Newalbin
Fustanella edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Fustanella, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I did that behave after several attemts for me to change the article about fustanella. According to policies and guidelines. I didnt broke any policy till my changes to article fustanella were deleted permanently. I am adding there that the word "fustanella" is an albanian language word and this testimony have to be included to the article of Fustanella. Also Fustanella is an albanian traditional wearing. This is a second truth that I wrote there that was deleted again. Several deletes without any reason forced me to behave in that way. The article of Fustanella needs to be edited because it is not accurate.Newalbin (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
May 2013 edit
Hello, I'm Dr.K.. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Alexander the Great because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Unblock edit
Newalbin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I made some changes to article Alexander the Great. An administrator named Dr.K blocked me for the changes I made there. And I think it is not right. I am trying to communicate with Dr.K but I cant not write to his/her talk page because of my indefinitely block. I did my changes to the article of Alexander the Great not for vandal purposes. I have strong reasons to make those changes because the article about Alexander the Great is not accurate. In the beggining it says that the word Alexander is a greek word meaning "alexios" (to defent) and aner (man) but this is not true. There is no publication or reference that proves this. Also albanians pretend that the word Alexander is an albanian language word meaning A (asht) meaning "to be", le (leu, lindi) meaning "to born", ksa (ksaj) meaning "to this", ander (ander) meaning "dream". For albanians word Alexander means "to be born in this dream". There are no publications to prove that word Alexander is a greek word meaning "to defend man". There are no publications to prove that the word Alexander is an albanian language word meaning "born in this dream" and till there is a discution about the meaning of word Alexander between greek and albanian language then the line where is explained the name of Alexander with greek language needs to be deleted. Now I see there are references for the explanation of word Alexander. When I started editin the article those references were not. Even though all those references none of them proves that the word Alexander is a greek language word. For this reason my block needs to be removed. Newalbin (talk) 11:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)
Decline reason:
Nationalistic POV editing is highly disruptive. Your request, above, makes it clear that you intend to continue in this vein if unblocked; leaving the block in place is therefore an appropriate measure to avoid further disruption to Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲水 07:55, 23 May 2013 (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.
Nationalism? Who is nationalist here? Dont misslead discusion please. I brought here facts that the article about Alexander the Great is not accurate and needs to be changed. Are we here to make an academical discussion or we intend to cover mistakes with justification like nationalism? The line where is explained the etimiology of word Alexander is not based in documents and is a false declaration that needs to be deleted. If we are here to say the truth then we need to work together to remove that nontrue line. If we want to tell a wrong story to the world even in a prestigious public internet page as wikipedia then we prove that the credibility of the page is very low. If we want to contribute to say the truth then we helped this way with our knowledge and best human values to improve the credibility and seriozity of the site we are contributing in. Newalbin (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Second request for unblock edit
Newalbin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did an request for unblock but it was not taken with the neccesary seriozity and was not evaluated properly. I explained why article about Alexander the Great is not accurate but noone took seriously my arguments. Instead i was called nationalist. I am not a nationalist when I bring here facts and evidences that show how wrong is an article. I am asking again for me to be unblocked and I am asking too that the article about Alexander the Great to be changed as it is not accurate and does not says the truth.The line where is explained the etimiology of word Alexander is not based in documents and is a false declaration that needs to be deleted. If we are here to say the truth then we need to work together to remove that nontrue line. If we want to tell a wrong story to the world even in a prestigious public internet page as wikipedia then we prove that the credibility of the page is very low. If we want to contribute to say the truth then we helped this way with our knowledge and best human values to improve the credibility and seriozity of the site we are contributing in. Newalbin (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The reason your unblock requests (including this one) are being declined is that they do not provide any assurances that the disruption and tendentious editing that led to your block will not simply resume should you be unblocked. It's not a matter of being "right", it's about respecting Wikipedia's policies with regard to collaboration, neutrality, courtesy, and discussion. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:53, 23 May 2013 (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.
Ok but what shall I do? I am respecting Wikipedia policies. I am talking here with neutrality and discussion. So what I have to do to be unblocked?Newalbin (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Third request for unblock edit
Newalbin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I red carefully Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.Specially this part : You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators: 1.that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; or: that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range). It also helps to clearly state your reasons for requesting an unblock because: If the background or reason isn't clear, your request may be declined out of hand. In complicated situations, the reviewing administrator may not want to spend a long time reading your whole talk page and all of your contributions. Information and evidence not in your unblock request may not be read. If you make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests, your talk page may be protected from editing which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking. So I personally dont know for what reason one administrator put block to me. I am a reasonable human being and I did nothing disruptive, I did not brought here damage, I did nothing that violates Wikipedia bocking policy. I am bringing here the right opinion that the article about Alexander the Great is not accurate and needs to be changed. I did a productive contribution by saying the truth that the word Alexander is not a greek word and it does not mean "aleksio" and "aner" because there is not even one single publication and reference that can prove it. So I did nothing and for this reason I cannot say that I will not do it again. I want to be unblocked because I want to give my productive contribution by helping that the article about Alexander the Great to be changed and to get more accurate. We dont live by idols. Our idol is the truth and bringing it to the world. It looks like there are some academics here that have other idols than the truth. It looks like there are other academics here that have idols like false concepts as Ancient Greece is and idols not supported by facts that in now way and in no sense are not able to prove that the word Alexander is a greek language word. Give me liberty to contribute to build and not to disruptive. Give me liberty by unblocking me to say the truth and dont censure the truth to be said to the worldNewalbin (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So far, none of your unblock requests have risen above the very tendentiousness you were blocked for. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (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.
Fourth request for unblock. edit
Newalbin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I red carefully Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what these writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.
Well I am a human being and I accept I have my own bias like everybody else but I am trying to contribute in Wikipedia in a neutral way. For example I was trying to change the article of Alexander the Great and my action is perceived as a bias. I have to tell that my opinion is not just a declaration of my self and based nowhere. I dont have an opinion at all but acording to bibliography and publications it is obviously that from an academical point of view etimiological explanation of the word "Alexander" by greek modern language in the article about Alexander the Great is not accurate and is not based in publications and references. From a neutral point of view the declaration of article about Alexander the great that - Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros ho Mégasiii from the Greek ἀλέξω alexo "to defend, help" + ἀνήρ aner "man") - is a bias declaration because there are no publications and written references that can support this declaration. Till this declaration is not based in facts and publications then this declaration is a subject of bias itself and needs to be changed. The problem is not that I am a bias but what is written in article is a bias itself. I dont see my self like a bearer of the truth but rather I would like my self like a volunteer contributer that helps to improve written articles in the basis of the factual written documents that are the strongest support when an academical is based to build his declarations. I am repeating that there are no publications that analyse etimiologically word Alexander. All what is explained for its greek language origin is a speculation and is not based in publications but just in legends and fairytells. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is supported not by academical facts but by legends and fairytells then this have to be said in the scopes of the encyclopedia but I think for the sake of all volunter academical contributors the truth is that Wikipedia is supported from academical facts. If you find hard to belive my words that are strongly based in the documents and publications related to the matter of discution then open a discution about the etimiology of word Alexander and see in basis of documents that the article is really inacurate and needs urgently changes. Please I am directing you this fourth request with the hope of academical reasonable reflecting and expect from you to unblock me and give me the possibility to contribute in a neutral way based only in documents and in facts for changing of articles and making them more accurate. Newalbin (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You persist in making the same request, which centres on your expressed intention to revert the edits relating to Alexander to your personally preferred version. Unless you are prepared to concede that your behavior has been at fault you will not be unblocked. Posting the same, or a similar unblock request again will open you to the risk of having your access to this page removed. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:31, 25 May 2013 (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.
Future Perfect at Sunrise edit
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Future Perfect at Sunrise
Fifth request for unblock. edit
Newalbin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
protecing the article of Alexander the Great from admins by not allowing any change to happen there is a break of Wikipedia's policy for bias and neutrality. Not allowing a change to be happen is a bias. Admins here are persisting in a bias and not neutral action. This is my strongest reason to ask again and again my unblock. If you will block me more and erase my account this is a full testimony of censure and lack of neutrality. I didnt know that Wikipedia is builded in basis of censure and tendentious. Newalbin (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry to decline as I feel you are acting in good faith. Unfortunately, unless you are prepared to engage in full discussion of your points, and produce reliable independent sources to show that this is a valid point of view that is reasonably widely held, I'm afraid you won't get unblocked. Your points about the word 'Greek' etc have some validity in terms of them not being used at the time - but we use Greek to refer to the modern Hellenes as well, and we refer to Albania not Shqiperia in English. This is the English language Wikipedia, after all. I am not saying you are incorrect in your viewpoint. I am saying that unless you follow our procedures, you will not be allowed to put your points in a discussion. It's up to you. Usually, by this point, access to the talk page gets taken away. I'm not doing that in order to give you another chance to understand OUR point of view. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2013 (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.
- I will not decide on this latest request, as I declined an earlier one. But please let me advise you - you need to abandon this line of argument, and confirm here that you have done so, or it is very unlikely that you will be allowed to edit here.
I understand that your edits are made in good faith, but you have to follow Wikipedia policy. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Anthony Bradbury edit
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sixth request for unblock edit
Newalbin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sorry to ask again my unblock and to represent to you again my facts and good reason why I should be unblocked. I red carefylly the chapter of Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. I red carefully the part of the chapter that says: "Give a good reason for your unblock As a user requesting to be unblocked, it is your responsibility to explain why you believe your block violates Wikipedia's blocking policy or should otherwise be reversed. Specifically: State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration. It is not enough if you just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair", or another user violated a policy first. You must explain why it was wrong to block you, or why it should be reversed. Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block). As explained above, you have been informed about the reason for your block. You must address this reason in your request. This means that you must either explain why the block reason is incorrect or not applicable to your conduct, or you must convince the reviewing administrator that you won't do it again." As you can see policies of Wikipedia are clear. If someone makes a mistake then that person have to say : "I am sorry, I know I did wrong and I promise that I will not make wrong in the future" But this is not my case. I did nothing wrong and as you all can see from my unblock requests there are admins that belive that I am right but they cannot do anything because those are the rules. In fact the rules are followed wrongly by administrators here. An administrator blocked me for the reason of "for tendentious editing and advocacy". I proved in all my complaining requests that I was never tendentious and did not advocacy in all my actions. I proved that the sentence : (Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros ho Mégasiii from the Greek ἀλέξω alexo "to defend, help" + ἀνήρ aner "man") is not based in proofs and evidences and for this reason have to be deleted or replaced. You asked me to bring here proofs and evidences that what I declare here is truth. But how can I prove the missing of this explanation in all publications and in all ethymiologic studies? Noone states that word Alexander is a greek language word. If noone tells this then the declaration in the article is not neccesary and needs to be erased or deleted. This is the biggest prove that I didnt break any of Wikipedia rules and also I have the right to protect my opinion if I am right because Wikipedia's policy procure me this right. So the human reason till now shows us that the problem is not me. The human reason tells us that the real problem is the administrator that blocked me. Administrator that blocked me with his action of blocking me showed his ability to abuse with the power of administrator. He blocked me unjustly and with no good reason. This is a pure abusive action with the power of being administrator. The facts show that I did not tendentious editing and advocacy but administrator that blocked me has the opinion for me to be tendentious. This is his personal opinion and by the rules of Wikipedia is called bias and lack of neutrality. If I am not the problem then you all need to care about the person that caused the problem and that is the administrator who blocked me. I am giiving to many facts basing on the Wikipedia's Policy that I did nothing. Then why I have to suffer consequences that have nothing to do with me? Why I have to suffer from irresponsible action of an unconscious administrator? Newalbin (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We're going round in circles, lots of blaming everybody else, no acceptance that your behaviour was at the very least, one part of the problem. I'm locking down this talk page for three months, perhaps having a longer period to reflect might help you realise the error of your ways and come back with a proper proposal that will allow you to rejoin the editing community. Nick (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2013 (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.
- Last attempt at explaining It's more the way you are going about things than what you are trying to add. You can't just change established text which is referenced to something totally different. You are not adding a reference. Not even one. I have never heard of Alexander being an Albanian speaker - he's always been on the edges of the Greek world so far as I am aware, but you might well be right. But YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT. You are suffering from a refusal to listen to what we are telling you. You are blocked not for the truth or otherwise of your changes. You are blocked because of the way you are behaving. Ranting gets you nowhere on Wikipedia. Discussing things calmly in the correct place may not always get the result you want, but it doesn't get you blocked. There's no point at present in unblocking you, because you'll only do it again - and if that happens, it'll be even harder to get unblocked then. I'm trying to help you, even though you probably won't believe me. You must show that you can understand how we work here. At the moment, I don't think you do. Please try to see it from our point of view. Peridon (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)I understand that you have a firm view on the origin of the name "Alexander". But this view is not shared by the Wikipedia community, and your persistent attempts, via unblock requests, to achieve your version, is simply not going to work. I am sure that you are editing with the best of intentions, but if you want ever to be unblocked you will have to accept that the community her is not going to agree with your version. If you wish to be unblocked you will need to concede this, and agree not to persist with your attempts to change the etymology of his name. I believe that you can be a productive editor here, and it would be sad if you foundered over what is in honesty a fairly minor point.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for opening a discussion here. Thank you for accepting somehow my insisting requests. About your concern of etymiology of word Alexander let us have a look of what have happend. So when I saw for the first time the article about Alexander the great this sentence : (Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros ho Mégasiii from the Greek ἀλέξω alexo "to defend, help" + ἀνήρ aner "man") was just a declaration without any reference. Now after my changes somebody put next to this sentence some references. But open those references and you will see that there is not even one publication that shows for word Alexander to be a greek language word. I dont want to put my declaration instead of that declaration. But read carefully all my ublock requests, I asked there that this line shall be erased or deleted by not replaced from another sentence declarative. I did my changes and I think it was not neccesary for an Administrator to block me. He or she simply could adviced me and simply could started a discussion as you started here (and for which I thank you again) and we could find the best solution for the article. I know that there are no good reference that prove that Alexander the Great spoke albanian language but you must be sure that the language of Alexander the Great was albanian and not greek but I am not asking to put this declaration in article as it is not very well based. Any way thank for the discussion you opened here and gave me the possibility to express my opinion. Discussing is thus far better than any blocking process.Newalbin (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- As the Albanian language isn't recorded before the 1400s, and Alexander I of Macedon competed in the Olympic Games (which only Greeks were allowed to do), the Greek hypothesis is probably stronger. But as a lot of material appears to be being published in Tiranë claiming that Alexander III spoke Albanian, it could be an idea to have a 'but others claim' bit in the article. With referencing for both sides. But this needs to be discussed not here, but on the Alexander talk page. If there are sources for both views, both views should be there. As I say, this should be discussed first. Not just altered by one hand. Now, are you prepared to accept that the blocking wasn't because of what you were saying, but because of the way you were going about it? If you can accept that, and accept that Wikipedia works on consensus - agreement on the best way to do things, and the best content for articles - we might be getting somewhere. Over to you. Peridon (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I accept to work on consensus. It was in Wikipedia's policy that if you want to change an article you can start doing it. I did it and this was not a strong reason to block me. Administrator that deleted my changes could contact me to my page talk and could warned me before blocking. Still the sentence that explain origin of word Alexander is a declarative sentence. At the other hand. Greek language of today is called Dimotiki. And it have no connection with Koine that is ancient greek language. This is the testimony that greek modern language have no connection with so called greek ancient language. But ancient words like Aferdita, Zeus, Athina, Sparta, Alexander, Leonidha, Dhimitri, Illyria, Macedonia, Epir, Gent, Bardhyl, Agron are words that cannot be explained by greek modern language. They can be explained only by albanian modern language. This means that ancient greek language does not have any connection with modern greek language. And this means that greek ancient language is linked only to albanian modern language. There are people called albanologs that have their studies about albanian language and they reached to the conclusion that albanian language is the language that explains words like Aferdita, Zeus, Athina, Sparta, Alexander, Leonidha, Dhimitri, Illyria, Macedonia, Epir, Gent, Bardhyl, Agron. There is not even one single study to prove that those ancient words can be explained with modern greek language. People like Meyer, Miclosich, Shuflai, Hahn, Camarda and all other people proved in their studies that albanian language is the ancient language used in Balkan in ancient times. There are no studies that show modern greek language to be an ancient language.Newalbin (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be discussing this here really, but isn't Dimotiki the successor to Koine (via Mediaeval Greek) - Koine being the popular form of Greek in Classical times, while Attic was the more formal and literary language (especially when used outside ASthens)? A bit like the Classical Latin used by orators and poets, and the Vulgar Latin used by the people in general - which gave rise to Modern Italian (and at a bit further remove Romanian). Peridon (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This is what I am exactly saying here. Koine has nothing in common with Dimotiki. They are two different languages that are not descendant of each other. If you know Dimotiki then you cannot understand Koine because they are two different languages. This is the reason why Koine is teached like a total foreign language today in Greece and not like a dialect of Dimotiki. I brought you here examples that words of Koine are not explained by modern greek language and this shows that they are different languages. Words of Koine are explained only by albanian language of today. It is really more simple. You need to read Nopce, Shuflai and Hahn to understand what I am saying.Newalbin (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Newalbin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i dont know why i am blocked and now i want to be unblocked if i am blocked unjustly
Decline reason:
If you stil genuinely do not understand why you are blocked, despite the reams of text explaining the problem above, then I really don't think there's anything more to be done. To avoid any further time being spent on this I have again revoked your talkpage access; if you wish to appeal this block again (and think carefully before doing so) then your next avenue of appeal is to email the unblock ticket request service. Yunshui 雲水 09:40, 28 October 2013 (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.
I have removed one unblock request, which gave no reason, and we like only one unblock request to be open at any one time. I am not going to decide on this request, as I have done so earlier, but to say that you do not know why you are blocked is clearly nonsense. The reason for your block has been repeatedly discussed in the previous six unblock request declines. As I and other admins have said, unless you can convince the community that you understand where you went wrong and will not do so again an unblock is not likely. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all. Admins of wikipedia blocked me without strong reasons. They acted in bias and have not been objective. I admit my errors and I said this upper in all my apeal requests. I admit that I may be wrong. But admins of Wikipedia are more wrong than me. They cannot accept the fact that the article about Alexander the Great need to be edited and teverything that have to do with term "greek" needs to be disapeared from the article of Alexander the Great because term "greek" is created 1.800 years after the life of Alexander the Great and using term "greek" in this article is illiteracy.
I declare here that i understand where i went wrong but Administrators of Wikipedia need to do the same thing as I am doing here right now. They did wrong more than me in the name of protecting the false term of "ancient greece"
Second I really dont know the reason of my blocking. If there are restrictions in time for my block then those rules needs to be followed by administrators of Wikipedia. If I am blocked for three months then administrators have to unblock me when the period of three months end. Again administrators do not follow and apply the rules decided by Wikipedia policy. I am ready to accept my part where I did wrong but Administrators of Wikipedia have to do more than me because they are more wrong than me. If you want still to be a realible resource of information then you need to reorganize inside you and make administrators take their responsabilities of their bad actions. Newalbin (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)