Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.
Happy editing! — Jingiby (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before editing an article, please look at its discussion page, including its archives. What are you trying to do now on Gotse Delchev, i.e. to add citations has been done several times in the past. Later the editors came to the idea, that this is nonencyclopaedic approach and it was abandoned. There is a separate project to put quotes there who is called Wikiquotes. You can add your citations there. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Венијамин Мачуковски писмо 1872.png[edit]
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Martin Segon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
out of the lake near Ohrid, a city of the Macedonians, and it separates them from the Dardanians). ...The Dinaric mountain range separates Macedonia from Epirus, Thessaly, Volos, Acarnania,
Hi, seeing you edit some articles on my watchlist, I couldn't help noticing you're overusing quotes and overusing them to prove a certain point. It is not the most encyclopaedic approaches to editing, but it is easily amendable. Getting to know the rules of Wikipedia and things like the Manual of Style will improve your editing skills immensely. You can actually find all you need at the top of this very page where another editor has provided you with useful links for new editors. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Cheers. --LaveolT 07:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yane Sandanski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonians. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again, I've been trying to reach you, but you do not seem intent on responding to any call for discussion. Be advised that consensus is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. Decisions on controversial topics are reached via discussion. There is no way to work together if you refuse to engage in discussions. Constantly reverting, making poor edits, misinterpreting sources, and generally editing just to promote a point of view is a sure way of getting yourself blocked.
At first, I thought you were a new editor and tried to help you get into Wikipedia. Now I see, that not only are you an experienced editor, you have also been active for some time now from an IP range involved in vandalising Wikipedia.
There are so many problems with your edits that I really don't know where to start from. The best possible way would be for you to make yourself familiar with Wiki rules, editing principles, etc. Refining your English could also help. Most of the text you introduce is basically illegible. Not to mention the scanned photos that you use as sources. They are not proper sources. And some of them are unreadable. Blogs are not reliable sources either. Your usage of bold text is also inappropriate. I understand that you are here just to push a point, but this is not how an encyclopaedia is supposed to work. Read bold as a start.
Please, make sure you respect the rules and at least put some effort in following the guidelines.
Best regards, --LaveolT 06:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, I just remembered. Do not mislead other editors by providing false edit-summaries. What was "citation needed" supposed to mean in this edit? Further, why remove an unsourced statement (or at least a statement the sources for which you removed beforehand) and replace it with another unsourced statement. I am talking about the article about Ivan Naumov. Really, such edits are hugely unhelpful. --LaveolT 06:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not interpret or misinterpret anything. I just provide what it's written in the sources. and they are verifiable. If you have any concrete concerns tell me. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Yane Sandanski shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. LaveolT 11:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never remove the work of another editor, I just add more info, and references. I might have, by mistake remove my reference previously, though. I'm sorry about that. I think that I've not violated any rules, and I'll be trying not to in the future. I'm just trying to make the articles more objective. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Todor Panitsa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
say something like that. I must explain it to you: you insult us when you call us Bulgarians!'' (ibid., [https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10155884_887487211277170_
pg. 209].</ref><ref>[[Yane Sandanski|Sandanski]] was an apostle of the [[Macedonian nation]].'' (ibid., [https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/575858_481150755244153_
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).
Yes, I have a complain. I've been being reported simply because I was trying to add more information, references and sources, after which I was constantly censored. I'm just trying to make the articles more objective, something that an organized group didn't like. I believe that, on Wikipedia there shouldn't be censorship. I just provide what the sources say. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Looking at the article history, it is clear you were edit warring. While I agree that you were trying to "add more information, references and sources", I disagree that you were censored. The other editors felt that you were adding too many quotes, which isn't an entirely unreasonable concern. My advice is that you should accept that good faith editors sometimes disagree in regard to article content. Anyway, I'm declining this request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
If I'm doing something wrong, technically, please correct me, instead of censoring me, and deleting the all of information I provide, with excuses like "this is crap", "the guy is a communist" (about the professor of Oxford) etc. I'm convinced that every piece of information I provide for the certain person, is valuable. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you keep ignoring constructive criticism and comments (e.g. [6]) and refuse to engage in discussion, it seems to me that you don't have any reason to complain about being "censored". Try and respond to these comments if you can. In short, the problem with your edits on Boris Sarafov (aside from the warring and refusal to engage in discussion) is that you are drawing conclusions from a small number of primary sources that fit your POV while totally ignoring the existence of numerous other sources that contradict those conclusions. And as I've demonstrated in my comment on the talk page, you don't even know your own sources well. Tropcho (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer here, because I'm temporarily banned, if that's not a problem. Here's another excerpt of Misirkov (that is the base of this issue):
- The Supreme Committee in Sofia was placed under the presidency of General Tsonchev, a Bulgarian and favorite of the Prince. But the Macedonians in Bulgaria convinced the Bulgarian people of the justness of their program as far as it concerned the complete separation of Macedonian interests from those of Bulgaria; they unmasked he political leaders, the Prince and the "General's Committee", or the committee of Tsonchev-Mihailov, as self-seeking and so won for themselves greater power in Bulgaria than that held by the "General's Committee" and the political leaders over the Macedonian question. This power was substantially aided by the solidarity of "Stanishev's Supreme Committee" together with the "Internal Organization".
Thus the committees, together with the Macedonians as a whole, shook themselves free from the influence of the Bulgarian leaders and set up their own independent plan of operation; this was publicized in Bulgaria and so the committee won influence amongst he Bulgarian people and, through them, over their leaders.
Once the Macedonian "job" had been thus settled in Bulgaria the Macedonians began to move into Serbia where they once again set out their program, this time to the Serbian leaders and the Serbian people. Sarafov, Rбdev, and Yankov assured the Serbs that they were fighting under the banner of Macedonia for the Macedonians, for all Macedonians regardless of differences, and that they would never unite Macedonia with Bulgaria. It is surely clear from these actions that the Macedonians had, through their leaders, decided to settle the fate of Macedonia themselves and that through their efforts they were prepared to make their interests conform to and harmonize with those of the other Balkan states, including Bulgaria, provided these states would agree to aid Macedonia in her designs.
So, all of it were tactics in favour of the Macedonian national interests, isn't it? Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've increased the block time to one week for block evasion. Simply put, it isn't the material that you are trying to introduce but rather it is your behavior that is getting you blocked. — Berean Hunter(talk) 00:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that I should not be banned. I'm still convinced that I've been being reported simply because I was trying to add more information and sources, after which I was constantly censored. I'm just trying to make the articles more objective, something that an organized group didn't like. I believe that, on Wikipedia there shouldn't be censorship. I just provide what the sources say. Someone is obviously bothered by the truth. The arguments were ridiculous. Can Wikipedia ban people with excuses like "this is crap", "spam" "the guy is a communist" (about the professor of Oxford) etc.? Those were the arguments I've been censored for. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between being banned and being blocked and the latter is what has occurred to you. Please read the reason for the decline above. You may appeal again but I'd suggest that you read this first. — Berean Hunter(talk) 00:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I at least comment on talk pages. Is that somehow possible? Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Introduced and re-introduced unreliable sources, like blogs, various depreciated websites (like promacedonia.org), and photos of possibly scanned text ...
This argument confirms what I'm saying. The Bulgarian editor is "concerned" that I used "subjective" sources?! The Bulgarian Wikipedia is full of - www.promacedonia.org , name is manipulative with a reason. It's not a Macedonian site, it's a Bulgarian propagandistic site. http://macedonia-history.blogspot.com is also a Bulgarian site. And if I find something that contradicts with the Bulgarian propaganda on it (there always are slips among the many Bulgarian lies), the Bulgarian propagandists claim that the site is subjective, "Macedonian". Pretty clever, but, still - shallow. Just saying. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, in case you have not noticed, there are several editors involved, not one "Bulgarian editor". Second, it's good to focus on the arguments, not on the editors or their nationality. Third, it seems that just as your edits tend to ignore sources which contradict your views, so your comments here tend to ignore those of my arguments which don't fit with your ideas. Are you aware of that? (By the way, this tendency goes by the name confirmation bias, and it doesn't really help one produce impartial content on wiki.) Are you aware that Misirkov renounced that whole book and that he considered himself ethnic Bulgarian (as evidenced by his 1913 diary, jointly published by the Macedonian National Archives and the Bulgarian State Archives Agency in 2008)? Do you realise that even if we assume that what Misirkov wrote is reliable, it still doesn't support the conclusions you're trying to draw (i.e. that Sarafov was ethnic Macedonian). Did you read the quote from Misirkov that I put on Talk:Boris Sarafov? Do you understand what Misirkov is saying in these few paragraphs? Tropcho (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Are you aware that Misirkov renounced that whole book" - In 1914, and in 1923 he claimed the same he had claimed 1903, in "On Macedonian matters," which says, the 1913 diary was the tactic move (as the historian Vlado Popovski says), not the book. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The manipulation about Misirkov's claim on "Bulgarian" Centralists is an absolved subject, many times by now, because he obviously talks about SOME of the Centralists. He eventually explicitly says that Dame Gruev, Goce Delchev and Boris Sarafov, for example are Macedonian national separatists. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other things aside, a personal diary not intended for publication and published only after being discovered by chance more than half a century after Misirkov's death was a tactical move? Are you sure? It doesn't sound very convincing to me. I'd be grateful if you helped me understand how such a tactical move makes sense. Tropcho (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad. Why are you so sure that Misirkov's diary was not intended for publication? There are couple of studies and articles from that period where Misirkov says the same things. By the way, he also said that the term "Bulgarian" is not an ethnic term, but a political one, that it could become a national one, but may not have to, as well. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Do you know that in his diary from 1902, he says that he was a stranger in the Serbian and in the Bulgarian Schools? Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one can't be completely sure that it was not intended for publication, but a personal diary usually isn't. Also the fact that it was not published says a lot, it seems to me. And you're the one claiming that it was a tactical move, so the burden of proof lies with you. So if there's evidence that he intended to publish it, please share it. Also tell us why he changed his mind. Tropcho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already said that there are couple of studies and articles from that period where Misirkov says the same seemingly pro-Bulgarian things. Here's one (skip the preface), where he also said that the term "Bulgarian" is not an ethnic term, but a political one, and that it could become a national one, but may not have to, as well.
Where in that excerpt does he say that the term Bulgarian is not an ethnic, but a political one? Tropcho (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in that excerpt, he doesn't say that the term "Bulgarian" is not an ethnic term (i.e. that's a political one, a substitute to another ethnonym), but at the end of the article, as a footnote.
"Why he changed his mind" - He never changed his mind, he tacticized. He always worked in favour of the Macedonian nationalism. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This last statement of yours is very interesting, but I'm not sure we've seen any proof to support it. In fact the contents of the diary and of that excerpt you provided seem to contradict it. Can you share with us the text of that footnote or the whole article perhaps? My question, why he changed his mind, referred to his intention to publish his diary (since you claimed that he intended to publish). Don't forget that we have not yet seen any proof that he intended publication. Tropcho (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Аha, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you, because had not wanted to say that the diary was to be published, but what it contains, partly and by phases. Diaries are just notes, usually. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article here (skip the preface in Macedonian) has its references, its source at the end. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should I then take it that you don't have proof that he intended to publish his diary, and that this is just your guess based on the assumption that diaries are usually just notes? Tropcho (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've just said, I had not wanted to say that the diary was supposed to be published, but what it contains, partly and by phases. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand this is also a conjecture, and you have no proof for it? Tropcho (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, I saw that footnote, and it doesn't at all say that the term "Bulgarian" is not an ethnic one, but a political one. Tropcho (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tropcho, you are lying. It does say that the term "Bulgarian" is not an ethnic term, but substitute to an ethnic term, i.e. it's a political term. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the footnote?: "Под думата "словене" аз подразбирам етническото цяло, славянски народ, който от края на IX век заменя народното си име "словена" с името "българи": под думата "славяни" аз подразбирам славяните и славянските народи изобщо. вкл. и българите (отнапред словените)." Tropcho (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've voided the above template, because as far as I can tell, you are not blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor reviewing the unblock request should probably also consider the fact that during the week Bobi987 was blocked, edit warring by anonymous IPs continued on a number of the articles which Bobi987 was editing before his block, most notably on Yane Sandanski and Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising. The content and style of these edits are very similar to those of Bobi987, which makes it likely that these anon IPs were incarnations of Bobi987. Here's a more or less complete list of IPs for which I find reason to believe are linked to Bobi987:
At some point all of these pages got semi-protected. Maybe a checkuser can verify whether Bobi987 is logging in from these IP ranges. Greetings Tropcho (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gather the block started off as 48 hours, and was increased to 7 days due to concerns that he was evading his block. PhilKnight (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct Phil, but the block increase took place almost immediately after it was introduced (see AN 3RR archive here), on 16 October. As is quite clear from the activity of the above IPs, ban evasion continued after this initial block extension. Tropcho (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter:- do you think we should reinstate the block, because of concerns that he was using IPs to evade his block? PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at this. Yes, it looks like he was clearly evading. — Berean Hunter(talk) 16:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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).
I haven't edit the articles not using my account, somebody else did. The computers are used by a couple of editors, from whom only I have an account. The changes are alike because they are carefully prepared. I only opened a few subjects on the talk pages, not using my account. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
For several reasons, your explanation is implausible. However, even in the unlikely event that you were not evading your block, the present block is justified, as you have continued to edit war after the expiry of your earlier block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Can you please provide an exact quote from the specified pages [8]. I did a quick check and on that pages nothing related to Macedonia is mentioned. If an exact quote is not provided or if it does not correspond to the note, I will have to revert that change. Regards! --StanProg (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I'd respond to your request this way. Аt the end of this article] there are scans of the pages of the book in Greek, and English translation. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a kind of the next manipulative claims of Bobi987 Ivanov. The IMARO activists saw the future autonomous Macedonia as a multinational state, and did not pursue the self-determination of the Macedonian Slavs as a separate ethnicity. Therefore, Macedonian was then an umbrella term covering Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks, Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs, Jews, and so on. See: Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN0810862956, introduction section. Slavic Macedonian revolutionaries felt loyalty to Macedonia as a region or territory without claiming any specifically Macedonian ethnicity. The primary aim of this Macedonian regionalism was an multi-ethnic alliance against the Ottoman rule. See: Ethnologia Balkanica, Volumes 10–11, Association for Balkan Anthropology, Lit Verlag, Alexander Maxwell, 2006, p. 133. Bellow is an excerpt from the article from the Macedonian newspaper "Utrinski vesnik", published on 22. 07. 2000, number 329, where the interview of Karev was published for the first time. There the Macedonian researcher Vambakovska, who found it clearly states it is very controversial, because the term Macedonian was really used by Karev, but not in ethnic sense: Utrinski: Nikola Karev's interview for the Greek newspaper Acropolis, published on May 8, 1903, is the first, so far known interview by a member of the top leadership of VMRO before the Ilinden Uprising. This is an exclusive, we can call even it, a historical document discovered and translated into Macedonian by Mrs. Eleftheria Vambakovska working in the Institute of National History. At yesterday's meeting with Mrs. Vambakovska in the "Utrinski journal at first we were interested in the way, she came to the interview. Utrinski: How do you interpret the content of the interview. What does the term Bulgarophronos mean? Eleftheria Vambakovska: As to the content of the interview I try to leave it free for analyses by scientists and readers. My opinion is that its contain is contradictional and illogical. The interview actually begins with a lack of logic. Karev claims he was a Bulgarian on persuasion, and on the first question of the reporter: "Are you a Macedonian", he answers "yes"! The reporter declared Karev was a Macedonian, but Bulgarophile, and the interview begins with a question "what is your nationality"? For the interviewer was more important his ethnic origin - whether he is a Macedonian. But that term for the Greeks was a synonymous of a Greek. Otherwise, for for the Greeks "on persuasion" was not so important - the persuasion is acquired and it can by changed. Bulgarophronos, literally translated would mean - a man who thinks like a Bulgarian, who think like all other Bulgarians. Today Greeks have a similar term - ethnicophronos which has similar meaning, namely - a man who thinks on his own nation - nationalist, a Greek who thinks about Greece. Today the Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia (Greece) call his countrymen who became hellenized, i.e. Greeks - ethnicophronos. 212.117.45.70 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here how the Greek journalist who interviewed Karev in 1903 described him: I was fortunate to meet in Bitola a Bulgarized Macedonian, a teacher who was a member of the committee (IMARO), called Karev. This man I accidentally met in "Monastir" hotel in Bitola. Karev acted very cautiously to me until that moment, when a Greek from Krusevo named Papagudas, presented me. Then he relеased himself, and after looking around, told to me he was a Bulgarophrone and Committee member. From the interview I understand that the journalist obviously considered Macedonia to be a Greek territory. Hence the people who live here, according to him, must be Greeks, descendants of Alexander the Great. He was also persistently trying to convince Karev that he was a Greek. And if not Greek, then 'Bulgarophron', 'bugarized Macedonian' and so on. Otherwise, it can be seen easily that the interview was 'a little dressed up', i.e. adapted for the Greek readers in 1903. 212.117.45.70 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the manipulation? We say the same thing. The Greek journalist calledNikola Karev "bulgarized," "bulgarophronos," etc, while he called himself a Macedonian. But, that's not all. Karev also says "…the Committee (IMRO) is not Bulgarian. If Bulgaria hopes to make us their province, it has made a poor estimate... We are interested in our freedom only, we do not care about Bulgaria’s interests and plans. …We are like a man fallen into the sea and drowning - he would grab anything to deliver himself from the danger, even a snake. …We want an autonomous republic." Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's clear that Nikola Karev called himself a Macedonian. Where did he call himself a Bulgarian?Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All Bulgarians from Macedonia called and still call themselves Macedonians. Also the Greeks and the Vlachs call themselves in the same way. If you are not aware of what you write, just stop the spam. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument. Nikola Karevnever says he's a Bulgarian, (while he clearly speaks about his Macedonian origin), and explicitly says "the Committee (IMRO) is not Bulgarian. ...we do not care about Bulgaria’s interests and plans". Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I answer to you with the words of Denko Maleski, a professor at the University of Skopje (foreign minister from 1991 to 1993 and ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997), published in Utrinski Vesnik newspaper, October 16, 2006."The lack of capability by Macedonists in condition of democracy, also contributes to the vision of their opponents. The creation of the Macedonian nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the Macedonian historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the Macedonian identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made. In a case which that was not possible, the persons from history were proclaimed for Bulgarian agents who crossed into some imaginary pure Macedonian space..." Full stop. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Denko Malevski is not a historian. And he doesn't speak about Karev particularly. You must presume that not all ethnic Macedonians were "bulgarized", as you said above. 85.30.104.252 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Berean Hunter, PhilKnight, I just tagged a month on this editor's block after more evasion (through IP cc). I thought about an indefinite block, but I'll leave that up to you two. For the record, that it's this editor is abundantly clear from the topic, from their edits, from the fact that they're continuing a conversation on Talk:Boris Sarafov with the exact same stylistics. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on?! Neither 217.16.88.13 is my IP, nor Chakmak111 is my profile. I'll explain the second issue later, but how did you decide that 217.16.88.13 is mine? 85.30.72.153 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Berean Hunter(talk) 00:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC): Simply put, it isn't the material that you are trying to introduce but rather it is your behavior that is getting you blocked.
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).
It must be said that I never was banned for vandalism and disruptive behaviour, but because I was refusing to discuss my edits (which I considered, and consider absolved subject), but which I wouldn't do any more in the future. I was told that:
— Berean Hunter(talk) 00:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC): Simply put, it isn't the material that you are trying to introduce but rather it is your behavior that is getting you blocked.
Chakmak111 is not my profile. The fact that he and I are interested in the same matter (the Macedonian history and the Bulgarian forgeries), does not prove that he and I are the same person. My edits had always been historiographically confirmed. I had always provided more than one source to confirm what I add. If Chakmak111 or else decide to support me, to revert my edits and trying to prove them through discussion, that's because my edits were correct. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Based on a combination of behavioral and checkuser evidence, it seems likely that you have abused multiple accounts. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
