User talk:Chakmak111

Vandalism at Yane Sandanski[edit]

Please, do not vandalize the article. There's no way with vandalism to prove your personal point of view and other minority view points. I have returned the article to the stable version, there's ongoing discussion about that and you're not helping. --StanProg (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not vandalize. I correct the incorrect. I show the sources as well. There is false information on the article, and it certainly needs to be removed. There's discussion here about it. Somebody was willing to provide the pages of the concrete Deliradev's article. Should we ask him to? Chakmak111 (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make significant changes into articles as you did on Yane Sandanski, without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Do not use primary sources. They are not proper to prove your point of view. Do not use sources older then 25 years, they are out of date. Use mainly secondary academic sources published by western universities. Your edits resemble vandalism. Thank you. 212.117.45.70 (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've used academic sources that are confirmed and affirmed by this primary sources. Primary sources ([1.], [2.], [3.]) had already been used. Should I question them? Chakmak111 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StanProg, should I question these primary sources - [1.], [2.], [3.] ?? They are not confirmed by scientific historiographical studies. Chakmak111 (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not vandalize the article. Discuss the changes before doing vandalizing or making big changes to the article. I've returned it to the stable version. Further discussions are required for every big change. No need to edit warring. --StanProg (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's discuss it. Here's appropriate, isn't it? I'm certain that I do not vandalize, as I'm using historiographical studies and sources. What concretely is bothering you? Chakmak111 (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the place where the article content/changes should be discussed. You vandalized the edits that I did yesterday, without asking for source or explanation and you pushed 7k of non-sense to the article. I have returned the article to the stable version, before your intrusion (no matter what nickname or IP address you use to push them). Do not push any change before it's being discussed. This does not help to improve the article and is not constructive at all. I will continue this on the article talk page. --StanProg (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StanProg, you are not saying anything concrete. My edits are not disruptive vandalism. Prove me wrong. Chakmak111 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Hello, there is a sockpuppet investigation involving you. You can find it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobi987 Ivanov. --Laveol ^T 00:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet of Bobi987. We arre not the same person. Chakmak111 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you're just making the same edits, in the same manner, while he happens to be blocked. --Laveol ^T 02:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laveol, you are absolutely correct. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 6 November 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).

Chakmak111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet of Bobi987. We are not the same person. If I read the history of editing of the articles, and if I read the conversation on the talk pages, that doesn't mean that I am the previous editor. I even have another IP adress. Chakmak111 (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:DUCK block. New editor, same edits, doesn't matter if you found a way to edit from a different IP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:56, 6 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.

Dude, it is so painfully obvious it's not even funny. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you prove it, if I may ask? Chakmak111 (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in addition to the behavioural evidence, checkuser indicates the technical connection is

Likely. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 6 November 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).

Chakmak111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'd repeat my request, because I'm certain that if I was reading the history of editing of the articles, and if I was reading the conversation on the talk pages, that doesn't mean that I am the previous editor. If I'm wrong, I deserve a serious explanation - how did you prove my so-called "evasion". WIKIPEDIA is that much serious, isn't it? And the presumed theories for such accusations wouldn't be allowed, would they? Chakmak111 (talk) 11:21 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

You created this account shortly after Bobi987 was blocked. You proceeded to edit the same articles, in the same way, with the same edit summaries, whilst making the same arguments with the same syntactic and formatting styles. At this point, it's beyond reasonable doubt that you're the same person; we don't need any further proof. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:29, 6 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.

Yunshui: "with the same edit summaries, whilst making the same arguments with the same syntactic and formatting styles." - Can you show me a comparison? I was really trying to be as precise and concise as I can. Chakmak111 (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I admit that I was trying to do what the previous editor did, as I revert his edits, with intention the summary-comments to be more precise and concise, but I think I did it my way. Chakmak111 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 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).

Chakmak111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

“You created this account shortly after Bobi987 was blocked. You proceeded to edit the same articles, in the same way… ” – Yes, we both have the same interest - history. Yes, I supported Bobi987 Ivanov’s edits, and I discussed, proved them historically righteous and reverted them. That still doesn’t prove that we are the same person.

”In addition to the behavioural evidence, checkuser indicates the technical connection is Likely” ?! Likely is not a proof, is it? As we can see, it can’t be proven that Bobi987 Ivanov’s profile is my profile.

Up here (on my profile talk page), I was falsely accused for vandalism, for Bobi987 Ivanov’s edits I was reverting. Nothing was proven, and nothing concretely was pointed out, as you can see. I did never vandalize the articles, nor behave disruptive. Bobi987 Ivanov’s edits which I was reverting, either were being, or had been proven righteous, according to the historical sources. So, if you can’t prove that Bobi987 Ivanov’s profile is mine, I haven’t broken any rule of Wikipedia. Chakmak111 (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request is just a repeat of your last unblock request, which was declined.

To reiterate, you were blocked on behavioral evidence, and following this, checkuser evidence indicated that a connection was Likely. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 9 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.

Talk page access revoked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]