User talk:Sashko1999

Minor

I see that you are marking all your edits as minor. Please read WP:MINOR to learn when to and when not to use the "minor" tag. --T*U (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Still marking all edits as minor. They are not! Please see WP:MINOR, especially the section "When not to mark as minor changes". Also notice this sentence: "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits." Thank you! --T*U (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary, and for the last time: Minor

One quote from WP:ES: It is good practice to fill in the edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit.

One quote from WP:MINOR: Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette.

You have not responded to earlier comments, but I will ask you again: Please show other editors so much respect that you follow "good practise" and good "etiquette". --T*U (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hristo Tatarchev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethnic groups in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ingush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonian Bulgarians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonia naming dispute, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MP and Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sashko1999. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Skopska Crna Gora dialect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volkovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dialects of Macedonian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mala Reka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Svoboda ili smart

Здравей Саше, понеже направих такава статия: Svoboda ili smart, дали ще е удобно за тебе, да погледнеш македонският й вариант и да се опиташ да го обновиш. Поздрав. Jingiby (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Трудно ще направя това защото администраторите на македонската википедия първо прегледват промените преди те да бъдат публикувани и рядко ги одобряват ако те не са по тяхна македонистичка мяра. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Macedonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 18:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Demonym

Please quit vandalizing the demonym listings on country pages. --Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello, I'm DIYeditor. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Luxembourg, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please cease campaign to falsify/vandalize demonym links immediately or administrator intervention may be required. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not falsify anything, but just correct the mistakes. And I will post a source for my changes. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You've been challenged by two people, you must stop now or your are edit warring. Your source does nothing to establish that Dane should not link to Danes etc. This needs to be established by broad consensus, it is a HUGE change. Learn about RFCs. Work with the system. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the word Dane can mean both a citizen of Denmark and an actual Dane this is a much more subtle and difficult topic than you are allowing. You are misdirecting links that have been obvious to everyone else. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I posted a link where clearly writes what's the meaning of the demonym, I don't know what's the problem, for these things who are 100% clear, shouldn't be talks.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-names-of-nationalities-4088817 Contrast demonym, the natives or inhabitants of a particular place, with ethnonym, which refers to people of a particular ethnic group.

So, the demonym refers to the natives or inhabitans of a particular place, and the ethnonym refers to people of a particular ethnic group, more clear than this can't be. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:INDENT! Read talk page guidelines before proceeding any further! This is actually a difficult question, but the article "Danes" should reflect that Danes means more than one thing if this is an important change. Someone curious what a Dane is in that context is almost certainly looking for the Danes article! The link of Dane, whatever it means, needs to be to Danes, whatever that means, which is the same thing. You must take this to an RFC or otherwise establish consensus to change all those wikilinks from linking to the very same word. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If you click Danes it indicates right at the top that if what you are looking for is not "Danes" per se (the primary meaning) but citizens of Denmark, click the demographics article. No change is needed. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the link can't be to Danes because the demonym is not an ethnonym, the demonym is a political term which refers to all citizens of Denmark, and in Denmark don't live just ethnic Danes. I have a source of my claim and I will set it up, if you have for yours, set it up, but I don't think that you will find a source where it writes that the demonym and the ethnonym are the same thing. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Indent your replies. Seriously. WP:INDENT. "Dane" IMO needs to link to the primary meaning of "Dane". The link is not explaining the demographics but a label for the people there, and the history and fundamental meaning of that label is what is important. But if you feel you have a point in changing the way these have been linked for years and across basically all the articles, feel free to establish broad consent and we can discuss why you disagree with all the people who have done differently than you. Right now, at the moment, you are faced 2 against 1. Also, demonym means "native OR inhabitant" - this is not fully contrasted with ethnonym in this case because the natives of the countries are the ethnic group, to generalize. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What you are really taking issue with, I think, is that the article "Danes" is about the ethnic group - which is overwhelmingly what the word is used to mean. The link of Dane->Danes is fundamentally correct on the face of it. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I can see why you feel you are right. I am saying hold on, we need input from many more editors. That's how Wikipedia works on major changes. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also now that you are responding to your talk page and I have your attention, as several editors have told you, stop marking edits as minor unless no one could possibly object or it is vandalism etc. It really came off as trolling here. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Dane is not just the ethnic Dane from Denmark, understand that, Dane is and the ethnic Pole from Denmark, Dane is and ethnic Turk from Denmark, Dane is and ethnic German from Denmark etc. etc. We here talk about the DEMONYM, not about the ETHNONYM, and because of that the link can't go just to one ethnic group, but to all ethnic groups who live in Denmark, and the link for all ethnic groups is demographics of Denmark.

I said on the talk page about Denmark, if we need a consensus, then let's bring it, I already posted a source when clearly writes what's the meaning of the demonym and I expect the source to be respected.

And do you know why I disagree with all the people who have done differently than me?, because they don't have any source about their claim, and as I know, Wikipedia works on sources, and not on empty talk. So, the situation is next, 2 people are against my claim, but they don't have any source about their claim, and I have a source about my claim, so, I'm in right, to be you in right, you should post a source where writes that the demonym and the ethnonym are the same thing. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh maybe you are right. We don't need a shoddy source for a definition of demonym though - it's clear what it means. You should immediately stop marking edits as minor, and you must follow WP:TPG and specifically here WP:INDENT! I don't know why you feel privileged to ignore guidelines and customs here, and what people say to you. You have been told to stop marking edits as minor many times, pay attention! You are failing to work within the system and within customs and it is going to get a reaction. I am still going to say this change needs additional consensus because it goes against years of uniform decisions by editors to link it differently. A source does not really prove a correct Wikilink. What we need is a WP:RFC, which you should immediately familiarize yourself with the meaning of. They say Wikipedia is voluntary but if you are going to be here you have to read the rules and procedures, interactively respond to talk page notices, etc. You can't choose to ignore repeated warnings from people about using WP:MINOR edits. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing links for demonyms

Hi Sashko1999. I reverted this edit of yours [1], and I found out that you are on an editing spree changing the links for demonyms of all countries. So, what's your obsession with demonyms? The etymology of the word comes from the greek δήμος (demos), meaning people (just like democracy or demography). Read here: [2], [3]. The term has been used mostly since the 90s to refer to people that come from a specific place, and that place can be anything from a city to a continent. Since "demo-" in demonym means people, it's not used to contradict "ethnonym" (where "ethno-" comes from greek έθνος meaning nation), because a nation also consists from people. Actually a demonym can be exactly the same as an ethnonym and if you have a basic sense of linguistics a demonym is actually a topo-ethnonym as you can read here, (where topo- comes from the greek τόπος, which means place). Anyway, I have a feeling that your obsession with demonyms comes from the current confrontation here, where you are trying really hard to push your own POV on the issue, without reaching the necessary consensus. I don't think that the practice of massive editing other pages to prove your POV is really helpful, so please try to familiarize yourself with WP:RFC, as the above users have already noticed. Thanks, Argean (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Nice. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So, can we block Sashko while we clean up this mess?--Khajidha (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

He/she certainly needs to be watched at this point. Don't think it would get a block unless there is more POINTy behavior. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, Sashko just created another section here (the third in just 5 days, without opening an WP:RfC), to continue his controversial WP:PUSHy behavior on this matter and I haven't seen any signs that he will stop being WP:POINTy either, given his response below. Argean (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The DEMONYM refers to all citizens of one country, and the ETHNONYM refers to people of a particular ethnic group

Hi Argean, I changed the links of the demonyms because there were putted wrong links, I already explained why, but I will explain again. First, we need to differentiate that demonym and ethnonym are not the same thing, the DEMONYM refers to all citizens of one country, and the ETHNONYM refers to people of a particular ethnic group. There is a explanation here what is demonym. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place. So, why the demonym Greek is going to the link Greeks if the demonym is a word that identifies RESIDENTS OR NATIVES of a particular place?, did that's mean that in Greece lives just ethnic Greeks?, apsolutely no, in Greece lives many other ethnic groups and they are also Greeks by citizenship or by birth place. Because the link for the demonym Greek should go to the link demographics of Greece because there are enumerated all ethnic groups who live in Greece.

Btw, to say that 2 people here who are against my claim don't have any source about their claim that the demonym and ethnonym are the same things, they just say empty words, probably because they are hard nationalists.

Here are the sources about my claims.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-names-of-nationalities-4088817 Contrast demonym, the natives or inhabitants of a particular place, with ethnonym, which refers to people of a particular ethnic group.

https://www.ef.com/wwen/english-resources/english-grammar/nationalities/

Geographic Region/Continent: Africa Adjective: African Noun: (an African person, someone from Africa)

Country or region: Afghanistan Adjective: Afghan Noun: an Afghan

Country or region: Greece Adjective: Greek Noun: a Greek

http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/demonyms.html For example, with most countries ending with the letter 'a' you just need to add an 'n' to the end of the country name to create the name for it's citizens. Thus a person from Angola is an Angolan, a person from Cuba is a Cuban and a person from Russia is a Russian.

http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/wandertips/language/demonyms-around-the-world/ A “demonym” is the name for the people from a certain place. For example, those who hail from America are Americans. A person from Bali? Balinese. When you are wondering whether to call someone who hails from Michigan a Michigander or a Michiganian, you are contemplating which demonym to use.

CONCLUSION: DEMONYM IS NOT THE SAME AS ETHNICITY, THAT'S 100% CLEAR. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sashko1999. Thanks so much for your reply because it gives me the chance to explain a few things in much further detail, since this is what you want. I will start with your last sentence: you are right a demonym is not the same as ethnicity, because demonym (demos=people + onoma=name) is just a name for people, but what about a demonym and an ethnonym? As wikipedia itself already says a demonym can overlap with the ethnonym for the ethnically dominant group of a region. Have you ever thought why this is happening? If not, I'll try to explain it as briefly as possible.

Let's start with what an ethnonym (ethnos=nation + onoma=name) is. Oxford dictionaries defines it as A proper name by which a people or ethnic group is known; specifically the name a people or ethnic group uses for itself. Let's dig a little deeper into this. Every ethnic group has a name that it uses to call themselves: for example the Germans call themselves Deutsche, and the Greeks call themselves Έλληνες (Hellenes), so why are the english names (or ethnonyms) different? This is the difference between exonyms and endonyms. So "Deutsche" and "Έλληνες" are the endonyms and Germans and Greeks are the respective English language exonyms. So the next question is, how the endonyms and exonyms were created in the first place and why can they be different? The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical names are using the following definitions [4]:

• Endonym: Name of a geographical feature in an official or well-established language occurring in that area where the feature is located.
• Exonym: Name used in a specific language for a geographical feature situated outside the area where that language is spoken, and differing in its form from the name used in an official or well-established language of that area where the geographical feature is located.

So, they are saying that the names derive from the names of geographical places? Wait a minute, we know that ethnonyms are used to describe ethnic groups and not places. In order to explain this let's go to the process of the formation of an ethnic group, also known as ethnogenesis. You can find many scientific papers on ethnogenesis, but let's stay on the relation of ethnogenesis to ethnonyms. I'll just source 2 random papers I found online [5], [6], where you can read about the relation of ethnonyms to toponyms (from topos=place + onoma=name) in early Medieval time. So basically when ethnic groups started forming in Europe and elsewhere, they started taking names that among others characteristics were significantly based on the the names of the places where these ethnic groups lived in. So this is how some ethnic groups ended up having different names in different languages, or to rephrase it an endonym in their own language and various exonyms (as briefly explained here).

To move forward it takes basic knowledge of modern European history to know that most countries that started forming in 19th century were nation states based either on ethnic or civic nationalism. In any case they had a very stable concept of a homogeneous population that could be described with a single name, which is basically the ethnonym. So there was no need to find a different word for the citizens of a country, and the concept of demonym was pretty much useless.

So how we ended up having demonyms? National Geographic says ([7]) that it was coined by a single person to give names to people from various places, so what's all the fuss about it? Sure it's convenient if you don't have already a word to describe the people you are referring to, but is there any reason to replace or contradict ethnonyms? I already explained how nation states were formed in Europe (and elsewhere) so automatically ethnonyms became demonyms. In cases that a country is multinational though, especially outside Europe, demonyms became a useful way to describe all the people that come from the same country and this is how the term became popular and used widely in wikipedia (but still not not often outside the WP community).

Anyway, to summarize what I want to say and based on my detailed narrative, I believe that your obsession to differentiate demonyms and ethnonyms is highly unscientific, unjustifiable and manipulative. The sources that you cited prove nothing but the fact that your approach is completely superficial and your definition of demonyms can be considered WP:OR. I don't think that you should go on with your edits, especially without asking for an WP:RfC.

Regards, Argean (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia say's that a demonym can overlap with the ethnonym for the ethnically dominant group of a region, that's completely true, but when it overlap, then the link shouldn't go the th dominant ethnic group from the country, but to the demography of that country, if you ask why, the answer is 100% clear, for example if the link for the demonym Greek go to the Greeks, then the other ethnicities who live in Greece are excluded from this demonym, and I said before that in Greece live many other ethnicities and they are Greeks by citizenship or birth place. Let me give one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giannis_Antetokounmpo Giannis Antetokounmpo (Greek: Γιάννης Αντετοκούνμπο,[1] IPA: [ˈʝanis adetoˈkumbo]; born December 6, 1994)[2] is a Greek professional basketball player of Nigerian descent... Is this basketball player Greek by nationality or no?, yes, he's and in the demonym Greek he is also included, but he is not included in the ethnicity Greeks because he's not an ethnic Greek.

Let's see what Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam Webster say about the meaning of the demonym, they are pretty relevant sources.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/demonym A noun used to denote the natives or inhabitants of a particular country, state, city, etc.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/demonym a word that is a name for someone who comes from a particular place:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonym : a word (such as Nevadan or Sooner) used to denote a person who inhabits or is native to a particular place

So, if Giannis Antetokounmpo is from Greece, he's a Greek, regardless of that he is not an ethnic Greek.

Conslusion: Because Giannis Antetokounmpo, and many other Greeks are not ethnic Greeks, the demonym Greek can't go to the link Greeks.

I think you all who deny that the DEMONYM is not the same as the ENHNONYM are hard nationalists, and which is worse, you don't have any source who confirm your claims. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding WP:PA on the list of wikipedia guidelines that you don't give a damn about. Argean (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this issue can be solved in here because I understand why Sashko1999 is upset but I don't support the way he is trying to solve this problem I would suggest he tries to seek consensus with other editors before he edit anything.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop being controversial

Hey Sashko1999, I can't see the reason for opening a new section here, which is the third that you are opening to push your WP:POV that contains definitions that can easily be considered WP:OR and you don't even care to ask for an WP:RfC for an issue that is obviously controversial. And you also keep the same WP:MINOR attitude with your edits. Don't you think you are breaking too many of the wikipedia guidelines do be considered that here to contribute? Argean (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not a new section on the talk page about Republic of Macedonia, we already discused about it before.

And I don't attack you peronal, i just said my opinion. Btw, you can't deny these sources that I posted, they are 100% relevant and on base on them I can made edits.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/demonym A noun used to denote the natives or inhabitants of a particular country, state, city, etc.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/demonym a word that is a name for someone who comes from a particular place:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonym : a word (such as Nevadan or Sooner) used to denote a person who inhabits or is native to a particular place Sashko1999 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You already called me (and others) a hard nationalist, so I take it as a personal attack. And yes you opened a third section Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Name:_North_Macedonia_==_==_Demonym:_North_Macedonian/s_==_==_Ethnicity:_Macedonians_==_==_Language:_Macedonian, Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#First demonym: North Macedonian/s, second demonym: Macedonian/s, Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#The demonym should be definitely just North Macedonian/s, basically repeating yourself. I don't think that your behavior complies with many WP guidelines. Argean (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's just my opinion, not attack. Btw, and you also said that my obsession to differentiate demonyms and ethnonyms is highly unscientific, unjustifiable and manipulative, which is completely intrue because I posted relevant sources about my claim, and you don't posted nothing.

And if the section is a problem, I will delete it. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The section is not a problem, your behavior though is. I'm counting 7 sources supporting my rationale, but I don't think that you even cared to read it properly and click on the links. I'll give you no further notice if you continue your behavior. Argean (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Just one of your sources is about the demonym, and that source just confirm my claim that the demonym means from where is some person, and not from which ethnicity is he/she. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

National Geographic says ([7]) that it was coined by a single person to give names to people from various places. So the definition of the person that coined the term is irrelevant?

And also you have provided no rationale to support your claim, just random websites that don't even include your personal definition of demonym. Argean (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

What's writes on the source from National Geographic?, writes WHAT DO YOU CALL A PERSON FROM?, that's a demonym, so, what do we call a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giannis_Antetokounmpo who's from Greece?, we call him GREEK, but the link for the demonym Greek can't go to the Greeks because Giannis Antetokounmpo is not an ethnic Greek, do you understand this?

And my courses are from Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam Webster, they are very relevant sources and they confirm my claim that the demonym means from where is some person and not of which ehnicity is he/she.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/demonym A noun used to denote the natives or inhabitants of a particular country, state, city, etc.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/demonym a word that is a name for someone who comes from a particular place:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonym : a word (such as Nevadan or Sooner) used to denote a person who inhabits or is native to a particular place Sashko1999 (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Still DEMONYM refers to all citizens of one country and demonym means ... not of which ehnicity is he/she are not mentioned nowhere in your sources and are WP:OR. That's why you need to provide a scientific and justifiable rationale to support your claims. Dictionaries are not scientific research (WP:DICTS). I didn't read any scientifically based rationale to contradict my detailed explanation on why your claims need a WP:RfC to be applied. Argean (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Indirectly is mentointed, but you can't see it that, because I will explain you. In my cources for the meaning of the demonym writes: A noun used to denote the natives or inhabitants of a particular country, state, city, etc. So, who are the natives or inhabitans of Greece?, they are all people who are born or live in Greece and they are all Greeks by nationality regardless of their ethnicity.

Here are and scientific and justifiable rationale for my claim, here clearly writes that a demonym is a name given to the people or inhabitans of a place, and in none place don't live just one people/ethnic group, so, it's clearly that the demonym refers to all citizens of one place, and not to one ethnic group from that place. Based on these sources, I will made edits.

https://books.google.mk/books?id=XWDAlcD31a4C&pg=PA332&dq=Demonym&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEmv7dvp3gAhVosYsKHbzUDiEQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Demonym&f=false

https://books.google.mk/books?id=LFFQAQAAIAAJ&q=Demonym&dq=Demonym&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEmv7dvp3gAhVosYsKHbzUDiEQ6AEIuAEwFQ Sashko1999 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

So still WP:OR. And obviously you don't care for most of the WP rules. Anyway, enough said, I don't think you really want to discuss and contribute to WP. Argean (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There is also a rule Ignore all rules, I will apply it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignore_all_rules

And tell to the other people to not reverte my edits in conjunction with the demonyms. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ignore all rules only applies if the change makes Wikipedia better than following the rule would. Your changes make things worse by linking to pages that are not what the reader would expect to find when clicking the link. --Khajidha (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You can read WP:IAR but you can't read WP:INDENT? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

My changes will make better the articles on Wikipedia, or to be precise, will make them more correct, because now we have incorrect linking for some of the demonyms of the countries. And one thing is what the reader would expect to find, and other is what is correct to find. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Your changes go against the longstanding consensus and have been actively opposed by multiple other editors. At this point, for you to continue to make these changes is vandalism. You must seek consensus with the wider community. You are risking a block.--Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why won't this editor fucking WP:INDENT his posts? How many times do you have to tell him? Why doesn't he say "Sorry, I don't understand something about the link you have given or what INDENT means" - he just ignores it and goes on like ignoring things he doesn't understand is no problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

For the same reason he/she does not give a shit about other people's opinion and almost any other WP:RULES (WP:MINOR, WP:RFC, WP:OR, WP:PA to name a few). He/she behaves like wikipedia is his/her backyard and can play with editing articles the way he/she thinks is right, without giving a fuck if this is disruptive editing or requires consensus. For me he/she is simply WP:CNH and his/her attitude doesn't seem to show signs of WP:AGF, so if continues the same behavior, a ban should definitely be considered. Argean (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest ignoring further repetitive posts from him at this point unless he asks for help with a WP:RFC and starts WP:INDENTing. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC

There is an RFC on the demonym question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#RFC_on_changing_demonym_links_from_linking_to_the_same_word_to_linking_to_demographics_information. This will be the final word on the question, please take all discussion there. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Last warning before administrator information will be requested

This is your final warning; Please read and adhere to each of the following:

• WP:POINT
• WP:NPOV
• WP:ADVOCACY
• WP:PUSH
• WP:CON
• WP:OR
• WP:PA
• WP:MINOR
• WP:INDENT
• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
• WP:DISPUTE
• WP:RFC
• WP:CANVAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argean (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Any further violations may result in a WP:ANI case being opened to seek action against you. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

Your series of edits to the user talk pages of several editors is a clear breach of the guideline WP:CANVAS by notifying only a selection of editors. I have counted at least eight editors that have participated in one or both the discussions you refer to and that you have not notified. Also your text "join in the descussion here and to help me to prove my claims" is clearly non-neutral and therefore disruptive canvassing. --T*U (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

And how I can call all the editirs to join to the discussion?, I want to be more people in the discussion, because i texted to some people who understand this topic. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

By some people who understand this topic, I take it you mean "some people who may agree with me", which is the definition of disruptive canvassing. In direct answer to your question: You can notify each editor by using their user talk pages, as you did to your "chosen" editors, or you can ping all of them from the discussion page using the template {{ping}}, see WP:Pinging. In both cases, it is important that you make a neutral text when you invite them. --T*U (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I just want to remind that the user has already been warned for various breaches of guidelines above, and that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for that issue --Argean (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! —DIYeditor (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why disrupting wikipedia to prove a point?

Sashko1999 I reverted your changes at Danes because I noticed that your posts had really butchered and "gerrymandered" the article without prior discussion. I'll be honest and straightforward with you, and please don't interpret it as an attack: is it really worth it to disrupt wikipedia, just to try to prove the rightness of some kind of idea over nations and ethnicities? I get the sense from your posts that there is some urge that drove you from your repeated posts on Talk:Republic of Macedonia to fighting for linking all the demonyms of people to demographics instead of ethnic groups. And I'm saying that, because to me it doesn't really make sense to start doing that so persistently, right after you initiated the discussion on renaming the demonym of Macedonians, if there is no motivation behind it. I honestly understand that you want to make your voice heard, and I totally respect the fact that your posts often remind us that there are also Macedonian Bulgarians, who are actually being ignored from the discussion that follows the Prespa agreement, but do you really think that the way that you are editing wikipedia for the last couple of weeks is really helping anyone?

Finally, I'll just kindly remind you for one more time that there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where you might want to take part, so if you want to, please do so. Thanks, --Argean (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I little changed the changes at Danes because there is no consensus that the articles about the ethnic groups should be and the articles about all the citizens of the countries. We still discuss here about it and until we finish the dicsussion, shouldn't be changes. Sashko1999 (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to say and that my intention isn't to disturp Wikipeda, I just want to make the articles better and I'm trying to be 100% neutral, which is not a case with many of the members. You and few others attack me because I wanted to change the links of the demonyms, but you see now in the discussion that some people agree with me, and I know that you see now that there is a problem about them and I want to be resolve on right way, If you mean that I have something against some ethnic group and I want to change them because of it, then you are 100% wrong. Btw, maybe I was little rough to you and to few other people, but that's because I really was convinced in my claim and because of that I reacted little more emotionally. Personally, I don't have nothing against you and I hope in the future we will have better communication. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sashko199 and thank you for replying. I'm really worried that either you are not reading the discussions, or you are having difficulties to keep up with all the rules and guidelines of wikipedia when written in English. There were two long discussions at Talk:Denmark#The_demonym_refers_to_all_citizens_of_one_country and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#RFC_on_changing_demonym_links_from_linking_to_the_same_word_to_linking_to_demographics_information about making the changes in Danes to match the modern definition and there was overwhelming support to do that, and actually you were the only one that was against it. Allow yourself a few minutes to read WP:CONSENSUS. The changes in Danes were the result of achieving consensus in the previous discussions. If you start doing edits on your own, without explaining why you are doing them, that move is against established consensus. If you have strong objections for the established consensus and you want people to discuss on your opinions you can open an WP:RFC, to make more room for discussion. You don't do the changes that you think they are right, then accuse others that they are doing mistakes for reverting your edits, and expecting from others to open an WP:RFC to discuss your opinion. --Argean (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, we had a discussion here, but that was more about the demonym than about the changing of the article about the ethnic group. Also, there wasn't voting, and if there was the consensus would have been just by 4 people, and I think that's too little for such a serious issue, should be invited more people in the duscussion which is still lead here, and until we finish we should't change nothing. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We all have our point of view and we are here to discuss how to improve wikipedia. Self-declaring that you are more neutral than others, or you are more right than others, this represents a form of WP:ADVOCACY. People do not always agree, that why there are a set of rules to help, such as WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV. When there is a WP:DISPUTE, there are also rules how to resolve it. You don't just do whatever you think is right, claim that There is also a rule Ignore all rules, I will apply it, and accuse others that attack you because they ask you to follow the rules.

Anyway, I'm not sure that I should read your last line as an apology, but honestly I'm not convinced that you are really willing to follow the rules and respect wikipedia and your fellow editors. And by the history of your edits I'm really worried that you are WP:NOTHERE to contribute, but rather to make a statement, and I have no idea if this statement has to do with some ethnic group or not. --Argean (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's some kind of apology. Btw, I don't do nothing out of the rules, I already explained here. As for the respecting, I respect you, but you also should respect me and my proves which is most important. And tell me, if you saw my edits until now, what's non-neutral and subjective on them? Sashko1999 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted and I'm glad that you are paying more attention to your edits, including indenting your comments. It's not useful to deny that you have made mistakes, everybody does and it's better when somebody acknowledges them and moves on without repeating them. It's not helpful playing the WP:AAGF card either, because everybody can make comments that may be misunderstood at some point. We all have opinions and even if we think that we are 100% right, it's always better to try to discuss in a WP:CIVIL way. That's why there are Talk pages. Use them, but try also to listen to what others say. And one final thing that might help you: wikipedia is neither WP:BATTLEGROUND nor WP:DEMOCRACY. We are not here to fight and win wars in order to prove something or to count votes to see whose opinion is more popular. I understand that you really want to make edits when you see something that you feel it's wrong, but it's better to think about it twice and if in doubt use the talk pages appropriately. --Argean (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. I am writing to suggest you join the discussion about you at ANI here. Leviv ich 06:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

In 2017, you were indefinitely topic-banned from the topic area of Macedonia. Could you point me to where and when that ban was lifted? I can't find any such decision anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise: I have been wondering about the same thing. It turns out that the topic ban given here was a temporary one for one year. The next day they were blocked for 2 weeks. The day after that block expired, they were blocked for one year for breaking the topic ban. The topic ban therefore expired before the block for breaking the topic ban... --T*U (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, at the same time the block was imposed, the topic ban was explicitly extended to indefinite [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it was indeed! I had not seen that. Thanks! --T*U (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block

I blocked your account indefinitely because you ignored your arbitration enforcement ban imposed on you earlier. The ANI discussion about you was already converging to an infinite block anyway, but the arbitration enforcement ban violation made the continuation of this discussion unnecessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain me precisely why I'm blocked? Btw, I don't think that the ANI discussion about me converging to an infinite block, I apology and explained the things and I think the people who participated accept it. I will ping some of them to say their final opinion. Argean, —DIYeditor, Leviv. Can't remember to the others in the discussion, maybe the members who I ping remember and will notify them. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sashko. I can't speak for the admin who placed this block (Ymblanter) or the admin who placed the topic ban (NeilN, placed here and extended indefinitely here), and which you violated by editing in the prohibited topic area (e.g. Macedonia). My opinion is that a block is a standard enforcement procedure for violation of a tban. I would ask the admin to post the template or otherwise provide instructions for properly making an unblock request and appealing the topic ban. I don't know what the procedures and standards are for removing blocks and bans after a violation, but I imagine it would involve demonstrating that you can make constructive edits to areas of the encyclopedia outside the banned topic area. Leviv ich 19:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for the explanation.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

block of indefinite duration

You have been sanctioned violation of the earlier imposed topic ban.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I made an appeal on the email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org, when I can expect the answer? Btw, I can't contact you on your talk page, I can write just here on my talk page. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not an Arbcom member, I do not know what is the timescale, but I would reasonably expect several days.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Please note that, per WP:AC/DS#Sanctions, only the first year of this block would be considered an arbitration enforcement action. After that, it is just a normal indefinite block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I noticed you said "block", are DS topic bans also limited to one year? (The way the policy reads is unclear to me.) Leviv ich 04:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: They are not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This is fine. This means that the topic remains in force, but the block I imposed can be appealed in a year in a usual way, by posting {{unblock}} here, unless any of the previous appeals have been granted.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I made a second appeal about my unblocking on 1 November and i still don't get an answer, i want to ask what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashko1999 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Leviv, hi, can you tell me where should I address to be unblocked? It's been a year and a half since I was blocked. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the instructions are at WP:UNBLOCK and WP:GAB. Lev!vich 19:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|reason=I have been blocked for more than 1.5 years, I will not make mistakes anymore.}}

Ymblanter, Hi, I have been blocked from you for over a year and a half. Is there a chance I will be unblocked?

Unblock

Ymblanter, hi, I have been blocked from you for over a two years and a half. Is there a chance I will be unblocked? Sashko1999 (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to post here a credible unblock request, and it will be considered by an uninvolved administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I can only promise that in the future my changes will be in accordance with the rules. I think my 2.5 year sentence is more than enough for the mistake I made. Thank you! Sashko1999 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock

Maxim, hi, is there any chance to be unblocked?, I have been blocked for more than 3.5 years. I can promise to respect Wikipedia's principles in the future. Thank you. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You would need to post an appeal using the {{unblock}} template. At the minimum, such an appeal would need to contain an explanation of the issues you were blocked for, and a description of the edits you intend to make if unblocked. I would also suggest not evading the block while logged out for at least six months before filing an appeal. Maxim_(talk) 12:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

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).

Sashko1999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I would like to appeal my unblocking. The reason for my blocking, as far as I remember, was some of my edits to an article about North Macedonia. That was over 3.5 years ago, so forgive me for not remembering well, but I know my changes were minor. I usually make small changes, so if I am unblocked I will try to contribute to improving Wikipedia with such changes. Thank you. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Once you figure out what you were blocked for and what was wrong with your edits, feel free to request an unblock. Not before, though. Yamla (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

Sashko1999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked because I ignored my arbitration enforcement ban imposed on me earlier. Sashko1999 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm not going to be a jerk, so I'll assume that "...and I won't do it again" is implied here. But this is really just a simple declarative sentence. If you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, it gives you explicit instructions on what we're looking for. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

---

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.