User talk:Iliev

Archives

---

2010
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024

“	Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.	”
— Stephen Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, 1989

Want to complain about being blocked by PSS 9? >> CLICK HERE <<

PSS 9 block appeal 20250105205217

Моля да погледнете страниците на Карлос Насар, Милен Добрев и Гълъбин Боевски, тъй като този ваш бот премахна голяма част от труда ми.
Cattle ripper (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Y Благодаря Ви, че ми обърнахте внимание. Ботът няма да Ви притеснява повече. — Luchesar • T/C 03:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20250125181718

Здравейте! Моля, обърнете внимание на статията за поп-фолк певицата Емануела. Ботът за пореден път изтрива информацията, която си играх да напиша около половин час, а отгоре на всичко ме блокира и за неограничен период от време. Като причина е посочено подозрение, че съм изкуствен интелект, което е меко казано нелепо. Фенка съм на Емануела от самото начало, знам много относно живота и кариерата ѝ. Годината ѝ на раждане е 1981, а не 1980, както ботът поправя постоянно. Допълнителната информация, която добавих, е в плюс, не мисля, че е излишна, за да бъде изтрита. Също така искам да Ви попитам защо статията ми за поп-фолк певеца Александър Робов все още стои в черновите в инкубатора? Мисля, че е приносна, също отделих доста време, за да я напиша.

Благодаря Ви предварително!
Emanuela1981 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Y Здравейте! Благодаря Ви, че ми писахте. Ще Ви отблокирам, тъй като виждам, че сте добронамерен редактор. Трябва обаче да Ви обърна внимание на два проблема с Вашите редакции, които частично (най-вече изтриването на източници) може да са провокирали бота да Ви ги връща, а накрая и да Ви блокира, особено когато сте му върнали неговата редакция (между другото, ботът просто пише, че той е бот, а не че Вие сте).

• Информацията в Уикипедия трябва да бъде подкрепена с благонадеждни източници: bg:У:ЦИ, bg:У:БИ, bg:У:ВП. За съжаление, Вие не само не сте посочвали източници за въвежданата от Вас информация, но дори сте премахнали посочени от други редактори източници.
• Датите на раждане и въобще друга информация в инфокутиите следва да се въвежда в Уикиданни, не в статиите в Уикипедия. За тази информация също е необходимо да бъдат посочвани източници.

Ако имате нужда от помощ за разрешаване на тези проблеми, особено с Уикиданни, не се колебайте да пишете на bg:Уикипедия:Разговори. Редакторите обичайно са отзивчиви, стига да могат да отделят време. Това е подходящото място да потърсите и помощ относно статията Ви в черновите. — Luchesar • T/C 20:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20250306010449

Просто четях статии в сайта, нищо друго.
149.62.204.85 01:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

N — Luchesar • T/C 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Здравейте моля обърнете внимание на статия на автомагистрали в България и бота ми изтрива информацията

Аз писах тази статия за автомагистрали в България и това 149.62.206.202 18:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

N — Luchesar • T/C 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20250408133021

Hello, I have been mistakenly blocked on bgwiki by your bot. I do not intend to vandalize this wiki. Please unblock me. Thank you.
Michaelshea04 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Y — Luchesar • T/C 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Странно блокиране

Здравейте, Опитвам се да отворя сметка от нова поща в Уикипедия, но богът ме блокира. 149.62.206.133 23:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

N There are no recent blocks that seem to be relevant to your case. And there isn't really any way that the bot can block you for merely trying to create a new account. Unless you provide more details, I'm afraid I can't help you. — Luchesar • T/C 14:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20250420180809

Привет, постарах се доста да събера източници за личността. Каква е причината да ме блокирате? Какво трябва да направя за бъде одобрена?

Kandeto (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Y @Kandeto, you've overwritten the page bg:Уикипедия:Вълшебник twice, as can be seen here and here. I suspect this was done by mistake rather than intentionally, so I will unblock you. Please be more careful next time and follow the wizard's instructions precisely.

As a side note, I suspect that editors may be sceptical about the encyclopedic notability of the article's subject, but it's ultimately up to them to decide. — Luchesar • T/C 23:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Добро утро,

Това наистина беше погрешка с "вълшебника". Исках тук да се публикува: https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB:GeorgiKandev/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0

Сега да направя нова редакция там и да очаквам да бъде одобрено или нова странциа да направя? Kandeto (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20250430130444

Atinat66 (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC) Здравейте, създадох статията с цел изпълняване на задание в университета, моля, имайте предвид абривиетурата NBUPolSci.

N @Atinat66 I'm afraid it's irrelevant whether your edits on Wikipedia are part of a university assignment. Even if they were related to official work, Wikipedia has rules that everyone must follow. In fact, if your edits are part of a coordinated project and do not follow these rules, that makes the situation more concerning, not less.

The bot has blocked your other account for two hours. I see no reason to lift that block, and it will expire soon anyway. Unless there is clear evidence that you're interested in contributing meaningfully to Wikipedia—beyond simply fulfilling a requirement for your university—I also see no reason to instruct the bot to avoid blocking your second account.

TL;DR: Please edit carefully (e.g., avoid creating nonsensical templates), and the bot will not block you. — Luchesar • T/C 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20250606204246

Hello I do not see any "vandalism" in correcting the mistake that has been writen on the page about Turkish slavery in Bulgaria. If you can tell me where is my vandalism I will appreciate it. Thank you!
Тонъ452345 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Тонъ452345, the short answer is this: you replaced terms that were properly supported by high-quality academic sources with different ones—without providing any reliable source for your change, and while leaving the original sources in place. This effectively misleads readers into thinking the new terms are supported by the cited sources, which they are not.

It’s not that I don’t understand the sentiment. I, too, grew up with the phrases “Turkish slavery” and “Ottoman yoke”. These were—and still are—part of our national memory, especially in the literature of the Bulgarian National Revival, where they helped forge national consciousness. They have their place.

This is also not about denying historical suffering or glossing over the realities of Ottoman rule. It's about Wikipedia being based on what reliable modern scholarship says—not on inherited narratives or emotional framing. The academic consensus in Bulgarian historiography refers to this period as “Османско владичество” (and no, not “присъствие”, as some like to troll). That’s the terminology used in scholarly sources, and that’s what belongs in the article’s title and lead section.

In fact, Wikipedia already has an article—Турско робство—which discusses the historical use and connotations of different terms. So the term isn’t “banned”—it just belongs in the right context, not presented as the standard scholarly label.

I suggest taking a look at the following pages to better understand how Wikipedia works:

• bg:Уикипедия:Цитиране на източници
• bg:Уикипедия:Благонадеждни източници
• bg:Уикипедия:Възможност за проверка
• bg:Уикипедия:Енциклопедичност
• bg:Уикипедия:Неутрална гледна точка

If you're willing to follow Wikipedia’s core policies going forward—it's entirely possible you weren’t familiar with them until now—I’ll lift the block. But if you believe your edit was justified (which it clearly wasn’t), then the bot’s action stands, and I see no reason to override it.
— Luchesar • T/C 15:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20250710170326

Уважаеми чат-ботове в българската Уикипедия, Хизбула е определена като терористична организация включително и в ЕС, а България е държавата, на чиято територия Хизбула успя да убие повече хора дори от атентата срещу редакцията на Шарли Ебдо. Не виждам защо трябва да ми бъдат изтрити поправките, които са базирани на общо известни факти и са подкрепени с авторитетни източници. Моля, уважаемия Лъчезар Илиев да отмени блокировката на IP-адреса ми.
Tani Stoyanova (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Y Tani Stoyanova, thank you for notifying me about the block, and my sincere apologies for this mistake—made by the bot, not by a human. PSS 9 is an anti-vandalism bot that looks for patterns of disruptive behavior based on more than two decades of accumulated experience by the community. While it's usually very accurate, it does occasionally produce false positives like this one.

I understand how frustrating this can be, and I’m sorry for the inconvenience. Reducing such cases further is quite difficult without compromising the bot’s effectiveness, which is why I monitor these appeals closely.

 One factor that may have contributed to the bot flagging your edits is that they cited Wikipedia—the English version—as a source. While this isn’t inherently malicious, it’s generally discouraged. Please avoid citing Wikipedia on Wikipedia, even across languages. More background is available at en:WP:NOTSOURCE.

I’ve adjusted the bot’s sensitivity to reduce the chance of this happening again. Thank you once more for your patience, and please don’t hesitate to reach out if you run into any further issues.
— Luchesar • T/C 18:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I hope for the future that my corrections will not be removed, because the bots are to help us, not to disturb us and to loose our time.👍 Tani Stoyanova (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

PSS 9 block appeal 20250712100251

Здравейте, уважаеми Лъчезар Илиев, виждам, че чрез чат-бота си ЕлизаБет сте ми вкарали статията за Саид Кутб в инкубатора, кога да очаквам статията да види бял свят за читателите, и изисква ли се още нещо от мен като интеракция?
Tani Stoyanova (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Tani Stoyanova, the bot Eliza Beth does not move articles into the incubator.

The only thing the bot does is add an appropriate template with helpful information—once an article is created in the incubator or is moved there by a human editor. The bot also maintains the list of draft articles and handles other housekeeping tasks, like marking leftover redirect pages for deletion by the human administrators, when articles from the incubator are turned into actual Wikipedia articles.

This saves the wikipedians a lot of routine work—which typically takes time and attention that most editors would rather spend on actual content.

Since all actions on Wikipedia are recorded, it's easy to verify what the bot did. The edit is bg:Special:Diff/12628305 and it did indeed only add the template {{в инкубатора}} to the article—which, at that time, was already in the incubator. The previous edit, bg:Special:Diff/12628267—by a human editor—is when the article was moved to the incubator.

There's clearly a need to improve the clarity of the bot actions, as you're not the first to think that it was the bot that had “decided” to actually move the article to the incubator. The bots should not, indeed, do such things, and Eliza Beth certainly does not. I will consider possible solutions to rectify this possible confusion and implement them.

As for what you can or need to do about the article—I'm afraid that in recent years I can't afford to devote that much time to Wikipedia as I would love to, and, usually being very self-demanding in whatever I undertake, I sadly can't offer to review and help with the article myself. But I can briefly explain the general process. The information template that Eliza Beth puts in those articles, by the way, includes the key information you'll need, so I recommend reviewing it first.

TL;DR: Very succinctly, an autopatrolled editor can help you review and move the article into Wikipedia proper. The autopatrolled editors are simply editors whom the editor community trusts to have enough experience and to have proven themselves to edit in good faith. There are over 260 such editors on the Bulgarian Wikipedia and you can contact any of them personally from this list. But I'd rather advise you to write on Уикипедия:Разговори—the community forum—as it would be far more convenient for you.

You might already know this, but since it is a common point of confusion, let me also clarify: in Wikipedia, what articles stay or go, and what their content should be, is decided by the community of editors. These decisions are based on consensus, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and other relevant policies—not roles or authority. Unlike other platforms, in Wikipedia there are no “moderators”, and the administrators—elected by the community—support it by handling only technical tasks and, importantly, preventing disruption.

 I hope this was helpful, but don’t hesitate to reach out again if I can assist further.

By the way, you can contact me—more conveniently perhaps—also on my talk page on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. This wiki here, Metawiki, is mainly intended for coordination between the many projects of the Wikimedia Foundation or special cases like those PSS 9 appeals.

Metawiki isn't nearly as popular as Wikipedia itself, but a good example of the importance and usefulness of this global coordination is the case of Bulgarian Wikinews. That project suffered from copyright problems and recurring patterns of disinformation—particularly content echoing Kremlin propaganda narratives. This may not have been the result of coordinated or deliberate campaigns, but the impact was damaging nonetheless. The project was ultimately closed following community discussion and a decision by the Language committee. Such decisions fall under the final authority of the Board of Trustees—but it is the global community, indeed, that helps shape and guide the outcome of these processes.
— Luchesar • T/C 18:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

When will the administrators decide on my page? And how can I be informed about this? Thank you in advance Tani Stoyanova (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Tani Stoyanova, I see that you’ve already reached out on Уикипедия:Разговори and that other editors have helped publish the article. That’s great to see.

Just a few notes that might help avoid confusion in the future:

As I mentioned earlier, administrators on Wikipedia do not decide which articles get published or what they contain. Those decisions are made by the wider community of editors, through discussions grounded in policy and consensus. What administrators can do—it is described in detail, along with what they cannot do, at the top of Requests for administrator attention—is assist when someone is disrupting the project, or help with technical actions like deleting unused pages.

This model can feel unfamiliar at first. Many online platforms rely on top-down moderation, and it’s natural to expect something similar here. But Wikipedia is structured differently: most decisions are made through open discussion among contributors seeking consensus. Everyone—regardless of role—has an equal say, provided they follow the principles of neutrality, sourcing, and collaboration.

If you have questions or run into obstacles, engaging with other editors on Уикипедия:Разговори is often the best first step—as you did. You can also use the article’s “Беседа” tab or leave a message on a user’s talk page. Wikipedia works best when communication is open and assumptions are clarified early.

One final point—mutual respect is a key expectation across all Wikimedia projects. While occasional joking is fine, sarcasm or dismissive remarks can easily be misread, especially in writing. We all come from different backgrounds, and constructive, respectful tone helps keep things productive even during disagreement.

I hope this has been helpful. Don’t hesitate to reach out again if there’s anything I can assist with—either here or on my talk page on the Bulgarian Wikipedia.
— Luchesar • T/C 18:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank You for Your attention. I would say as an answer a lot of things, but I don't want to waste Your time, mine too. Success further . Tani Stoyanova (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Защо имам забрана?

Не знам какво съм направил Philippan9252 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Philippan9252, thank you for reaching out.

You were blocked automatically by the anti-vandalism bot PSS 9, which monitors certain types of edits that, based on long experience, are very often abusive or disruptive. In this case, the edit in question was made to another user's personal page and contained statements like:

(...) къв даниел ве палячона даниел ли ти мязам? Даниел и дупката на гъзът тшЕбахти (...)

(...) Ако dsannyy е евреин значи сигурно и ти си евреин (...)

For reference, this is bg:Special:Permalink/12628354, though once it is inevitably deleted, it will become accessible only to users with the necessary rights.

This kind of message—containing personal insults, mockery, inappropriate sexual innuendo, and potentially antisemitic remarks—has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of the page it’s posted to. Editing another user's userpage is almost always unacceptable unless it's constructive (such as fixing obvious formatting mistakes or reverting vandalism).

The bot does not "judge" people—it simply applies a set of rules designed to protect the encyclopedia from unconstructive edits and free up time for human editors to focus on content. In cases like this, the block is immediate because experience shows that such behavior is highly disruptive and rarely accidental.

If this was done out of misunderstanding or poor judgment, and you genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, you’re welcome to explain that here. To have the block lifted, you’ll need to:

1. Acknowledge that this kind of behavior is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
2. Confirm that you understand and will respect Wikipedia’s expectations for respectful and constructive editing.
3. Show that you're ready to contribute in good faith going forward.

If you do that, the block can be reviewed and potentially lifted. But without such assurance, it will remain in place to prevent further disruption.

Thank you for your understanding.
— Luchesar • T/C 18:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

New user block 2025-07-18T11:18:29Z: 178.197.223.148

Моля за отблокиране и връщане на конструктивните ми коментари по беседите, които бяха изтрити от бота. 178.197.223.148 11:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Y Thank you for notifying me. Apparently, the increased and complicated interactions recently stress the bot a bit too much. I'll see to have its logic adjusted. — Luchesar • T/C 11:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)