User talk:Ruach Chayim

Welcome!

Hi Ruach Chayim! I noticed your contributions to Prizren and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vanjagenije (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

indent

Please read wp:indent. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And while you're at it, please stop moving things without discussion--even if you are reverting earlier moves. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I do not understand. I should think of the good will of the editor who accuses me of vandalism? — Ruach Chayim (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was that you indent one to the right when you reply to a user, thus the way you indented your reply on the NPOV board was a reply to me, not the post you wanted to reply to. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: So I should start a discussion about moving articles that were previously moved by individuals on their own initiative? That makes sense. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It does make sense, doesn't it. As for the indents, you need to indent correctly regardless of the alleged intentions of the person you are responding to. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This (however) would be reply to Drmies' comment above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

For example this is a reply to your post of 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC). Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank You. But, I wonder why you didn't write this to the people (that is, the person, given that it's an obvious example of a sockpuppet) who originally moved the articles? — Ruach Chayim (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I know how to use indents. I apologized for not clarifying that I was speaking to the sockpuppet, although I think it was quite obvious. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's such an obvious sockpuppet, maybe you should report them rather than disruptively moving. And I can't help but wonder where all that knowledge comes from, given the newness of your account. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC).

@Drmies: We've gotten to the point where I'm "disrupting" by reverting unapproved article moves. Secondly, I would like to thank You for noticing my knowledge, it's a nice compliment.

It is clear that this user(s) is a sockpuppet, as other editors have already said before, but it is also easy to conclude from the user's edits. Also, it's clear that you don't want to answer why you didn't warn the user that they shouldn't move articles on their own initiative, but okay. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You really need to stop deflecting. This is about your behavior. I do not believe you came here with clean hands; there is no way that a novice editor could know about sockpuppets, let alone sockpuppets in a specific area who moved specific articles. And you can repeat "sockpuppet" all you want--no, in fact, you can not, because next time you call that editor a sock, unless it's at SPI, with evidence, I am going to block you for personal attacks and a violation of WP:AGF. It's a serious accusation, and you cannot make those lightly and without evidence, in edit summaries. I hope I am making myself clear--and I'll add that insinuating something about my objectivity or whatever is not going to help you. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: First of all, I would like to ask You to calm down and stop threatening. You are the one who speculates and says that I came with "dirty hands". The editor we are talking about is a sockpuppet, which has been proven, and after that he was blocked. However, offense is the easiest defense, but okay, I don't plan on arguing any further with a person who doesn't want to be constructive, let alone apologize. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, how did you know what a "sockpuppet" was? How did you know to read histories and talk pages and how did you figure out that the person was socking? Because I know how to do that, but I've been here for years. Don't tell me to "calm down", BTW, and please consider this: I am not threatening you--I am simply warning you. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Podujevo. 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited District of Gjilan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vitia. 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) 05:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Fix" campaign

I friendly wanted to remind you that your edits (e.g. on Vushtrri, etc.) aren't improvements. Adding the footnote in every Article that somehow relates to Kosovo are not enhancements to Wikipedia. Please invest your time and make sensible edits. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann: Greeting. All my edits are constructive. If you think otherwise, feel free to post on the admin panel. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just as good as before, before your edits that you've made. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann: Likewise. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Instead of always pasting this footnote, you can add more useful things such as expanding the history sections as long as it is not disputed. Cheers AlexBachmann (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann: The note is being added and will be added until it is decided otherwise. I'm sorry if You don't like it. Also, I would like to ask You to stop spreading pro-Albanian propaganda like You used to. It is time to stop with pro-Albanian and pro-Serbian propaganda, and to turn a little towards neutrality. Greeting. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with the ladder part of your sentece, I'd like to hear some examples of my "pro-Albanian propaganda". Be careful with accusations. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann: 1, 2, 3 (added without consensus) and it goes on and on. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The first one was later resolved with the result that only persons without an separate article should have the Albanian name included. The second one is true, or don't you agree? If you have something against it revert it and discuss in the talkpage. As about Nish, I've reached consensus. All of those edits are not "propaganda" but controversial. Not the same thing. Again, be careful with your accusations. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann: As for the first example, it is quite clear what your intention was (it is interesting that you did not add Serbian names in addition to Albanian names anywhere), please don't act naive. The second is extremely biased (needless to say "Miley's album was the best-selling album in the US that week and #1 on the Billboard charts, but Billboard provided no evidence). The third was made without consensus (only one editor (admin) spoke up and even he was against). Like I said - less propaganda, more neutrality. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not my job to include Serbian spellings while they are mostly included. If you think something is missing in the article then add it. Secondly, if you haven't noticed, there is a whole section about the false claims that Serbia has made (Alleged withdrawal of recognitions). Only to write "x countries have withdrawn" in the lead without mentioning this would be even more biased.

Take your time for the third case. At 00:53, I have requested to add Nish to the lead on the Talkpage. On the same day, namely 20:57, I added the name. After that, the Admin intervened. He stated that I need to prove that Nissa and Nisha are indeed common names and not misspellings and so did I. I asked multiple times if anyone has something against it and the admin hasn't intervened. And they surely saw my further comments, as the admin processed the "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2023" right underneath my request. I think it is clear now. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann: I would again ask you not to act naive. So, you added Albanian names even though you should have known (of which there is no doubt) that it is not done that way.

Even worse if you added the text the same day without waiting for anyone to respond (which means you didn't expect a response at all).

False claims were spread by both Kosovo and Serbia officials (although we currently "trust" the Kosovo officials who tweeted something?). Again, let's focus on n-e-u-t-r-a-l-i-t-y. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if I made a mistake, everybody makes mistakes, right? The whole discussion on the admins page could have been avoided if you had discussed in the right way. See, everybody makes mistakes. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann: The mistake is that you asked a question and only after a few hours did what you intended without waiting for someone to answer. Someone replied (an admin, no less) and objected to it. However, you did not remove the text either then or now. You will agree that you are quite prone to making mistakes (and that, quite by accident, always in favor of the Albanian side). I just informed the other admins about your mistake. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Account reblocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Upon expiry of your last block you immediately launched back into the same edit wars that led to your previous block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 11 May 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Greeting. Since I didn't even have time to respond to the application, I will submit the response here. As you can see, I submitted the evidence to the talk page. The editor who reported me did not deign to provide proof of his claims, but only wanted to argue. The editors before him didn't even answer (more than 7 days) after I added the proof. I'm afraid that here is a case of a report due to the content that is added that is not in accordance with the wishes of the editor who fills out the same report. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address your reverts. You mention them below, but you seem to be saying that your conduct was okay. Your reverts were disruptive, and you need to acknowledge that. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2023 (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.

• There is no reason to email me, as you've done. Another admin will review the block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ponyo: Greeting. I just wanted to point out that you didn't even give me 10 minutes to respond to the accusations, nothing more. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

    Ruach Chayim, I've explained that it is not just the whole thing about Kosovo, you reverted my edits on Montenegro and other pages without discussing. The reason for the ban is already given (same articles, same behaviour). AlexBachmann (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

    • Greeting. I am afraid that you added information to the article about Montenegro which are in my opinion extremely pro-Albanian biased, without first consulting with the community after which you also started edit warring and reverting. Not to mention that the administrator has already warned you about that.. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

      For your information, there is an Albanian community in Montenegro. There is no doubt that the Albanian name "Mali i Zi" is relevant for the etymology section. There does not need to be a consensus on a undoubtedly relevant name, which you at first excused with "unsourced". AlexBachmann (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

      There are many nationalities in Montenegro, but their languages are not mentioned. Please don't make fools of me or the other editors of this project. Spare us all. Also, you kind of forgot that the administrator already warned you about what you were doing. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

      Only because other languages are not mentioned (in fact, I've added Bosnian and Croatian) does not mean you can remove the Albanian name. Whereas the notificaton from the admin, that was a false flag. I'm not saying he's biased, I just think he erred because I reverted a good faith edit. But that is irrelevant. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

      Irrelevant when you were warned for edit warring? Ok. Dude, it is absolutely clear to everyone that you are spreading pro-Albanian propaganda. Please, for God's sake, stop making fools of us all. In every article you add something that goes exclusively to the benefit of Albanians, but you do it in a very very biased way. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

      I don't know how to respond to such a statement. I am (as you are) interested in certain topics, there is no propaganda that I've spread. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

      Don't make me provide all the evidence, I'm afraid you wouldn't like the outcome. Now you had the opportunity to apologize, considering that you yourself know that you are not right, neither as regards the permanent administrative districts of Serbia in Kosovo, nor as regards Montenegro (where, I will repeat, you yourself started edit warring). I think this is also about the desire for the welfare of this project, because I could have reported you several times, but I didn't want to because you often really contributed to its development. It seems that everything is in the honor of each person individually. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Since you are using this talk page to bicker and fight, I am revoking your talk page access. AlexBachmann, please disengage. Ruach Chayim, you have an unblock request open; perhaps another administrator will look upon it favorably. I won't. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo 1RR

The Kosovo article is under an 1RR restriction [1], and as such editors are not allowed to make more than 1 revert in 24 hours. You should self-revert since you have 2. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Ruach Chayim. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)