User talk:Forbidden History

June 2020

Hello, Forbidden History, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, no it's my one and only account. Never been using Wikipedia till now.

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden History, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Forbidden History! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Jingiby (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain me which content is not verified? --Forbidden History (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Поздравна телеграма на Андон Ќосето до Лазар Колишевски.jpg. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not taken out from the book. But it is a scan of the original card. What do you want me to do? To make a photo of me holding that card? I'm pointing out the book of Vanco Georgiev as a supporting source of the telegram card itself, to verify it's content. What is there best verification, than professor of the oldest and biggest university of Macedonia to verify the card and the content for you? If you want you can even compare the resolution to see that my card is of better resolution than the one inside the book that I'm referring. Please don't twist the facts here. If you want me to change the description and the uploading details for the card let me know, and I will do it-but creating an atmosphere that I'm constantly violating the copyright policy is a bit to rude. Waiting on your answer--Forbidden History (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, I'm Jingiby. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mirče Acev seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk)

Pande Eftimov

Please, if you do not know the difference between citizenship, and ethnicity and do not understand the different meanings of the term nationality, then familiarize with them. There are articles on Wikipedia about them. Eftimov lived in 6 different states, and had 6 different nationalities and passports, though he was granted also Bulgarian one, i.e. № 7. However he self identified as Bulgarian during whole of his life, per himself. That means he was undisputed Macedonian Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk)

Yeah I understand that. But you don't seem to understand that same situation, when it comes to Goce Delcev, Nikola Karev, Jane Sandanski and thousands of others. People that actually fought against the servants of the Bulgarian kingdom (the vrhovists) all of them are presented as Bulgarian by yourself. Therefore, same policy should be applied to Pande. You don't care that Delcev felt as Macedonian, but you declare him as Bulgarian. Pande in all of his interview he says that he speaks and writes lBulgarian, but I watched whole of the movie about the stone and he obviously speaks Macedonian (not even one part to heard him speak Bulgarian and he was interviewed by a Bulgarian). So, using his interviews to express how he felt in 1956, it's not relevant at all. How we should know that he felt Bulgarian at a time? Just to remind you that you also delete my whole title for Horace Lunt being emeritus professor...your answer was that he wasn't at the time when he wrote that article about the stone inscription. So, as one Macedonian saying says, you just "hit your head with your own stone". I won't accept interviews from 2010 as proof what he was in 1956, cause obviously they are manipulations (his spoken language is pure evidence) that is not exactly as he is saying and presenting the things. I mean you made James Bond story about Pande, hiding, being arrest, chased...and none of that is true. The guy went to Belgrade and delivered the camera film. He wasn't arrested. He was arrested for totally different things.--Forbidden History (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your quoted sources cause are not verifying what it has been written there. Why should I leave inaccurate and propaganda web sites as reliable source? Asking for verification is the logical thing that i can do. That is not vandalism.--Forbidden History (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Drama uprising, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, first I will prove you totally wrong about Drama uprising and will show you that my "non" reliable source is 101% times more reliable than your unverified comments that you put there about it. Talk to you there. Forbidden History (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you visit the websites the source is quoted where the info is taken from. Valid Greek Book. Those are not opinions of the author, but author of a book.--Forbidden History (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu.com is an online print-on-demand, self-publishing, and distribution platform. That is not reliable source in any case. Please, stop this game. Jingiby (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden History, in many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
"Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.
Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography. Jingiby (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Law_for_the_Protection_of_Macedonian_National_Honour, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You are edit warring, you can only revert 3 times in 24 hours on a page. I request that you revert your latest revert and discuss it on talk. SeriousCherno (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Silver seren^C 06:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement Notification

Per Doug Weller's suggestion, I have opened an Arbitration Enforcement section here. Silver seren^C 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Forbidden History. It seems likely that the WP:AE complaint will be closed soon, banning you from all topics related to the Balkans. There may still be time for you to respond. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston, I thought it was enough what I wrote here and that Admins will read that part as well. Should I copy a link to it? It is my first time dealing with Admins Board, so I'm not sure, will they review the link above?Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you how you wish to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston for the shown interest. I just gave my statement there. --Forbidden History (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from all topics related to the Balkans, both from articles and talk pages

You have been sanctioned per a discussion at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]