User talk:Иван Богданов~enwiki

Archives

Dates

Hello, I just noticed your article Sava Grujić. On the English Wiki we don't link dates like day, month and year (see WP:MOSNUM. I know this is done elsewhere but not here. Just to let you know. Happy editing, De728631 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. Also, we don't link fragments (such as month-day or just the year). If you have any questions, let me know. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Camille Vital

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Albert Camille Vital. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. It is a mistake to think that communications in English Wikipedia are private conversations. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images on templates

A number of times now (examples: [1][2]) you have placed non-free images on templates. Per WP:NFCC #9, the use of such images on templates is not permitted. Please do not place non-free images on templates. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed changes

Please do not engage in edit warring over these edits. Once you are reverted, discuss the matter on the article talkpage. Simply reentering your edit will not make its stick. 1) "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" is the term used on Wikipedia for the state that was also named "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes". 2) When he became President of the Presidency Janez Drnovšek was an independent politician, to the best of my knowledge (and this is how he was originally listed), please source your claim that he was an SKJ member. 3) Please do not move pages without a proper move proposal and a discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so tired of abrasive users and IPs its refreshing to talk to somebody reasonable. :)

1) Resolved.

2) All I'm asking is can you source his membership in the SKJ during the 1989-1990 period? I know the SFRY was still a one-party state, but the article does not state he was a member of another party - but none. However, I must admit I'm unsure about this, so I guess I'm ok with "SKJ until proven otherwise" rather than vice versa.

3) I understand, but I think it would be more appropriate to rename the article into "President of Yugoslavia" and creating a new "King of Yugoslavia" article, rather than turning them all into lists - there are no main articles on these subjects. (List of leaders of SFR Yugoslavia will most likely be merged into the "President of Yugoslavia", "Prime Minister of Yugoslavia", and "League of Communists of Yugoslavia" articles.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) SKJ until proven otherwise seems more sensible than vice versa in any case. We are greed on the matter of (the) Janez. :)

3) If we're agreed on all the above, it can be done in ten minutes. No reason for intermediary stages in my opinion?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom or socialist State?

Hi Иван Богданов, I'd like your opinion about a problem here: Template talk:Politics of Yugoslavia. Thanks.--95.236.141.237 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments at WP:ANI

I would draw your attention to my response at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikiClique. Either start a process, be it a sockpuppet investigation or dispute resolution, or do not comment upon other editors without providing evidence in the manner of diffs. You may regard this as an official warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Hi Иван Богданов, thankyou for creating the FRY page, S&M and FRY are not the same thing ! Liebe Grußen, Craigzomack, 19:39, 21 February 2010 (CET)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro and Template:Politics of Yugoslavia.

Across the five articles, you and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) are edit warring, and I won't tolerate it. There are numerous dispute resolution methods, I suggest you use them before you get blocked. Thanks. Ged UK 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the edit war?

Facts: 1) We will both get blocked if we don't stop edit-warring. 2) One of us should stop reverting. Who? 3) You are introducing new edits that have been reverted and are opposed. Discussion is on.

To put it simply, since you are the one introducing new edits to the articles, you are the party expected to cease for the moment and start discussing properly. Or at least, if this were a civilized "region" of Wikipedia, instead of the Balkans, this is what would be generally expected. In short: don't edit-war to push a new edit, especially if you know it is opposed, especially if you have been reverted repeatedly, and especially if discussion is on and arguments have been presented (such as sources, policy, WP:MoS, WP:CFORK, etc.).

Look at it from my perspective: You start undioing and editing my hard work en masse, you edit-war to keep your edits in, and then you ask me politely to stop edit-warring since you'll get blocked? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Where is the consensus to remove my work"?

Another thing I thought you should be aware of before we enter into serious discussion: edits which are a product of consensus usually require consensus to be removed. Edits which are not a product of consensus, i.e. unilateral edits such as all your recent ones, DO NOT require consensus to be removed. Hence, it is nonsense to unilaterally edit, and then claim the edit cannot be removed because the other party "does not have consensus". [3] (Besides, WP:CFORK is policy and supercedes consensus.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans

"The Balkans area of wikipedia is generally uncivilized." Polargeo (talk)

That is me saying it. There is no gain admonishing DIREKTOR for a general observation. Wikipedia have chosen to put special sanctions in place. Using Template:Uw-balkans as a warning, which looks like this

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Polargeo (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add here that I clearly referred to Wikipedia articles, not a geographic region. ("The Balkans area of Wikipedia is generally uncivilized") I did not refer to any one person, especially since, as you observed, I am indeed from the Balkans myself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to impersonate another user who you are in a direct conflict with. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Taelus (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this: [4] at page User:Иван Богданов/Sandbox, and the translation/discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_use_of_userpage_for_some_sort_of_attack_in_Serbian, in addition to the reasons for your previous block. Your edit warring, impersonation of other editors, and creation of this unacceptable attack page have lead me to believe that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia, or that your methodology of doing so is incompatible with our policies here. Regardless of whether this was targetting an admin, a user, or a person off-wiki, or just a group in general it is not acceptable. Feel free to request unblock if you have a truely good explanation for this. --Taelus (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (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).

Иван Богданов~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm aware that I made very big mistakes past few days. I fully recognize that. But I'm not a vandal, nor I deserve to be blocked indefinitely. Since January 2009, when I registered, I made over 4,000 contributions to Wikipedia. Anyone can see that ([5]). That's a real picture of my activities on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and I want to contribute to it again, as I did since January 2009. I promise that I'll never repeat any such mistakes if you give me another chance.

Decline reason:

The previous content of your "sandbox" was completely unacceptable for any civilized online community, and the fact you had it up for a full month makes it obvious that you knew exactly what you were doing. Couple that with your malicious sockpuppetry, and I'm of the mind that you're done editing here. Blueboy 96 15:37, 26 February 2010 (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.

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).

Иван Богданов~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm aware that I made very big mistakes past few days. I fully recognize that. But I'm not a vandal, nor I deserve to be blocked indefinitely. Since January 2009, when I registered, I made over 4,000 contributions to Wikipedia. Anyone can see that ([6]). That's a real picture of my activities on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and I want to contribute to it again, as I did since January 2009. I promise that I'll never repeat any such mistakes if you give me another chance. Please, unblock me!

Decline reason:

This does not address the content for whose inclusion on your user subpage you were blocked. As such, this request is unpersuasive. Sandstein 19:49, 26 February 2010 (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.

To administrators reviewing this; I would make it a requirement of his unblock that any future postings this user conducts on the English Wikipedia be done in English, regardless of where on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also make an appeal to ArbCom a requirement rather than have one admin act. The advice from admins reviewing the unblock requests has been good. Polargeo (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2010 (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).

Иван Богданов~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm aware that I made very big mistakes past few days. I fully recognize that. I fully understand that text I wrote on my sandbox was gruesome and unacceptable. I despise myself because I did such a thing. Also, I would always use only English postings on the English Wikipedia, if you give me a chance to edit again. But, you should know that I'm not a vandal, nor I deserve to be blocked indefinitely. Since January 2009, when I registered, I made over 4,000 contributions to Wikipedia. Anyone can see that ([7]). That's a real picture of my activities on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and I want to contribute to it again, as I did since January 2009. I promise that I'll never repeat any such mistakes if you give me another chance!

Decline reason:

I don't think Wikipedia is ready to let you back in so easily. Consider the terms of WP:OFFER and post another unblock request in a few months. When you do that, be sure to clearly and unambiguously detail what it was that led to your block, and why you would not do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2010 (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.

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).

Иван Богданов~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm aware that I made very big mistakes past few days. I fully recognize that. I fully understand that text I wrote on my sandbox was gruesome and unacceptable. I despise myself because I did such a thing. Also, I would always use only English postings on the English Wikipedia, if you give me a chance to edit again. But, you should know that I'm not a vandal, nor I deserve to be blocked indefinitely. Since January 2009, when I registered, I made over 4,000 contributions to Wikipedia. Anyone can see that ([8]). That's a real picture of my activities on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and I want to contribute to it again, as I did since January 2009. I fully respect WP:OFFER, but I can't wait for six months to edit Wikipedia again. I promise that I'll never repeat any such mistakes if you give me another chance! Please, unblock me!

Decline reason:

Since you are copypasting the last unblock request basically, I will repeat what the other reviewing administrators already said: no. You may contribute on other wikis and help convince us that you can edit constructively. Otherwise, I advise that you pick up another activity that is more constructive than this, or at the least get your mind off of Wikipedia entirely. –MuZemike 20:39, 26 February 2010 (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.

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).

Иван Богданов~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think that I can't find new words to express full extent of my regret for gruesome, unacceptable acts that I commited past few days. I only can start to repeat myself, but I don't want to do it. I suppose that my contributions (over 4,000), and articles that I created (over 60) since January 2009 speaks for themselves. Wikipedia means a lot to me, and I beg you to give me a chance to contribute to it again. I don't even ask to be unblocked now (because I must be punished for my gruesome acts); I just want to be blocked with an expiration time, not indefinitely.

Decline reason:

You cannot continue to post unblock requests indefinitely; especially when most of them are exactly the same. I'm declining this for now, as it is clear (even to you) that the block is not going to be undone now. I am also going to reblock you with talk page access removed, to prevent more unblock requests. However, if you email me after at least two weeks, after you've had a chance to think, and review WP:Guide to appealing blocks, I'll restore access to your talk page so you can make another unblock request, more focused on the issues. To be clear, I am not promising to unblock you in two weeks. I am saying that your next opportunity to make a persuasive case for unblocking will be in two weeks. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (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.

Responding to your request via e-mail

(To others reading this; Иван Богданов made a request to me via e-mail to set an expiration date for the block and to ban him if I see any vandalistic behavior)

Иван Богданов, I'm not an administrator nor do I care to be one, with all the pitchfork carrying admin haters out there. You're making a plea to the wrong person. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC Warning

You are reminded that tendentious editing or outright edit waring is not an acceptable practice. This article, Serbia and Montenegro has been the subject of a slow edit war concerning the relationship of the present day state to past governmental entities. The conflict is marked by frequent redirects and reverts all of which seem to be without clear consensus. Under the final decision of the Arbitration Committee/Macedonia case I am reminding you of the need to reach consensus on the talk page and to not redirect or revert the page again without clear consensus. Failure to do so will result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions. This warning has been logged at ARBMAC Log of blocks and bans. JodyB_talk 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit your talk page again

If you have anything useful to add concerning Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Иван Богданов, do so here, and someone will make note of it in the SPI. I received your email about a definitive end date for your current block. Let's wait to see what happens with the SPI first. An unblock request, or a request to change the parameters of your block, while the SPI is open is unlikely to be considered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Иван Богданов. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Иван Богданов~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)