Shurbanm
Destruction of Bulgarians in Greek occupied Macedonia 1913
editIn the aftermath of the retreat of the Bulgarian forces during the Second Balkan War the Greek military engaged in a campaign of systematic destruction of the non-combatant population of the region of Macedonia to the north of Thesalonniki. According to the independent observers this amounted to 16,000 Bulgarian homes destroyed. Over 120 villages were sacked, and after systematic pillaging and violation of the women inhabitants, the villages were burnt. Thousands of civilian bulgarians were confirmed murdered or missing. Eyewitness testimony was corroborated by the greek correspondence, which fell in the hands of Bulgarian forces during military operations.[1] Numerous crimes against international conventions were registered by the Greek forces among which were firing of artillery shells on orphanages, hospitals (among which those run by foreign embassies like French and Russian) the usage of modified cut bullets (dum-dum) which cause explosion in the tissue causing wounds by order of magnitude more severe than those of conventional bullets.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Genocide of Bulgarians in Greek-occupied Macedonia 1913 (July 14)
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Genocide of Bulgarians in Greek-occupied Macedonia 1913 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Genocide of Bulgarians in Greek-occupied Macedonia 1913, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Shurbanm!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Hello I did add source. It is described as genocide however in 1913 there was no established term. The first well known established act of genocide when the term is coined is in first world war - the armenian genocide. The definition of genocide is this "he deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." this is taken from Oxford dictionary. Please read the source and look at what it was and make your own judgement of what it is based on the facts. In any case I have removed the term genocide in the title to accommodate. If you feel that genocide is the right term (which I do) we can add again. ~shurbanm
Your draft article, Draft:Genocide of Bulgarians in Greek-occupied Macedonia 1913
edit
Hello, Shurbanm. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Genocide of Bulgarians in Greek-occupied Macedonia 1913".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bulgars shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Beshogur (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are the only one reverting here. No other editors have reverted.
- I would suggest you give me reason why you are reverting additions I made which are quite clearly substantiated with scientific evidence. Shurbanm (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
edit
Your edit to Bulgars has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Shurbanm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have merely added scientifically supported evidence that shows is not really disputable. That, incidentally, is reflected in the entry of Encyclopedia Britannica. However, for some bizzare reason is rejected by editors of Wikipedia. Could you please explain to me what exactly I have done wrong. I did revert the exact quote used from Encyclopedia Britannica which was a copyright issue but the content remains valid regardless. If you have objections to the DNA findings then provide ones that either challenge the authenticity of the ones I posted or their conclusions. Is Wikipedia not about science and facts? Is Encyclopedia Britannica better than Wikipedia? The reason given is "rejecting community concerns about undue weight." How is it "undue weight" to point out the DNA analysis has shown no asian origin of the bulgars? It is factual. Arguably, there is undue weight given on hypotheses based on no DNA evidence positing asian origins - which is the only hypothesis covered in this article. It seems to me some editors have a political agenda here that is not covering facts and actual scientific findings. The fact I was blocked for reposting yet another editor was not blocked for reverting with no justification given speaks volumes. Is Wikipedia about reflectng fact or political agendas? Shurbanm (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wikipedia summarizes secondary independent reliable sources. Something being factual and scientific(if it is) does not automatically entitle it to be on Wikipedia and also be irrevocably nonremovable. This is a community project that you cannot impose your will on merely because you think you are correct; everyone thinks that they are correct. You must discuss things with other editors. It's also usually people with political agendas who claim that others have political agendas. You're here to right great wrongs and that's exactly the wrong reason to be here. I see nothing here to suggest anything will change, in fact, you double down, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2024 (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.
Shurbanm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
" Something being factual and scientific(if it is) does not automatically entitle it to be on Wikipedia" - of course not. but when it is relevant and factual and scientific why would it be removed exactly? please provide me with reason? political agenda? "you're here to right great wrongs" How so exactly? I was merely adding content that was factual. What "great wrongs" are you referring to exactly? "This is a community project that you cannot impose your will on merely because you think you are correct;" It is not I that am correct in anything. I was merely reflecting what science has concluded in one specific topic. It has nothing to do with my opinion or yours. This is fact not a question of me or you. " everyone thinks that they are correct." No not everybody. I think I am correct if supported by evidence and fact. If evidence and facts comes in and disproves what I had thought was true before or I was not aware of such facts I would admit I am incorrect. In this example that is not the case as the evidence I posted was not challenged by other evidence. "It's also usually people with political agendas who claim that others have political agendas." Even if that's the case which it is not really how is it applicable in the situation. I was merely posting DNA analysis conclusions by science. You are more than welcome to challenge it with other evidence that disproves the validity of what I posted. You did not. You chose to make this an argument totally outside the realm of rational scientific discourse. "You're here to right great wrongs " What great wrongs are you talking about? Wikipedia not being up to speed on science? You really want Wikipedia to be behind Encyclopedia Britannica? I guess righting that wrong is wrong in your book? "I see nothing here to suggest anything will change, in fact, you double down," What exactly am I doubling down on? You have not even given me a reason why I was banned in the first place. Adding content that is scientifically founded with citations quoted is wrong? Please advise what I did wrong (apart from an honest mistake in quoting Britannica directly causing copyright infringement which I corrected immediately)
Decline reason:
Asked (if there really was a question) and answered. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2024 (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.
According to ToBeFree: You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently edit warring, rejecting community concerns about undue weight.
Would you please review. 1. I did not edit war. There was one editor that kept reverting my posting yet gave no reason for reverting it. Since I was given no justifiable reason I though he was attempting to vandalise. There are many people with political agendas especially on wikipedia. If I were given a valid reason by him why he reverted my posting I would have an understanding. But it was just reverted.
2. "rejecting community concerns". which concerns did I reject exactly? I was given one warning about copyright infringement (I posted verbatim sentance from Encyclopedia Britannica which I immediately addressed by rephrasing in my words. I thought honestly it is better to quote the source exactly then there would be no accusations of bias.
3. "undue weight". What exactly does that mean? There is no undue weight in adding valid scientific evidence which is not really disputed right now by other scientific findings in the same realm - genetics. If there were and I had just posted one side without the other then I agree - there would be "undue weight" - but there are no other findings. I have posted all the most reputable findings of the past 20-odd years which is when DNA analysis comes into the fore.
Could somebody please explain to me the above. I am more than ready to accept I was wrong if it's pointed out to me. So far I have been accused of things that I did not do (other than copyright infringement which was an honest mistake which I addressed). Shurbanm (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Two things. First, you can only have one open request at a time. Second, the unblock template is to be used to post a WP:GAB-compliant appeal only and is not to be used to continue a conversation.-- Ponyobons mots 16:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have one open request. Not 2.
- As far as the "conversation" I am merely responding to the 1st decline reasons. How otherwise can I respond other than replying to the reasons. I am accused of something. If I do not respond to the accusation how would I make my case at all?
- Secondly you guys seem to be more focused on some formal rules rather than the substance of the matter. Why you are responding on some vaugely OCD procedural issue you perceive rather than on what I specifically asked.
- Or is there just no answer to this?
- I was before wondering why everybody saying wikipedia is a joke and should not be taken seriously as source of any information and now I see why. Elon Musk had it right. It should be changed to dickypedia. Shurbanm (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shurbanm, until I closed and modified them you had three open appeals (here is status of your page prior to me closing and modifying the excess templates). You can respond to the decline reason as much as you want, but you cannot use the appeal template to do so, just post to your page as you normally would. It's not "vaguely OCD", using the appeal template causes this page to show up in administrative logs and action pages (such as WP:RFU), so using it incorrectly actually has consequences other than simply bulking up your page with unnecessary templates. Since you appear more interested in getting juvenile insults in as opposed to discussing the concerns with your edits, I've revoked your talk page access. -- Ponyobons mots 17:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.