Radko Kovac

Primary and academic sources

You may ask a peasant from the district of Ostrovo, or Bitola, what he feels himself to be, and nine times out of ten, he will answer you - Macedonian! Thereby, an honest observer would name them “Macedonian Slavs,” or simply - Macedonians. is POV by Edmond Bouchie de Belle published in 1922 and is out of date. At the end of the First World War there were very few ethnographers, who agreed that a separate Macedonian nation existed." is NPOV by Loring M. Danforth, from The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691043566, p. 65. Please, do not use primary, but academic sources. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, so is the writing of Brailsford a non-academic source. He was a journalist. Radko Kovac (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, there are many primary sources, not confirmed by a secondary one, to be removed. Radko Kovac (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation against this, latest of your Wikipedia incarnations. The case is available here.--Laveol ^T 10:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I’ve just found you both here as well. Your clashes are epical. But, I must admit, you’ve got a point. I’ll add this quote into the article.:

- "Here's also what Stavridis has to say in page 216: "The Bulgarian government... seeing that Sandanski's successors, and Panitsa in particular did not have his [Sandanski's] leadership ability nor his education, tried to conquer the organization [IMRO] from within, enrolling many individuals dedicated to the idea of a Bulgarian conquest and annexation of Macedonia" etc, going on about the Bulgarian government providing funds and assistance to control the organization, or its accepting the autonomy of Macedonia only as a first step towards annexation, using IMRO as vehicle for its own ambitions."

Radko Kovac (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Why is this paragraph here removed?

- Shortly before he was killed, he went to Solun to meet Elefterios Stavridis, a Greek politician. After the meeting, Stavridis wrote down Panitsa’s views in his autobiography. He published some very useful information about the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), its struggle, ideals, disbandment, re-establishment and its downfall. He clearly stated that the IMRO originally fought for an united autonomous state of Macedonia, and therefore for the Macedonian nation, for its official fortification. But, above all, Stavridis concluded that the IMRO was a completely Macedonian national organization, before the Bulgarian authorities seized it under their control. Radko Kovac (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a "sockpuppet". How could I be! How do you decide that I am one, can you explain me? Radko Kovac (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edits, edit summaries, and interests are extraordinarily similar to your other accounts. Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Bbb23, can you show me the comparisons about the edits? My work at Todor Panitsa was a revert of an old edit that had been discussed on the talk page. I explained it here above, so it's naturally for that, as a revert to be similar with the previous edit. Show me another example, please. Radko Kovac (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What further evidence do you need? You know you are the same person. You even edit from the same IP range when logged off. You also stumble upon the reverts and comments made by previous puppets by accident. We are not that stupid, you know. --Laveol ^T 05:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that I'm not Bobi987 Ivanov. Look, I don't know who edited my typo a day after I comment here above. I don't know who this " 79.126.255.72 " is. We might have edited the same article then, and he opened my contribution page. But, it's obvious that that IP (" 79.126.255.72 ") is not here, as well. Fact! How did you connect me with this undisciplined user Bobi987 Ivanov ? Radko Kovac (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So is it your IP or not? You are starting to contradict yourself. Was it your IP at the time (you have a floating IP, just like the puppet-master) and you are happy the exact same IP was not included in the list there? Or is it that it was not your IP and you are arguing someone else corrected a typo on your talkpage where he ended up by accident? And I am not sure why I even bother explaining. You know it and we know it. Heck, you are probably making a new account this very minute. --Laveol ^T 09:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not my IP, that of one that corrected a typo on my talkpage. Radko Kovac (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is: How did you connect me with this undisciplined user Bobi987 Ivanov ? Radko Kovac (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I request my unblock again, because I cannot accept the arguments of Bbb23, that my edits, edit summaries, and interests are similar to the concerned editor/editors. How did you connect me with this Bobi987 Ivanov guy anyway? Let’s compare the contributions of Bobi987 Ivanov, those of (likely, his sockupuppet) Chakmak111 and mine. Everything is different, even the edit summaries. There is only one article that matches – that about Todor Panitsa. And it was a reverting of the previous edits. The edits had been proven correct on the talk page. Why don't you consider that? Radko Kovac (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After reviewing the contribution histories, editing style, and previous unblock requests from socks, this is clearly the same editor. Right down to the completely random bolding of any phrase that catches your fancy. Since you just kept babbling on during your last series of unblocks, I'm going to boldly close this discussion. Kuru (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

On my user page, it’s still said that I’m only suspected for violating Wikipedia’s rules. That doesn’t mean that I’m guilty, does it? And you didn’t provide any proof that I am guilty, nor evidence that confirms your presumptions. Therefore, I’m still just suspected. So, on Wikipedia, it doesn’t matter if I, or (in this case) somebody else before me presents sourced information, but it’s huge deal if somebody just SUSPECTS that I’m the other guy? These things ruin Wikipedia’s credibility, my friends. On Wikipedia, it doesn’t matter if the newly added content is sourced, historiographically proven correct, and nobody has arguments against it!?!? It doesn’t matter that I agreed about the historiographical content with the person who suspects me, but it’s most important that you and him THINK that I’ve got similar style to that of the other editor. Because I agree with his sourced writings? For God’s sake, here above I agreed about the historiographical content with my opponent as well, why don’t you blame me for being him?! (from: Radko Kovac) 85.253.42.67 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

All the previous admins and investigations that have been conducted seem to have it right; seems like a pretty obvious sock. The only reason why it's only suspected and not confirmed is because no one wants to waste time conducting a technical confirmation because of how obvious the results will be. only (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Oho, this is wonderful - deleting sourced information, ignoring academic historiographically affirmed content and censorship. Admins of Wikipedia, may I ask, doesn’t it bother you that when all this is going to be exposed and spread, the integrity of Wikipedia will be being questioned and compromised (and, to some extent, ruined)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.172.184 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)