User talk:Iordan666

Yane Sandanski falsification attempt

Can you please describe the following edit: [1]. From the Dimitrija Čupovski we can see that he is classified exactly as I did it Macedonian textbook writer, lexicographer and early Macedonist, and not as Macedonian national activist. Furthermore, when the sentence starts with According to an article, you can't mix the real article content with the opinion of another author. The way you did it, seems like the Ristovski article quotes/confirms the original article claims, which is not the case - this is only Ristovski opinion which does not corresponds to the real Čupovski article. If I hadn't the original Čupovski article I couldn't find falsification. I see that you deleted and the pages of the article. When quoting sources always indicate pages, because otherwise it becomes highly questionable and is in doubt whether you possess and have read these sources. --StanProg (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobi Ivanov, several from your socks were already blocked for their attempts to push unschoolary and biased nationalist agenda on several articles as Yane Sandanski, Ilinded uprising, Todor Panitsa etc. Stop repeating that on Yane Sandanski. Thank you. 46.16.193.70 (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misirkov and his context

He very clearly explains that the Greeks gave the Bulgarian name to us, the Macedonians.

The Bulgarian state was inhabited predominantly with a Slavic population, but it was given the name of its establishers, i. e, the Mongolian Bulgarians.

Slavs from Bulgaria and Macedonia were at first only allies of the Bulgarians in the wars with the Byzantines. But in the eyes of the Byzantines, the whole army, composed of both Slavs and Bulgarians, was simply Bulgarian. That is why the Byzantines started to rename the Slavs from the time of the Asparuh’s horde up. The common fight shoulder to shoulder along with the Bulgarians made them one nation with the Bulgarian name, but with the Slavic language. The Bulgarian name was first popularized by the Greeks and at first it was used only for the Mongol-Bulgarians, but then it started to be used for their war allies too, and finally it became an ethnographic term for the Bulgarian Slavs. But that name in the mouths of the Greeks had one additional and very specific meaning: the most hated of all the barbarians, people uneducated, rough, and comparable with the beasts. For the Greeks all that was Slavic was rough and Bulgarian.

That's how the Greeks gave that Bulgarian name to us Macedonians.

The original page from the book in Macedonian – English translation Iordan666 (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Misirkov himself, stated that the Macedonian ethnicity did not exist at this time, and most of the people called themselves Bulgarians, but it could be created, if the historical circumstances called for it.

The sentence has been taken from the context. When read it (i.e. with the following paragraph), the meaning becomes clear:

Many people will ask themselves, "what kind of national separatism are we talking about? Is the suggestion then that a new Macedonian nationality be created? Such a thing would be artificial and, as such, would only last from daybreak till noon. But what of a new (i.e. Macedonian) nationality, when we, our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfather called themselves Bulgarians? Have the Macedonians in their history ever found any outward form of political and spiritual expression? How did they behave towards the other Balkan nationalities and vice versa?...The first objection — that a Macedonian Slav nationality has never existed — may be very simply answered as follows: what has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise... The emergence of the Macedonians as a separate Slav people is a perfectly normal historical process which is quite in keeping with the process by which the Bulgarian, Croatian and Serbian peoples emerged from the South Slav group... Thus, under the present political conditions, the loss of Macedonia for Bulgaria is no less justifiable than was the loss of Serbia for Bulgaria in the Middle Ages. And just as the loss of Serbia in the political sense inevitably resulted in a loss in the national sense, so too the fragmentation of San Stefano Bulgaria will bring an ethnographic division in the train of the political division. Circumstances create cultural and national ties between people, but circumstances can also split close connections... The context is clear: Macedonian nationality was nonexisting, and did never exist before, but the political situation of separation between Bulgaria and Macedonia was crucial for the transformation of the Macedonian Slavs into a separate entity.78.159.147.70 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Misirkov stated WHAT OTHERS MAY SAY, and repeated it:

After all that has been said so far, many may say: It may be true that there was no Macedonian nation so far, and that nation may be created in time, especially in the current historic circumstances; it is true that Macedonians judged by their language cannot be neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, but are something distinct, i.e. they represent a distinct ethnographic unit, but how can we now name ourselves Macedonians and create a separate Macedonian nation, when we, our fathers, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers named ourselves Bulgarians? We can’t abandon that, since that name is holy to as much as our faith is.

BUT HE THEN EXPLAINED WHY HE THINKS THAT’S WRONG: “Let’s see if this is so.” Iordan666 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources added to the text clearly confirm opinion expressed in the text and it differs from your opinion. However, Wikipedia does not admit POV. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my opinion, I just cite what Misirkov HIMSELF STATED. Iordan666 (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole text of On the Macedonian matters Iordan666 (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Krste Misirkov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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.

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. Laveol ^T 09:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Yane Sandanski shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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.

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. Laveol ^T 22:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]