Mbreht

Kirlian photography

Your recent edits to the Kirlian photography article are problematic. Some of the content that you have added lacks reliable source citations, or includes citations that have been previously rejected by consensus on the article's talk page. Please discuss contentious content on the talk page and gain consensus before adding it back into the article.

Also, and I apologize in advance if this sounds overly critical, but much of the content that you have added to the article is poorly written, both grammatically and syntactically. If other editors know what you are trying to say, they will probably help by copy editing your contributions. However, I have found that some of your contributions are so grammatical incorrect that they simply do not make sense. Perhaps working with other editors familiar with the languages involved would help with this problem. Best wishes, - MrX 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, thank you very much for your e-mail. But the sources from Russia are academical. My Russian is perfect and in Russian Wikipedia there is not critics again Kirlian. I hope that this is not double standard of Wikipedia. Thelma Moss is not physicist. Also for me if the editors from English page of Kirlian do not speak Russian the information can not be 100% objective. From other site I would like to be useful. What is your proposal to me? Mbreht

I'm not questioning your ability to understand Russian. I would very much like to see Russian scientific and historical research included in the article since Russia is where Kirlian photography originated. The material must meet Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:RS:reliable sources, or it will probably be removed whether or not it is factually accurate. It doesn't matter if the material is factual; it has to be properly sourced in secondary and tertiary sources. More importantly, your contributions must make grammatical sense to English speaking readers, otherwise it will be removed. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but this is English Wikipedia..

The fact that there are not critics of Kirlian on Russian Wikipedia is not really relevant. I don't think there is a double standard at all. If you believe the Thelma Moss content does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, then you can challenge it. There is no claim in the article that she a physicist, so why even mention it? She conducted research at a university and it is independently documented, so it can be included. The criteria is fairly simple.

My suggestion to you is to make sure that you understand Wikipedia's policies about reliable source and work to gain consensus on the talk page. - MrX 00:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, thank you very much. Your information is important for me. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Здравей

Здравей. Пиша ти само да ти кажа, че, ако имаш някакви въпроси, можеш да ме питаш по всяко време. Виждам, че срещаш известни затруднения при опитите си да редактираш страница, без да нарушаваш правилата на Уикипедия. Ще се радвам да ти помогна с каквото мога, стига и ти да искаш. Може да ме потърсиш на собствената ми страница за разговор - тук или като оставиш съобщения на собствената си страница - под моето. Поздрави. --Laveol ^T 04:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Здравей Laveol, изключително много благодаря. Все шак сме българи и е добре да се подържаме. Разгледай моля те разговор на страница Kirlian photоgraphy. По-нов редактор съм, но искам да популяризирам БГ науката. Ако можете пишете на тази страница и влезте в контакт с MrX. А можете ли да поставите предложената от мен информация за български учени. С благодарност: Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Здравей Laveol, честно казано не ми беше отговорено на първото съобщение, може би поради Ваша заетост. Известната ми редакторска работа в Уикипедия ми позволи да разбера, че има субективен човешки фактор. Не съм сигурен, че ще продължа в Уикипедия, а имах желание да популяризирам БГ учени. Моля, разгледайте това, което съм правил. Необходима е страница на проф. Димитър Съселов. Инфо взимам от Google и Google Scholar. С благодарност: --Mbreht (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Canceling

I canceled part of pages of my history from talk page, because there are with old data. I have big improvement of my level like editor in Wikipedia. --Mbreht (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not pretending that I have a perfect command of English myself, but your contributions have great issues from grammatical viewpoint; moreover, you are introducing the dubious research of Mr Ignatov; although this research is not in contradiction with its possible notoriety, I'm affraid the lack of citations and references make it not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. −PetaRZ (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear PetaPZ, I know perfect the activities of Bulgarian biophysicists. We already discuss the editors how reliable are the sources for Kirlian effect in talk page. The idea was to inform the readers for Kirlian effect.If you think that this information is useful for Wikipedia, please publish. There are not a lot of scientists in the world with results for Kirlian effect. With Google Scholar are visible publications of Antonov and Ignatov.--Mbreht (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Kirlian photography, you may be blocked from editing. Please practice editing talk pages in your sandbox until you gain some proficiency. You have a long history of poorly formatting your comments in spite of numerous requests from other editors and now you have deleted my recent comments. Also read WP:TPG and WP:INDENT to learn how to indent. - MrX 17:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MrX, sorry this is errors. I have not a idea to delete your information. --Mbreht (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)