User talk:19999o

Stefan Dechev on the massacre in Vatasha

Hello. Some of your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. I ask you to use the Macedonian encyclopedia, which has been suspended by the Macedonian authorities, with great care. The issuance of the encyclopedia caused a storm of protest due to its content, and its authors have been subjected to severe criticism. Blaže Ristovski, the chief editor of the encyclopedia, faced calls to resign and got removed from the post. Compare it with reliable sources such as Stefan Dechev's article. I am not sure if you have clearly understood its content and I am attaching the part regarding views in North Macedonia, translated into English for your convenience. It seems to me, to be a fairly objective, the views of Dechev as a historian are well received in North Macedonia, but are often criticized in Bulgaria. Dechev lists the victims by name and age as follows: Pero Videv, 15 years old, Vancho Gurev, 19 years old, Danko Davkov, Ilcho Dimov, Risto Gyondev, Gerasim Matakov, Pane Meshkov and Pane Dzhunov, 18 years old, Blazhe Itsev and Dime Chekorov, 20 years old, Fercho Popgeorgiev, 26 years old, and Vaso Hadzhiyordanov, 28 years old. The author's point is that the events have been misinterpreted both in North Macedonia and in Bulgaria. The passage that you have tried to remove from the article several times, falls under the author's analysis. He claims that this is part of the distortion of the historical facts in North Macedonia. By the way, the cited page number in the Macedonian Encyclopedia, does not correspond at all to the original number of the article on the massacre in itself. In addition, Ristevski indicates the same age for the victims. The underestimated age data you are trying to push here repeatedly, are probably taken from the Macedonian Wikipedia. However, they are manipulated there intentionally. If so, avoid using the Macedonian Wikipedia as a source. Please do not let this continue. Use WP:RS. Thank you.

The Macedonian narrative. ...In the first months and years after the expulsion of the Nazi troops from Vardar Macedonia, the rhetoric about the tragedy in Vatasha was still placed in a narrative directed against the policy of official Berlin and Sofia, against the "fascist occupation". In songs and other works, the murderers were "bloodthirsty", "executioners" and "fascists". Gradually, over the years, the "young men of Vatasha" were included in the strategy of telling the story of the struggle for "this land of Tito", against the "fascist occupier". And yet, for many years, what was done was not spoken of as the work of "the Bulgarians" - something that visibly appeared later. The motives of the Bulgarian authorities' actions are usually distorted, which at that time were mainly military-political and ideological, not ethno-national. Even from the stories of the surviving girls, it cannot be concluded that the conflict, at least at that time, had a clearly outlined and frozen inter-ethnic profile. It is overlooked that similar actions also took place on the territory of the pre-war borders of Bulgaria, as was the case on December 20, 1943 with the six children from Yastrebino in Northern Bulgaria - Stoyne, 6 years old, Ivan, 9, Nadezhda, 12, Dimitrinka, 11, the twins Tsenka and Tsvetanka, 13. Too often, the Macedonian story omits the participation of local people in the action and in the orders for the murder of the young. When it is mentioned that about 40 to 60% of the soldiers in the regiments of the Fifth Bulgarian Army stationed in Vardar Macedonia were locals, it is pointed out how they were forcibly recruited. This is perhaps also a reason to note that not all soldiers wanted to shoot at the command "Fire!" Unlike the first post-war decades, recently, with the aggravation of Bulgarian-Macedonian relations, the tragedy of Vatasha is used to incite the public against the “fascist Bulgarian forces” and as evidence of the “bloodthirstiness of the Bulgarian forces” and the “ferocity of the Bulgarian fascists”. Of course, the narrative often turns into something done simply by “the Bulgarians”. Similar to the way in which incidents during the Ottoman period (for example, the tragedy in Batak) are used in the Bulgarian national narrative to present a lasting and unchanging characteristic of an entire five-century period of Turkish slavery, the shooting of Vatasha is supposed to embody everyday life in occupied Macedonia during the period 1941-44. It is no coincidence that those who in July 2017 were against Zoran Zaev's policy and the treaty with Bulgaria, most often referring to what happened in Vatasha, which they saw as a symbol of Bulgaria and the attitude of Bulgarians towards Macedonians. After the signing of the treaty, despite the apparent inertia and the strong remnants of the Yugoslav and communist framework of interpretation, certain circles around SDSM (the party that originated from the former communists) strive to talk about "fascism" and "occupation", avoiding the definition "Bulgarian". On the other hand, circles around the opposition VMRO-DPMNE and the "Left" party persistently talk about the "Bulgarian massacre" and the "Bulgarian fascist occupier". The Macedonian opposition even rained down threats on the ruling party: "Take a good look at the boys from Vatasha and negotiate". Some circles in North Macedonia understand, however, that such talk not only simplifies and makes the historical picture black and white, but is also a road to nowhere. That is why among liberal publications, as well as circles associated with the old VMRO from the 1990s, there has also been talk about how in this case, as in general in Macedonia during those years, many local people were involved in both the Bulgarian army and the police. Other publications mention the Bulgarian case with the children from Yastrebino. This does not, of course, reduce the responsibility of the then Bulgarian authorities and politics, but it definitely prevents the abuse of the event for frank anti-Bulgarian propaganda. In this spirit, Macedonian media even provided a platform for interpretation of the event by Petar Kolev and even Krasimir Karakachanov... Jingiby (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the passage that I removed is that the commanding officer was local, this one of the narratives pushed by the Bulgarian side, the author explains this as well: "It is not surprising in the Bulgarian narrative the highlighting, that the one who ordered the shooting, Colonel Apostolov, was from Kriva Palanka, but without specifying that he graduated from a Bulgarian military school and was a Bulgarian officer, fully socialized in Bulgaria. In this sense, the responsibility for what was done cannot but be transferred to the Bulgarian army of the time." Furher, it needs to be pointed out that "part of the participating soldiers and other staff were probably locals" since it is not a confirmed fact but rather an assumption based on the fact that 40 to 60 % of the recruits in the army were locals. About the ages, you clearly misunderstood me, I am gonna make it more clear now. Also the criticism and protests for the Macedonian encyclopedia were not related to the Vatasha massacre’s case at all, rather for content involving Albanians, here is the link for the cited page number. Thanks.

The Bulgarian narrative. ...Unlike in North Macedonia, where everyone knows about Vatasha, in Bulgaria, only a few people are interested in the Macedonian topic. The Bulgarian narrative is organized in such a way as to maximally relieve the Bulgarian authorities and army of responsibility for what happened. The Bulgarian Wikipedia page talks about “12 young communists”. It also emphasizes how the young men and women were not only informants, but are also preparing to join the “communist resistance”. In this sense, by fitting into the revisionist Bulgarian narrative of recent decades, the young men’s affiliation with the communist resistance becomes a kind of device for excusing their extrajudicial killing. It also tactfully omits that, although with significant participation of leftists and communists, the resistance in Macedonia was not only communist. It is not surprising in the Bulgarian narrative the highlighting, that the one who ordered the shooting, Colonel Apostolov, was from Kriva Palanka, but without specifying that he graduated from a Bulgarian military school and was a Bulgarian officer, fully socialized in Bulgaria. In this sense, the responsibility for what was done cannot but be transferred to the Bulgarian army of the time. Again, along these lines, it is emphasized that at that time “40 to 60 percent” of the soldiers in the Fifth Army stationed in Vardar Macedonia were local recruits. Along with this, it is pointed out that “a large part of the Bulgarian police officers” were also “local personnel”. And in this case, we have an unspoken attempt to exonerate the Bulgarian official policy or the behavior of people wearing Bulgarian uniforms, insofar as they are “from there” and identify themselves as Bulgarians, either out of fear or out of sincere conviction. It is not overlooked that the village teacher in Vatasha, who comes from the pre-war borders of the Kingdom, tries to protect the young men and women, but is removed by the Bulgarian authorities during the interrogations. Last but not least, and not without reason, the incident is considered part of similar incidents that occurred in the pre-war territories of Bulgaria. Also not unimportant is the argument that the murdered were executed not as Macedonians, but as connected to the armed resistance, which also existed in the territory of pre-war Bulgaria...[1] 19999o (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilinden and Preobrazhenie as 2 different uprisings, etc.

Hi. this is an alternative view supported only by some researchers. To prove that it is prevailing and to describe it in the lead in your way you must gain a consensus at talk through providing a lot of sources. This was discussed and refuted several times on the talk page. Also that means, this article should be separated in 2 distinct articles, etc. Jingiby (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting a one-sided national narrative

Your recent edits systematically removing or replacing references to Bulgaria introduce fringe geopolitical claims that contravene Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Such unilateral revisions – especially in historically/politically sensitive Balkan contexts – require prior consensus through discussion on the talk page, supported by reliable, authoritative sources.

Persistently pushing a disproportionate national perspective without community agreement constitutes original research and disruptive editing. Please cease immediately and engage in formal discussion per Wikipedia's collaborative process. --StanProg (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have been editing much less frequently lately, but you add a huge amount of information, which often significantly changes the stable versions of the articles you have edited, and this without any discussion and consensus. In addition, you have changed an article several times in one and the same manner adding a single source from controversial author who is supporting alternative view, while ignoring a number of other sources. This happened after several remarks and removals of your edits by other participants in the project. Please keep the following in mind: To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. 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, etc.

Surveying these documents should provide you with an understanding of the current scholarly consensus, or the multiple scholarly consensuses held. Most academic papers have a thesis — the point of the paper; not all theses are correct, or even survive to become significant points of view. If a paper argues hotly for a thesis, and no later source accepts or mentions it, it may be best to take at most the supporting facts and leave the case being argued aside. For more see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nikola Vaptsarov. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. tony 04:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases, especially if they are not attributed to their source, may constitute copyright violation and/or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2026

Your edit to Macedonian nationalism 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]