editor. In conclusion, as you mentioned, it would be very easy for me to be blocked again, so I would have the motivation not to engage in unproductive disputes again. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the results of any national or sub-national election, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

asilvering (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

asilvering (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]