Hi, Stefka Bulgaria. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Kleuske (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Stefka Bulgaria, thanks for creating Tian Shan Astronomical Observatory!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Architecture of Almaty, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked this article. Good work, and I'm glad to see it survived the AfD process. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encourgament, Nishidani, this is always appreciated. Also for your help at WP:RSN :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could "slow down" - e.g. do a small set of edits each day. Since some of your edit chains are blanket reverted by one of our colleagues (a behavior which I do not endorse) - it seems both of you need additional input to break the logjam (which I've been trying to provide). However - it is very difficult for me to get involved when the issue being contested is a very large diff, with an even larger talk page wall of text. If we could tackle smaller edits one at a time - it would be easier for me (and I presume others) to get involved. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Icewhiz, good to know, and will work on small edits at a time from now on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's much easier to file SPI reports with this tool, so I recommend activating it in Preferences/Gadgets. Cheers. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Mujahedin of Iran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algiers Agreement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stefka Bulgaria, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to People's Mujahedin of Iran have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Dianaa, will paraphrase more and quote less from now on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefka Bulgaria! You created a thread called Question about paraphrasing from copy-righted material at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this RFC on article's timeline which you opened in September. I would consider this an 'exhausted' RfC because it looks like it didn't get support and is unlikely to get more in the future. (The only interested people were User:CaroleHenson and maybe User:Pahlevun, who aren't currently active). Do you want to withdraw it, and possibly add a more specific proposal in its place? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will withdraw it. Thanks for the notice! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - this - I suggest you implement this (I'm frankly confused at the flux in the article) - please do cite the closed RfC talk section clearly in your edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Dear Stefka Bulgaria, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity-related articles, especially your recent creation of Villa Malta (Cologne). Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Mujahedin of Iran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Institute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may i suggest you to quote what the sources say instead of misrepresenting them as you did here ? This is a US claim which confirms Iranian claim, therefore, not only an Iranian claim, right ? Please let me know if you think i'm mistaken. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: - Sorry about this. I kept reading this part of the article: "The Iranians have no doubt who is responsible – Israel and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, known by various acronyms", but missed the part where the US claimed it as well. Will be more careful; and thanks for letting me know. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: No worries, everybody can make mistakes, me the first;-) Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great article creation in Fritz Selbmann! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merci :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria. 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)[reply]

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Christa Ehrmann-Hämmerle should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christa Ehrmann-Hämmerle .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefka Bulgaria! You created a thread called Is this Harassment / Wiki-bullying? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefka Bulgaria. I wanted to let you know that Forbes contributor articles, such as this one that you referenced, are not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. You can learn more here: WP:RSP#Forbes contributors. - MrX 🖋 12:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrX, thanks for the RS list, good source to have handy. Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have [I have closed the ANI thread you were involved with. You are strongly warned to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view." Please read through the comments there, and keep them in mind, so that a sanction does not prove necessary. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So.. you warn Stefka and and allow the disruptive editors to continue roaming (even Pahlevun)? Wikipedia gets more and more incompetent as each day goes, nice. Here's to a ton more articles being the target of pov-pushing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: No, I warned four editors, including Pahlevun. The discussion was open for over a month, and in that time no consensus for any sanction developed. If you want to open another discussion, feel free. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but let's be honest, you think a simple warning is gonna make any difference? This issue has been ongoing for so long (at least one year). This is just gonna be another major headache later on, if not several. Also, it's amazing that Stefka is getting grouped with the rest of those editors. It's clear that enough research has not been done on this issue. I mean, what's even the point in opening another discussion? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude, but frustrated and annoyed I indeed am. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: I, personally, don't think a warning is going to make a difference. The community disagreed. I cannot implement a sanction for which no consensus exists. If you want to rail against the general editor body, go ahead, though it won't do you any good; there was no other possible outcome for that thread. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for your advice, but could you please help me understand this? Pahlevun removed vast amounts of information backed by RSs, made deceitful POV synthesis in polemical political articles, made libelous BLP violations, and continued to do so after being warned 4 times to stop. This is also been happening for over a year. I bring this to ANI, which is what I was told I should do, and I end up receiving the same sanction (warning) as them, even though all I did was express my concerns of POV-pushing at a RfA in commons. Did I miss something here? There were valid long-term issues with Pahlevun's edits, all of which Pahlevun failed to address or justify. Could you please help me understand this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's anything I can say that will satisfy you, but here's a couple of things you should remember. First, if there's genuine issues with an editor's behavior on en.wiki, they should be addressed here; opposing their RFA at commons, without making an effort to address your concerns here, isn't appropriate. Second, I did not warn you unilaterally; I did so based on a lack of consensus for anything else at ANI. Finally, you were not sanctioned, you were warned. There's a fundamental difference. If your behavior really is beyond reproach, then you won't face anything further. If Pahlevun stops editing disruptively, then the warning has worked. If he doesn't, he will face a sanction himself. To put it another way; misconduct by another user isn't an excuse for your own; it also makes your claims of misconduct on Pahlevun's part less tenable. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On May 5, in the article Albrechtsburg, you changed "The masterpiece of" to "The w of work of". I am pretty sure the "w of" should not be there, so I'll remove it myself in a little over a week if you neither do that nor respond here in the meantime, but I'm commenting in case you meant something else. JumpDiscont (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Just fixed it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't keep reverting three times, just shy of 3RR, and not face sanctions for edit warring. I'm telling you now (count it as a warning): that just isn't tenable. El_C 16:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I understand. The issue for me rises when several consecutive edits that violate policies (BIO, NPOV, etc.) are done simultaneously without any consensus, such as these recent ones: [1], [2]. It's a problem. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like both the pro- and anti-MEK camps, if you will, are doing that. The proposal I made for a new approach to editing the article might be able to address that zero-sum game. Providing everybody is on board. El_C 20:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stefka. You have now removed these same sources several times from the page, without explanation! There has been a talk topic about Mr. Varasteh's MEK membership for months now but you have not participated. The man is on video introducing himself as an MEK spokesperson. Why is this not good enough evidence? Please let us know in the talk page. Thanks. Iranians (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on the Talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[3] He's back at again with his mass removal of information, applause to the admins for looking the other way. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Iuventa should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iuventa .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I find that you removed three relevant article which named, Somayeh Mohammadi, Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars from the Maryam Rajavi's Article. They are relevant Article and I don't know why did you delete them? Please, return the article back to the see also section.Forest90 (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are more relevant to the MEK page than Maryam Rajavi; we've used MEK categories to help link these. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Icewhiz fights a war against Polish people. This is a problem for Wikipedia, not for me. Regarding the Lublin spitting, it's a part of a long controversy. Spitting on a Polish ambassador is a bigger issue than spitting on a tourist. The person who spat on the ambassador has not been punished, the one who spat on the tourist was harsly punished. It's only one of thousands such incidents and historical fact manipulated by Icewhiz. Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A typical page by Icewhiz Disruption of Holocaust conference in Paris.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you know Icewhiz' creativity, but you see me. He creats 100 more edits than me. His method is to select anti-Polish statements using Google, to create a page or section, to oppose any corections. A non-real example Poles are pigs, let's google, let's write.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship, disruption aside, was in fact a celebration or international recognition of the groundbreaking work done by Polish scholars in this field in the past twenty years. While the New school has faced reactionary government (PiS) push-back in recent years, it is very much a scholarly accomplishment that took place (mostly - there are two significant Polish expats as well - but they worked off Polish archives) inside Poland.[4] Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236, making claims such as "how Icewhiz manipulates", etc, without evidence (as you've done here), constitutes WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS. If you have an issue with the sources Icewhiz is providing, then I'd advice that you focus on those instead. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. Before continuing to make edits that involve this topic, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Saff V. (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DEADLINK. When you find a dead link, it's better to add the template {{dead}} rather than removing the link entirely. In both cases of links you removed, it was the work of mere seconds to find the new website addresses, and change them. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Hermann Wilhelm Albert Blankenstein, from its old location at User:Stefka Bulgaria/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editor. The world is struggling to stay safe from the harms of a some tens of nano-meters sized virus. I wish you and your dear ones full safety from the dangers of this unilateral love! Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Wilhelm Albert Blankenstein, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 20:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help any of the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Islamization

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bookku. Will have a look... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and support. Very nice of you. And also please let me know if you can take a translation request too, for a women's rights related article Kithaab or may be you can suggest to some other translator.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria

Thank you for creating Hermann Wilhelm Albert Blankenstein.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefka. I just noticed this article for the first time[5] I believe it might benefit from some proper sources/neutral writing. Would you perhaps be willing to check the article when you have time? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LouisAragon:, yes, looks interesting, will have a look. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary, when taken literally, is pretty funny. I didn't notice until you pointed it out.VR _talk 15:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to collaborate with you, and I said I would. But this comment concerns me. Your comment After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain... belies the fact that Chetsford actually "encouraged" me (their words, not mine) to seek review. But judging by your comment, you seem to have entirely missed that part of their comment.

Why do I bring this up? Because I have found that sometimes you don't seem to read my comment before opposing it. You have every right to disagree with me, but for that you need to read my comment first. For example, when I said the RfC was malformed your response indicates you totally misread my comment, until I repeated my comment and then corrected understood it.

Please take care.VR _talk 19:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured that your comments/posts are being read very carefully. You were told that "accusing someone of blindly voting without any form of ground definitely doesn't fit in the civil category", yet you alluded to that at ANI, and now you're doing it here. That you don't always express yourself clearly, or that there can be a miscommunication issue, are both also probabilities in these discussions, so let me close this conversation by saying that votes/comments on the MEK's Talk page are being read before they are posted, so please stop suggesting otherwise. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stefka. I don't agree with your close here. Will you reconsider, please?—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, clearly there is no consensus to delete, since none of the three participants opted to do so. So, what sort of closure (or otherwise) result are you expecting with this challenge? El_C 00:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly don't see a consensus that receiving the Creu de Sant Jordi establishes notability. In my view the correct outcome would be "no consensus" (enabling me to promptly renominate it for deletion).—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of the three participants seem to think so, though I agree with you that it is puzzling to conceive that being a recipient of this award merits a page. El_C 01:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There were four participants; if you're going to count Davidpar who created the page, then it's only fair to count me.  :) I don't think pburka's contribution makes sense. I mean, yes, Ms Newman has translated an article that's notable. I translated Catherine Bréchignac: does that make me notable? We'd normally say that notability isn't inherited.—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For sure, fair points. The correct outcome is probably for the page to be deleted at this time. But I'm not sure I know how to make that happen, procedurally. El_C 01:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideally, Stefka would either relist, or else reclose as no consensus enabling me to renominate for deletion. Less ideally we could go to deletion review seeking one of those outcomes.—S Marshall T/C 01:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. Stefka Bulgaria, I would encourage you to supplant the closure with a relist. The strength of the arguments, irrespective of the tally, seems rather frail. El_C 01:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted my close so that someone else can close that AfD. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Mujahedin of Iran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MOIS. 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) 07:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm Barkeep49, an administrator here. I am writing to ask that you please stop closing/relisting Articles for Deletion discussions. You attracted my attention after you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rameez Raja (actor) for which there was a bot notice that it was eligible for soft deletion. This should have been a hint that it was not an appropriate close. I then came to your talk page and saw the discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Newman. I then opened up your contribuations and saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Calderón which you closed as no consensus. This might have been appropriate when weighting for CONSENSUS, but it was not a clear close given that numerically more editors favored keep 5-3 and thus not a good discussion for a non-adminstrator close. The last AfD I checked was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empowerment Experiment which was also eligible for soft deletion. While four is not a huge sample it is concerning that literally every AfD close I checked had an issue. This suggests that you would be better off participating at AfD (we need more participants) than closing discussions at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barkeep49, I have no problems with focusing on other aspects at AfD. I just don't see what the big problem is with my work there:

• About relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rameez Raja (actor), I had missed the WP:NOQUORUM clause, and thought the article could do with more than one vote before being deleted.
• About relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Newman, that ended up in "no-consensus"; with the article being kept (which is the consensus I had given it).
• About closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Calderón as no consensus, as I see it, the article will likely end up in "no-consensus" or being kept.
• About relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empowerment Experiment , I also thought it could do with more than a single vote before being closed.

To me, these actions don't seem unreasonable, but I don't mind focusing on other aspects of the AfD process. Regards, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, no consensus and keep both mean that the article remains. However, there are differences - for instance renominating a short time after a keep AfD is disruptive but it's not disruptive for a no consensus. I appreciate your willingness to focus your energies in other ways. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reconsider your vote at least regarding UN resolution please read arguments by me and François Robere --Shrike (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shrike, Ok, will have a look at your arguments there and re-evaluate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reconsider your vote at least regarding UN resolution please read arguments by everyone else except Shrike and François Robere Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your highly valuable contributions to site. Keep up the good work! Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Hope to see you back in the Wikipedian scene soon :). HistoryofIran (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoryofIran; thank you for the encouragement. Coming from you, it means a lot. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you considered Majid Rafizadeh to be an expert on the People's Mujahideen of Iran. Has he ever published any peer-reviewed works on the group? Has he ever published any peer-reviewed works at all? I couldn't find a single peer-reviewed publication in his list of publications. I also had this discussion with someone else previously. Hopefully I'm not missing anything.VR _talk 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that Majid Rafizadeh is an expert on the People's Mujahideen of Iran? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]