User talk:Iliev/2023

PSS 9 block appeal 20230128140006

Здравейте, блокиран съм погрешка от бота, тъй като не съм писал неща, които не отговарят на действителността.
84.238.195.17 14:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty arrogant of you to claim you've not written "anything untrue" when your "contribution" is a pretty silly vandalism. So, instead of lifting the block, I'll extend it from two hours to two weeks. Hope you learn your lesson.
— Luchesar • T/C 14:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230302073256

Здравейте,

Пиша ви във връзка със статията тип биография на един български учен Милен Куманов, която не сте публикували. Потребителят Mwiki144, от който публикувахме последната версия е блокиран, както и ip адреса на Университета по библиотекознание и информационни технологии /IP: 194.141.8.2/, от който публикуваме последната версия на статията. Бихте ли ни съдействали за публикуването. Благодарим ви и очакваме обратна връзка за разрешаване на този казус.
Mwiki144 (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mwiki144, упорито сте премахвали шаблона, че статията се намира в инкубатора, въпреки, че отдолу с едри букви пише „Моля, не не премахвайте шаблона“. Затова ботът Ви е блокирал. Ще Ви отблокирам, но Ви моля да бъдете по-внимателни в бъдеще. Относно публикуването на черновата като статия, това се решава от редакторите. Ако имате нужда от помощ, може да пишете на bg:Уикипедия:Разговори.
— Luchesar • T/C 11:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230308113726

213.126.216.234 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Hi, I have been blocked as a "bot". I am not a bot. I did not participate in vandalism. Please do not flag me as a bot.

Y — Luchesar • T/C 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230310185420

Начало на блокирането: 19:18, 10 март 2023 Изтичане на блокирането: неограничен Цел на блокирането: ‪Petur Ivanov‬ Искам да се оплача, защото името на Джеман Пейчев Кръстев стои на тази страница от 2006г. и вчера беше изтрито поради незнайни причини! Искам да се възстанови тази информция обратно в сайта!
Petur Ivanov (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Petur Ivanov, your edits don't seem particularly helpful or constructive. You've added some completely unsourced and not too encyclopedic information and you've insisted on adding it even after patrollers reverted your edits. This isn't how Wikipedia works. You have to follow the rules of our project and you have to work together with the other editors. And it's always a good idea to follow advice from the more experienced editors. It's rarely a good idea to just revert their edits and insist on your own view. Wikipedia isn't some random free website, where you can post whatever you want. And it's definitely not your own website where you can keep only what you want.

You have to convince me that you will follow the rules in the future and, in particular, that when experienced users revert your edits you will engage in a discussion with them and not in an edit war. If you don't do that, I'm afraid, the block is going to stay.
— Luchesar • T/C 22:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230313082004

Исках да премахна страницата, защото не съм я създал правилно и сега съм блоиран. Искам да се изтрие. - https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0:%D0%9E%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2

Georgievid (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Y Georgievid, I'm unblocking you, but please use the template {{бързо}} in future when you think a page on Wikipedia should be deleted, instead of just blanking the page (which more often than not is really just vandalism).
— Luchesar • T/C 09:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230320135509

This bot keeps marking my posts on a user talk page as vandalism, even though I opened a new discussion on the talk page and exclusively entered new information. It also detects some of my changes as vandalism. I have not committed vandalism, please fix this bot. I am "blocked" by this bot for attempting to revoke its deletion, even after the original owner of the page reverted the bot's deletion. The page can be found here: [1].
NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You've repeatedly engaged in edit wars with other editors in the past, so the bot's reaction isn't entirely ungrounded. Anyway, since I see that in general you are trying to edit in good faith, I'll lift the block.
— Luchesar • T/C 14:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. My apologies for engaging in edit wars. Does the three edit rule [2] apply? NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We do have an equivalent of the 3RR: bg:Уикипедия:Повече от три връщания. It's not an official policy though, so the local administrators have discretion over whether to enforce the rule or not, or, indeed, to impose a block even if there are three or less than three reverts in 24 hours. The spirit of the rule is that reverting other editors' edits is not constructive (unless the reverted edits are clear vandalism) and the editors should always strive to engage in a constructive discussion and seek a consensus. My personal advice, based on my 11 years of experience as a sysop on bgwiki, would be exactly the same: always seek dialogue, always assume good faith, and always have the consensus as your primary goal.
— Luchesar • T/C 14:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not read the text which states that the PS9 edit should not be deleted. This page should not be marked for "fast" deletion [3], however I noticed that a tag can be used for that in the code.
NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the conditions for "fast" deletion, and I disagree that the page should be marked as such. It does have relevant sources, gives credit to original authors, and in general is written in good faith. NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's part of the bot's (admittedly, far from perfect) logic. I've fixed that and also made sure that the bot will not specifically check your edits in the future.
— Luchesar • T/C 14:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230322194055

Намирам блокирането ми за неоснователно, тъй като аз просто използвах правата си на редактор, за да допринасям с информацията с кочто разполагам в различните страници. Моля искренно да бъда отблокиран. Благодаря предварително!
Pijoko (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

N Pijoko, you are mistaken. There is no "right to edit Wikipedia" that allows you to enter whatever information you like in the articles. Calling people "whores" -- regardless of what reasons you might have -- certainly isn't part of any "right". I will not lift the block unless you convince me that you want to be and can be a constructive and helpful editor and that you will strictly follow all rules.
— Luchesar • T/C 23:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ако може да ми се обясни конкретно къде съм сгрешил и детайлно какво престъпление съм извършил ще знам за напред да съм по разумен редактор. До колкото знам никой не притежава статиите във Уикипедия, така че дори и да съм се издънил, има други редактори, който могат да поправят грешката ми. Ако никой не притежава статиите в, как така мога да бъда блокиран само защото се опитвам да споделям и допринасям със знание? Факта че се изисква от мен да убеждавам случаен човек защо трябва да имам правото да допринасям за общността показва, че състоянието на Уикипедия зависи от емоциите на някой човек който днес се събудил на криво и е решил да бъде съдия. Това е непрофесионално. Освен това аз съм нов, така че е разумно да се прояви малко толерантност към новобранците. Всички започваме от някъде, това, че съм направил грешка веднъж е нормално за новак и не е справедливо и честно директно да бъда блокиран. Трябва първият път да мина само със едно предупреждение и ако се издъня след това тогава да понеса последствията от действията си. Pijoko (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Признавам че прекалих, като обидих този конкретен човек във статията. Pijoko (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Pijoko, you seem to continue to misunderstand how Wikipedia works or even what it is about.

The problem is not that you have "offended" someone by calling them "a whore" on Wikipedia. The problem is that Wikipedia has the goal of providing quality information to its readers, and instead of trying to improve that information, you are, on the contrary, ruining the work of other editors. So, no, you don't have "the right to edit" unconditionally. And, no, it isn't about someone being "too emotional" for reverting your destructive edits or preventing you from making more of them.

Last but not least, you haven't been blocked for not being careful enough—to claim that as a newbie you should be treated more leniently. Your edits were what we call vandalism—editing in a disruptive or malicious manner—and you did it not once, but several times, even after patrollers have reverted your previous edits. Being a newbie is absolutely not an excuse for such behaviour. And claiming that you were merely trying to "contribute knowledge"—again, stating in articles that someone is "a whore"—borders on trolling.

That being said, I'm willing to lift your block, but you do have to prove to me that you understand what was wrong with your actions and that you will not do anything like this again in the future. Please explain what are the most important policies on Wikipedia regarding editing and communicating with other editors and why are they important. A sentence or two for each policy would be fine.
— Luchesar • T/C 23:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Обективност: Политиката за обективност на Wikipedia изисква редакторите да пишат от обективна перспектива, без предразсъдъци или мнение. Тази политика е от съществено значение за поддържането на доверието в Wikipedia и за гарантиране, че платформата е надежден източник на информация.

Проверяемост: Политиката за проверяемост изисква всички информации на Wikipedia да бъдат подкрепени от надеждни източници. Тази политика помага да се гарантира, че информацията, представена на Wikipedia, е точна и надеждна.

Без оригинални изследвания: Политиката за забрана на оригинални изследвания забранява на редакторите да въвеждат свои собствени изследвания или теории в статиите на Wikipedia. Тази политика е важна, тъй като помага да се поддържа надеждността на информацията на платформата и да се предотврати разпространението на грешни данни.

Уважителност: Политиката за уважителност изисква редакторите да се отнасят един към друг с уважение и да избягват лични нападки или домагвания. Тази политика е от съществено значение за създаването на положителна среда за редактиране и за насърчаването на сътрудничеството между редакторите.

Консенсус: Политиката за консенсус изисква редакторите да работят заедно, за да постигнат общо съгласие относно промените в статиите. Тази политика помага да се гарантира, че решенията се вземат по колаборативен начин и че се взимат предвид всички перспективи. Както вече споменах, знам, че не трябва да пиша лично мнение за някой в статийте. I did a little bit of trolling tho. Won't happen in the future. Pijoko (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Y Pijoko, I hope you didn't get that from ChatGPT. :) Anyway, fair enough as at the very least now you have a reasonably good summary of the important things to keep in mind. I will not instruct the bot to ignore you and there are plenty of human administrators around anyway, so don't get into edit wars with the other editors and by all means don't do trolling or anything else disruptive on Wikipedia. Use your new chance to become a good contributor to the encyclopedia wisely.
— Luchesar • T/C 13:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230324170131

This is a last attempt at dispute resolution.

I do not find my permaban just. While I understand that I may have included too much personal opinion in a comment, a comment in a talk page does not justify a permaban for many reasons. Reasons: According to [4] that the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy).

While the personal opinion parts of the comment and off-topic points are not desired on Wikipedia, the permaban was not necessary to prevent damage. Indeed, I began editing those parts out of the comment once I realized what the policy states. On my talk page you can clearly see that I do not hesitate to retract edits and improve them before committing to them, even if I believe not much is wrong with them.

Persons convicted of vandalism rarely receive over a 2 hour cooldown, so why the permanent ban in a more opinionated/sidetracked comment in a talk page?

Also, Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia Here it explicitly states:

Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms:

A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. These would be dealt with through guidance, simplified suggestions on how to contribute or reediting the content to the style and standards of Wikipedia.

Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner

Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed; even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia.

To summarize, I believe the ban is unjust of any duration, moreover permanently. Imo it blatantly violates the necessary to prevent damage or disruption blocking policy. And ignores key points in the Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia article.
NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You clearly tried to use Wikipedia to push forward propaganda. Your "too much personal opinion" on the talk pages wasn't the reason for the permanent block. It merely made it easier to become convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that you have a specific agenda and thus "are not here to build an encyclopedia", but rather to skew the information in Wikipedia in certain direction. Not to mention how the "arguments" that you made were textbook examples of the information war: e.g., painting reputable sources, like Deutsche Welle, as inherently biased and claiming that their fact-checking materials were merely opinions, so a "neutral" middle ground needed to be sought, because everyone must be equally biased.

This wasn't only my opinion. The problems have already been pointed to you by other sysops, patrollers and regular editors. It was these problems that lead to your block. And there was a pretty clear consensus that the request for your permanent block was well substantiated.

N In the light of this, and considering that you are now (again) engaging in defiant wikilawyering instead of showing a sincere will to recognize the problems and to mend your behaviour appropriately, I see no reason to revise the block. If anything, you only strengthen my conviction that you have very specific goals for your participation in Wikipedia, and these goals absolutely do not align with the goals and the spirit of the project.

You can, if you like, appeal to other bgwiki sysops on their talk pages here on Meta. If someone decides to unblock you—which I seriously doubt—it's up to them. Past that, you could possibly try to appeal to the global community, but I'd surprised if you find any sympathy there, too.
— Luchesar • T/C 22:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I am a newcomer to wikipedia. Do not expect me to know every single rule, guideline, and terminology, such as wikilawyering. From my POV it feels like the [5] general guideline is not necessarily abided by in my case. In general I also find no concretness in your accusations for propaganda etc. You repeatedly avoid giving any kind of elaboration, even though you are supposed to be explicit with ban reasons.

It is easy to disregard all arguments and assume I push an agenda. I would like you to stop writing off everything as "typical propaganda", "classic propaganda tactic", etc. Be more concrete with your issues with the text. Germany, the country in which Deutsche Welle is based, is quite openly a supporter of Ukraine. Taking posts from media at face value is in-of-itself not ideal. In my lengthy post I did comment how these accusations are incomplete. Moreover, accusations should be labelled as such, and not as facts, especially from a media source. I have backed the majority of my claims with sources.

For example, it says that the "Denazification" claim is completely baseless. Well, if it were completely baseless why are there numerous sources from all sides regarding the rise of far-right movements? [6] [7] Is the claim questionable? Yes. Is it fully fabricated with 0 basis in any kind of reality, like DW suggests? No, it has some limited basis in reality.

More concretely regarding the ban: You yourself find it necessary to revert changes in order to make it "clear" why this violates some policies. You are acknowledging, that after the edits, the flaws of the comment are placing the decision in doubt. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. How am I disrupting the platform, when in every case when I am made aware that I am breaking a guideline or policy, I attempt to fix my wronging? I am even writing in a talk page, with the attempt to improve the article, not destroy it. If you disagree, you could write why/how/etc, instead of permabanning me and claiming I push an agenda, "soft propaganda", etc, for merely suggesting that a source placed by you should not be labelled as factual. Also earlier you explicitly state that you see I am editing in "good faith", but then all of a sudden I am not? Hm. For me, it feels like I am not the one pushing an agenda.

Let us remember that expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner does not warrant a permaban on Wikipeida. What exactly am I misinterpreting? I am still at awe what my supposed "goals" are...? NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. Fact-checking by biased sources should not be taken at face value, especially in a literal information war. I already gave pretty concrete examples about statements from the DW website which can easily be questioned with reputable sources. This is the main thing which I was arguing about in the talk page. I am also not saying that "everyone should be equally biased". Instead, I argue that every source which could have a bias not be labelled as factual truth. Aside from this, I believe a reader should be able to choose his opinion from the information present on the page. For example:

"Deutsche Welle argues against these facts and provides evidence as to why they believe they are fabricated."

Perfectly neutral. To my knowledge, the kremlin also provides "evidence" as to why its actions are "totally" justified. Even scientific papers can be questioned on all sides. If I find some random professor from Moscow university's paper on why everything Russia is doing is totally factually grounded, is that OK? This is a rhetorical question, I do not advocate for this. That is why unless something is true enough that it can't be questioned with any kind of reasonable doubt, which the statements in the DW article easily can be, it is a claim, not a fact. NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And again, just to make sure you understand where I am going with this, I am not advocating for the citation of literal propaganda, more so things like:

"There are several records of far-right groups rising in Ukraine after the revolution of dignity[sources], however, many sources also claim that [this is natural in all countries | there have been no nazi policies | other things claimed by media], and not a reason for declaring a war[sources]."

"The ... claims there is genocide against the Russian speaking population. These claims are refuted by ... due to .... Specifically, x policy dictates that y, which is different from the original claims. [Study] suggests that many Russian speakers do not believe there is a genocide."

This is neutral POV.

"The claims are proven to be falsified[biased source whose contents can easily be proven technically incorrect]" - this is not neutral.

How is this not encyclopedic exactly again? NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iliev@Luchesar I re-read my original comment, the article, my redacted comment and came to the following conclusion. First of all, my original comment is without a doubt unencyclopedic, for many reasons. I apologize for this. A lot of off-topic information, lack of focus, opinionated positions, not to speak of neutrality. Even after editing my post, it could have been shortened significantly as well. Indeed, Wikipedia is not a stand or a place to convince others of one's opinion. The original comment does more or less, exactly that, despite the sources provided and the original intent.

I still maintain that I did notI engage in "propaganda", "information war", or other accusations. I believe the sources given were primarily trustworthy, and I believe in the comments above I showcased why I believe the article should not be taken as factual universal truth. Moreover, regarding the first point the article itself admits that "твърдението заблуждава" (in English: "The claim is misleading"), and goes on to provide what it is based on, and why it is misleading. This already basically makes the wording "The claims are proven to be falsified" wrong, as the article does not say that. Moreover, I already linked to other trustworthy articles which specifically address the issue of the rise of so-called fascism in Ukraine. Based on them, like I already argued, calling the claims "пропаганден наратив, който той от дълго време повтаря, без обаче да има каквито и да било основания" factual is false. They are misleading, but not baseless. Which is consistent even with the first post in the discussion page from me.

After taking a step back and re-reading my original post, I can understand why a lot of off-topic information mixed with opinions, however backed by reliable sources, is viewed by you and others as propaganda. However, I can assure you that this is not the intent. Despite the numerous flaws of original comment, the intent was and still is, by me, to improve Wikipedia. While I understand why the post was written off as propaganda, hopefully it is understandable how it looks from my POV, where an attempt to improve an article which in my view is not neutral, is instantly offhanded as propaganda and followed by a permanent ban. With little to no elaboration on where the actual propaganda lies, which made it feel like it is blatant censoring of information. I can now see why, and what is wrong with what I wrote. However, I hope it is possible to somehow get across that the intentions were different. NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Just recently I noticed that on YouTube I get a small warning when watching Deutsche Welle videos, "DW is a German public broadcasting service. Wikipedia". Interestingly enough, en:Deutsche Welle is a literal state-owned news organization, which is literally banned from several countries, including Turkey en:Deutsche Welle#Censorship.

It is utterly unreal that you state I'm just "claiming" that "reputable sources" are biased. But at this point, it is pretty clear whose agenda it is to push literal propaganda on Wikipedia.

State media of countries which are sending billions of euros/dollars of literal military aid to Ukraine and are clearly not neutral is "unbiased" and "reputable".

This probably won't change anything, still pretty unreal how even questioning these "reputable" news sources is a reason for a ban. NoN33d4UserNames (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230328230118

My IP address 91.139.213.126 has been blocked by PSS 9 after I redirected the page "Едуар Лука" to "Едуар Люка". I am a professional mathematician and may claim that the name "Lucas" is traditionally transcripted by Bulgarian mathematicians as "Люка", not "Лука". For example, there is something called "теорема на Люка".
91.139.213.126 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The bot has made a mistake. I'm really sorry about it. I've also instructed the bot to not interfere with your edits in the future. Thank you very much for helping the Bulgarian Wikipedia!
— Luchesar • T/C 17:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230414215028

I was undoing a vandalism on the bg:Wikipedia and am reporting a false block that appears to have been caused by the use of Twinkle. Please unblock me.
ⰔⰔⰔⰓ-ⰔⰎⰀⰂ・USSR-Slav 22:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Y ⰔⰔⰔⰓ-ⰔⰎⰀⰂ・USSR-Slav, I'm terribly sorry about the bot's mistake. It's indeed one of those epic fails that make me feel quite embarrassed. Of course I'll lift the block and will also make sure that PSS 9 will not bother you again in the future. And, really, thank you very much for helping our community!
— Luchesar • T/C 10:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230427175516

A73ton (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Здравейте , Икам да попитам след аз си направих страница и там писах че съм открил нова бинарна азбука защо го сментахнте това за лъжа имате ли някакви имена вие като например лицето TED MASTERS имена или приемна за да довършим работата .Аз наистина открих бинарната азбука и смятам че вие сте извършили вандализъм спрямо мен как можем да се съдим за обешетение а гледам тия анонимни им се задържа имформацията откъде сте сигорни че е вярна !!!__

Здравейте

Защо не ми отговаряте ??? A73ton (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230531102142

Росица Караджова желае да изтрие страницата за нейната личност, защото е създадена без нейно разрешение.

Тя желае да започне нов живот със семейството си и да се свърже отново с миналото си. Затова тя иска изтриване на всички страници, създадени без нейно съгласие, или оттегляне на съгласието за публикуване на информацията, която е споделила в миналото (интервюта, текстове и други неща).

Моля, изтрийте страницата с линка: "https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Росица_Караджова"

Аз съм човек, който действа с нейно разрешение, за да затвори цялата информация и да предприеме правни стъпки срещу тези уебсайтове или собственика на тези страници, който не иска да ги затвори завинаги. Радваме се за вашето сътрудничество. Ако имате нужда от някакви документи, можете да ги поискате.

С уважение,

Achterknoten (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Achterknoten, I understand your point and will unblock you, but please do not act again on your own in the future. Wikipedia is based on consensus between all editors and any action must conform to the established rules and procedures. I cannot further comment on your request as the administrators do not have the power to delete articles just based on user requests -- it's something that the editor community must decide. You may perhaps present your case for the community to review on the local village pump.
— Luchesar • T/C 12:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230608220833

Пише ви Станимир Керезов. Страниците за дядо ми Стамо Керезов и за дядо ми Йордан Керезов съдържат невярна информация. Те са изключително опасни за моето семейство. Престъници убиха сина на по-голямата ми сестра Гъла Керезова след като са ги прочели. Моля изтрийте тези страници.
95.87.248.58 22:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230616234333

Hello, please reconsider blocking user AntonManolov with IP address 151.251.243.107. and with the ID number of the block #561142. As well as consider the old nick name to be deleted completely
151.251.243.107 23:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There are no edits on bgwiki from 151.251.243.107 and there is no user AntonManolov.
— Luchesar • T/C 12:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230628093621

Block #561195 - I was temporarly blocked for possible vandalism. I edited the bulgarian article about Vladimir Putin, only adding references to the available wikipedia articles for the names of persons and places used in the article about Vladimir Putin. I have not changed the textual content of the article.
62.204.143.138 09:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230710084737

130.204.155.250 08:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

исках да добавя още източници и ме блокирахте не разбрах защо?

PSS 9 block appeal 20230721074912

Hi, I would like to ask for a block revert. I was reverting some crosswiki vandalism (please see GUC report for July 21) and tagged one of the sockpuppets' page for speedy deletion. Your bot blocked me after I added the speedy tag once again. Thanks for explaining basis for the block or lifting it. --A09 (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
A09 (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Y Hi, A09! Thank you for notifying me of the problem and for helping the Bulgarian Wikipedia, and apologies for the inconvenience caused by the bot. I've lifted the block and I'll add you to the bot's ignore list so that it won't bother you in the future. One note though: I've kept the previously added information to bg:Амурска област and I've corrected your revert in bg:Алмати. In the first case, while it might be a part of cross-wiki disruptive edits, the information still seemed fitting for the article. In the second case, you probably intended to revert only the added "notable persons" list, but it seems other information was removed from the article too. Granted, it hasn't been sourced properly, e.g. the population of the city, but that's a separate problem that needs a separate resolution in my view. Thanks again for the help!
— Luchesar • T/C 12:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iliev: Please edit however bg community seems fitting it. Didn't remove population information intentionaly and agree with you. Bigger thanks for lifting the block.

PS: Maybe your bot should check ie. GUC or xedits for further evaluation of us xwiki vandal fighters. Must say it's a unique way of fighting AV on such level. Sincerely, A09 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A09, thank you for the suggestion -- it does make sense and I've been thinking about it myself for quite a while. The bot does check for global groups, so anyone with, say, global rollback rights wouldn't be affected. Checking the edits in other projects is more complicated though -- there are quite a lot of projects that will need to be queried for each unknown user (and for those known that haven't yet passed the "bar") and the bot has to somehow decide if these edits are constructive too (a cross-wiki vandal that hasn't yet been caught would otherwise seem like an okay guy). Most importantly though, the current version of the bot is in maintenance mode -- and for quite a few years now. I've been planning a complete rewrite, but have never gotten to it. The current codebase is hard to work with and I'm not too happy with even just having to maintain it (meaning fixing super-critical problems). I've disabled the bot -- for good, I thought -- several times, but each time the community has asked to get it back. So, here we are. I do hope that one day I'll get to do the rewrite -- and I'm keeping all those ideas in mind for when/if that time comes -- but only time will tell. That got a bit long, sorry, but I thought I needed to explain it a bit more. Again, thank you very much for the understanding, for the help, and for the ideas!
— Luchesar • T/C 21:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the indepth reply and insight about how bot recognizes foreign editors. To the best of my knowledge, some stewards here on Meta and some other functionaries on foreign Wikis use “trusted editor”. What I concluded is they looked through rights above autoconfirmed (namely rollback, sysop etc.) and then appealed my requests. I suggest updating (when, if, you will do a rewrite) code that excludes everyone from bot checks/blocks with advanced rights (so above autoconfirmed). Thanks for your valuable reply and I agree, maintaining codebase may be really painful at times A09 (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230812202918

I recently edited the Wikipedia page, adding additional information, which is backed up by citations. I also edited certain mistakes and made the page more concise. I wish to appeal this block, because there is no vandalism in the changes made.
Pitagor34 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Pitagor34, I apologize for the bot actions -- it does make mistakes sometimes and this is one of them. I'll make sure that the bot doesn't bother you again. Thank you very much for helping the Bulgarian Wikipedia and thank you for your patience.
— Luchesar • T/C 13:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That being said, you had in the past deleted properly sourced information from articles, which was later restored by the patrollers. The bot gets "suspicious" after such events and may also identify subsequent edits as destructive even if they are not (but they triggered some other flags). Please be more careful with your edits in the future.
— Luchesar • T/C 13:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230911190552

Тъй като става въпрос за моята собствена биография, мисля, че е редно да се допълни с необходимата информация и лично аз - Григор Паликаров знам най-добре какво е добре да пише в билграфията ми.
130.204.27.80 19:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Разбирам логиката Ви по принцип, но конкретно за Уикипедия не сте прав -- обектите на статиите са най-неподходящите им автори. Това е обяснено в bg:Уикипедия:Конфликт на интереси. Уикипедия не Ви забранява да редактирате статията за себе си, но трябва да бъдете особено внимателен и още по-прецизно да спазвате всичките ни правила и принципи. По принцип добра идея може да бъде да напишете какво смятате, че трябва да бъде поправено или подобрено на беседата на статията и да оставите други редактори да го направят.

Така или иначе, в конкретния случай ботът по-скоро е направил грешка, като Ви е блокирал, тъй като той не прави преценки дали някой редактира в конфликт на интереси или не. Тъй като блокирането е било кратковременно, въпросът по-скоро изглежда приключен. Препоръчвам Ви обаче в да си направите регистрация -- това ще Ви даде възможност за по-ефективна комуникация с останалите потребители, тъй като ще могат да Ви разпознават.
— Luchesar • T/C 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230912085804

Здравейте,

днес (12 септ. 2023) нанесох главни поправки в Уикипедния страницата "Маргиналия (сдружение)", след като бяха получени бележки от други редактори за липса на обективни източници за изложените факти във всички раздели. Приложих необходимите промени и редакции, добавяйки надеждните източници, съобразно политиката на Уикипедия, както и според оставените от другите автори бележки. Страницата е постоянен обект на мониторинг от българо-говорещите автори на Уикипедия и досега никакви намеси върху целостта на страницта и текстовете в нея не са били автоматично блокирани, каквото впечатление имам от редовно посещение на въпросната страница.

След направените промени от мен днес обаче, акаунта ми беше блокиран от повторна намеса над собствената ми страница или над други страници в Уикипедия, без съзнателно да съм нарушил правилата на Уикипедия или съзнателно да съм нанесъл щети върху страници в Уикипедия, както и вандализъм над въпросната страница, което се явява като основание за блокирането ми. Нанасям поправки и осъществявам наблюдение единствено върху страницата "Маргиналия (сдружение)" и нейната сродна английска версия, която все още е в редакция и не е публикувана.

Разглеждайки причините за блокирането ми намирам съответствие с част от потребителското ми име с това на друг потребител Iliev или Lachesar, който е вандализирал други страници в Уикипедия, към които аз нямам отношение и IP адреса ми не би трябвало да съвпада с неговия. Не познавам това лице. Моля забраната за редакция да бъде вдигната от акаунта ми и нанесените промени в страницата "Маргиналия (сдружение)" да бъдат осъществени.
Tommyiliev (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Tommyiliev, забелязах, че случаят е бил обсъждан от патрульорите в нашия Дискорд сървър. Действително, макар на пръв поглед редакциите Ви да са изглеждали особени -- заради което ботът явно Ви е блокирал -- очевидно са добронамерени. Затова се извинявам за блокирането. Отблокирах Ви и ще имам грижа ботът да не Ви безпокои повече.
— Luchesar • T/C 14:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230917133740

Hello, Iliev

I was clearing my talk page, because a LTA Bulgarian troll (w:en:WP:LTA/DTHD) was cross-wiki harassing me who is now blocked on Lithuanian Wikipedia and a bot blocked me on a Bulgarian Wikipedia, because of attempting to clear my talk page and can't remove it. Can you unblock me? LDM2003 (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Now a bot has restored vandalism on bg:Франсиско Морасан with this edit. LDM2003 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

LDM2003, sorry to hear about the problems that the bot has caused you. It will not bother you anymore. Thank you for notifying me!
— Luchesar • T/C 15:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20230924211133

My account has been blocked without reason. Please unblock my account. Thanks.
Avdzhiev (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

N Hi, Avdzhiev. The bot had very good reason to block you. Deleting properly sourced encyclopedic content from Wikipedia is considered disruptive behaviour, particularly when no explanation for the changes is provided. Further, the IP address 92.247.99.54 had been making the exact same changes just before you did yours and got in an edit war with the local patrollers. Considering that your account was created only three minutes after the last edit from the IP strongly suggests that the IP had in fact been you and that you created the account to give the impression of a wider support for your edits than actually exists or perhaps to avoid being blocked on grounds of the three revert rule.

To conclude, I'm not convinced that your edits were made in good faith, therefore I see no reason to lift the block imposed by the bot. However, if you make a commitment to avoid edit warring in the future and instead explain your point -- what you think needs to be changed in the text -- on the talk page of the article, I would be willing to unblock you. But you must genuinely commit to the rules of the project. The most relevant principle in the current case is the consensus principle.
— Luchesar • T/C 13:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That wikipedia page is clearly made anti-russia or anti-putin, I thought Wikipedia is neutral. I can give you " properly sourced encyclopedic content" from russian or chinese or any other media out of the US or EU but of course you will not allow it on the page. Seems like Wikipedia is not independent and neutral anymore. Also can you send me a link to this talk page of the article so I can express my views there. Thanks. Avdzhiev (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Avdzhiev, you're entitled to your own opinion. Wikipedia has principles, and these principles are the reason why it is such a popular and trusted source of information today, more than 20 years after its inception. This is also the reason why you are interested in what's written there too. If nobody cared what Wikipedia was saying, you wouldn't care too. So I don't agree with your assertions, but, again, you have the right to have a different opinion and, in general, to also voice it on the public talk pages. Here's the relevant talk page: bg:Беседа:Руско-украинска война. All articles in Wikipedia have talk pages that are accessible from the "Talk/Беседа" tab above the article. I'll allow your account to comment on the talk pages. The block can be lifted completely if you manage to maintain a constructive discussion with the other editors.
— Luchesar • T/C 21:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No I dont entitle to my opinion. I will give you just 1 example. In the page you read this : "наричана също руската въоръжена агресия срещу Украйна, или войната за независимост на Украйна". I hope you can read Bulgarian. Only the countries from the so called "West" calls that way the war. If you dont know who are the countries from the "west" let me explain it to you. "The West" are the countries from NATO + EU + Britain + Australia, Japan and maybe more 2-3 countries. These countries make total of 10% of the worlds population. The rest of the world doesnt call the war in Ukraine that way, they simply just call it the Ukraine crisis or the war in Ukraine etc. So how come wikipedia choose to add what only 10% of the world population is calling the war in Ukraine and doesnt care about countries like China, India, Russia, countries in Africa, Brazil and many more? This is a proof that wikipedia is dependent and not neutral anymore like it used to be before. Thats why I wont even bother changing anything anymore on wikipedia cause it is not worth it. Go out and find information yourself, show me one country out of the "West" countries that calls the ukraine war the way it shows in the wikipedia page and I will accept I am wrong, but ops you can never find this because it does not exist and not even any normal person calls it this way. Everyone calls it just the war in Ukraine ot the Ukraine crisis. Only the countries from the west calls it the russian agression against Ukraine. You know I am right but you just going to defend wikipedia whatever I say, is ok. I am leaving wikipedia for good. Bye. Avdzhiev (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20231017194750

Бях блокиран неоснователно защото отговорих на въпросите на Luchesar в моята беседа (беседа) . Luchesar Напълно неоснователно изтри дискусията по повод Статията Петър Низамов, която беше преместена неоснователно в инкубатора без да нарушва изискванията на енциклопедията на българската Уикипедия в моята беседа! Моля отблокирайте ме! HistoryOfBulgaria (беседа)

bg:Чернова беседа:Петър Низамов, bg:Уикипедия:Страници за изтриване/2023/10/Петър Низамов и bg:Уикипедия:Разговори

HistoryOfBulgaria (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

N HistoryOfBulgaria, you are blocked by another administrator on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, not by PSS 9 or me. I cannot remove such block unless it has been imposed by mistake or in obvious violation of the blocking policy, none of which seems to be the case. If you wish, you can try addressing the sysop who has blocked you. It's up to them if they want to lift the block prematurely.
— Luchesar • T/C 20:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20231108165735

Hello! I think I have been blocked by mistake. I was adding a Bulgarian translation to the "Now and Then (a Beatles song)" page and then I received the message. I don't think I have done anything wrong. Can you please check?
Chr.todd (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Y Chr.todd, this is indeed a mistake, thank you for notifying me. Apologies for the inconvenience the bot has caused you—it will not bother you again—and thank you very much for helping the Bulgarian Wikipedia!
— Luchesar • T/C 00:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your speedy reaction and for the support! Chr.todd (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Block

No reason for my block, please let me get my page. Todortodorov85 (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I get how it wokrs. Since I'm creating a page for a fiction person there might not be a proper way for you to verify it. Nevertheless I'm not doing any vandalism and I'm definitely not a bot :)

Could you please unblock both me and the page?

Cheers,

T. Todortodorov85 (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

N I appreciate your sense of humor—both in your "page" and here—but the articles on Wikipedia aren't the right place to practice it. ;)
— Luchesar • T/C 22:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah mate, if you google her Christina is actually a real person, who is a doctor.

She really goes by that goofy name and actually everything I've written is factually true.

True story. Todortodorov85 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool story, bro! :) I do like your light-hearted approach to "not-doing-any-vandalism". You're a breath of fresh air among the other, er, "not-vandals". ;) Best of luck to you in whatever endeavour you decide to pursue in the future. :)
— Luchesar • T/C 00:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20231213153905

Здравейте, няколко пъти ботът отменя промените ми в страницата на Мая Манолова заради вандализъм, като сега ме и блокира. Промените са разширяване на информацията за политическата кариера на Манолова след 2021 г. Написано е максимално обективно и с множество източници за всяко твърдение. От екипа на г-жа Манолова съм и точно за това се старах да не звучи по никакъв начин като реклама или субективно. Ако имате обструкции, кажете какво да се промени, но е важно в страницата да има актуална информация, тъй като животът ѝ не приключва с парламентарните избори от ноември 2021 г. Благодаря предварително!
Alexander Boubia (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Boubia, thank you for notifying me about the problem. The bot is indeed rather suspicious of certain actions and apparently in some way you managed to tick enough checkboxes for the bot to react. That being said, I do think that the bot has overreacted. It's an anti-vandalism bot and its goal is to curb behaviour that is disruptive or destructive, not to judge the quality of the content and any possible NPOV issues. In any case, I also don't see anything particularly problematic in your edits, so I'm going to lift the block and restore your edits.

However, there's something you must do. I appreciate your honesty and it's really a breath of fresh air among so many people who are clearly in Wikipedia with a certain agenda, yet claim to be absolutely impartial and not related to the matter they edit. Thank you! But, in accordance with the Terms of Use, you must do the following:

You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Please check the other requirements in the ToU too. At the minimum, please put on your userpage on the Bulgarian Wikipedia what you stated here: that you are part of Ms. Manolova's team and thus edit on her behalf. That's okay, it's not forbidden, but the other editors must know it too. Thanks again.
— Luchesar • T/C 16:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Done! Alexander Boubia (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20231217070300

Здравейте, Бих искал да направя бот с pywikibot и затовa направих нов сметка - Bot-Daniel, която исках да предложа за бот, но PSS 9 я блокира. Написах softredirect в потребителската стр. на Bot-Daniel, както е описано в Уикипедия:Марионетки.

За блокирането няма проблем(То е само за 2 часа. Но какво да напиша в потребителската страница като изтече блокирането, ако softredirect не работи, за да не ме блокират пак?

- Даниел Стоянов (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Даниел Стоянов, you should not use a bot without community permission. Please file a request on bg:Уикипедия:Бот/Заявки, providing all the required information. I don't think the community is very likely to approve a bot of a user with practically no experience, but you are free to try. If the community does approve your bot, PSS 9 will not interfere with it.
— Luchesar • T/C 07:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20231230161421

hello i'm blocked because i add extra information in one page. i add it twice because the first time the information wasn't added. please unblock me.
Cassyav (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Y Cassyav, some editors will likely disagree that this level of detail is appropriate for the article, but that's out of PSS 9's scope anyway, so I'll lift the block.
— Luchesar • T/C 17:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)