ButtersIO

April 2021

Hello, ButtersIO, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you.Jingiby (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jingiby (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

https://plasnica.gov.mk/ = No turkish name. Pllasnica is majority turkish.

Websites do not indicate which languages are official (at least in NM) because these websites very rarely get updated. Revert yourself, you are at 4rv I think and you could be blocked for that. Alltan (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice

I reported you to an admin. I really don't think accusing other editors of radicalism and homophobia is a good think to do. Homophobia is a real issue, not some word you just throw around willy-nilly.

I registred on Wikipedia today, however I am here all of my life and thank you for introducing me to the Admin I would write him soon. Yes it is a huge issue and you just spread it all over this website, not just a homophobia but hate speech, bigotry, racism and fake news and before you justify yourself to me you should've thought before writing your fake information and discredit this site. I hope admins would keep an eye on you from today, and sorry is not enough you should stop pollute this site with hate speech.

Personal attacks on other users; nationalist editing

Please be aware that your charge of homophobia is a blockable personal attack. You should respond and promise to stop this behavior. If it appears you are here on Wikipedia only for purposes of nationalist edit warring (e.g. removing Albanian names), you may be indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Admin and thanks for your response. I noticed that group of Albanian members are trying to edit and manipulate articles mainly about their neighboring countries. The names that I changed are officially without Albanian name on their municipality sign MK and EN. For example I would never change the name of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ara%C4%8Dinovo because I know that Albanian population live there, but the name of Petrovec "Ibrahimovo" is totally new and made-up, used for nationalistic points or some other games. I've never heard someone using it despite living next to that municipality. Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skopje_Zoo&diff=prev&oldid=1018554873, there is no reason why should there be an Albanian language when that is a private institution that don't use that language, https://zooskopje.com.mk/. --ButtersIO (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The language policy in North Macedonia is regulated by the 7 Article of the Constitution of North Macedonia and the Law of languages. According to the national constitution:

On Language

Article 7 The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language in the Republic of Macedonia. In the units of local self-government where the majority of the inhabitants belong to a nationality, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in a manner determined by law. In the units of local self-government where there is a considerable number of inhabitants belonging to a nationality, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, under conditions and in a manner determined by law.

The nationality of names in the Balkans falls under WP:ARBEE

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Of your 32 Wikipedia edits, the one which caught my attention was this one, where you remove the Albanian name of Ohrid. Your main activity since arriving on Wikipedia seems to be taking away the Albanian names from articles. If this continues I doubt you will be on Wikipedia much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason other language to be added when in Official Websites there is no such language [1]. Apologies for not adding commentary on the edit though, I will keep that in mind in the future. --ButtersIO (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The government of North Macedonia doesn't set the standards for names in Wikipedia, we do. See WP:PLACE. It seems you are unaware of these standards. In that case it seems likely you will make further mistakes. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes absolutely that in Wikipedia the site itself sets his own rules, but they are based on official sources that are according to the situation in reality just as the rules link that you sent me say, that's what I am trying to say. I wasn't aware of these standards considering I made my account yesterday but thank you for sharing that with me, I read them now and will try to learn and upgrade myself every new day on Wikipedia. --ButtersIO (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

ButtersIO, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ButtersIO! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GoingBatty (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Your recent editing history at 2001 insurgency in Macedonia 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.Jingiby (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright Jingiby, invite him to come here and prove that they didn't have support by that group, when in the sources it clearly says the opposite, if he archieve to deny the clear claims in sources I would remove the original text myself. All the best! --ButtersIO (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation at 2001 insurgency in Macedonia

• 2001 insurgency in Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello ButtersIO. Editors have already complained to me in April about your Balkan editing. See User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 50#Personal attack and the following sections. You had accused others of homophobia, lies and hate speech. Personal attacks are blockable. At that time I had warned you about the problems with your edits. Now I observe that you have broken the WP:3RR rule today by making four reverts on this page on 26 May. Can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked from editing Wikipedia? EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ed, yes I remember you and the problem back then had been with not adding commentary on my edits, I corrected that since then, however because I am relatively new here didn't know about the WP:3RR. Thanks for the information and I would keep in mind this rule from now on. My appologies. --ButtersIO (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2001 insurgency in Macedonia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Your 31st May edit abut the 2001 insurgency suggests to me that the problem with your edits originally reported on my talk page is continuing. You made four reverts on 26th May, thus violating the WP:3RR, and since then have made various conciliatory statements that aren't very persuasive, judging from the additional revert today. You are determined to insist that Al Qaeda was a combatant in the 2001 insurgency, but that exact claim appears to lack reliable sources. You are obliged to get support from others for the factual claims you add to Wikipedia articles in any case where they are contested, which is what happened here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

EdJohnston, it's other way around, they are determined to insist that Al Qaeda wasn't a combatant in 2001 insurgency. The user admitted that UCK had their support himself yet he calls that it's just a "minor" support. And as I told you I am sorry for the violation on May 26th, but today I made only two edits on the article, the other ones were in the article's Talk page. They are much more than me but I am telling the truth, their reports are obviously organized against me because they stalk my page. --ButtersIO (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request should only discuss your own actions, as that is why you were blocked, not because of what others did. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2021 (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.