User talk:Alvin2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for what? For correcting incorrect details entered from your side? Please if you are having written facts issued from Byzantine empire then provide/add copies in this article. Writing facts you believe or dreaming is not supported and not sure how you were not blocked till now and making incorrect details over Wikipedia will not make you feeling that you are changing some nations history. Simply same will be reported. Alvin2020 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for persistently adding unsourced content. It's clearly noted in your block log and in the block message above. Once the block expires, ensure you are using reliable sources to support the changes you wish to make. If your edits are reverted, follow dispute resolution. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Its clear that Wikipedia is only made for making money but not giving actual facts. You by allowing such users to create “history” which never existed is making integrity of the information being published in this pages. More likely looks like fake articles where Wikipedia dos not have process how will rectify facts being published. Simply means and looks like if some one gives to Wikipedia mount of money entire world history and fact could be changes. In article I did editing and if you clearly read you will sense how those users are interfering in other countries history and for which they are not providing facts as I said earlier. Hope one day this system of fake articles will be stopped and process of verification will improve from developers of this so said Wikipedia. Alvin2020 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

March 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Saint Naum have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Saint Naum was changed by Alvin2020 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.852207 on 2021-03-16T18:30:17+00:00

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Saint Naum. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rdp060707&#124;Let's discuss about the plans 06:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Saint Naum, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Saint Naum was changed by Alvin2020 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.880684 on 2021-03-18T06:48:24+00:00 Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How bot can decide what is true and correct and by what fact they are publishing irregular details and making damages on the Macedonians living on that area. Alvin2020 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

How bot can decide what is true and correct and by what fact they are publishing irregular details and making damages on the Macedonians living on that area. Alvin2020 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello, I'm StephenMacky1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Kiril Peychinovich have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. How you judge your self as constructive??? Wikipedia is not allowed to interpret history of the people, there is government’s who should be giving the facts of the history for their countries and NOT YOU??? And I don’t agree with you and you don’t have facts on which you are making yourself constructive!!! Alvin2020 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. How you judge your self as constructive??? Wikipedia is not allowed to interpret history of the people, there is government’s who should be giving the facts of the history for their countries and NOT YOU??? And I don’t agree with you and you don’t have facts on which you are making yourself constructive!!!

And stop mixing in others homes and start respect the reality dont forge it. Alvin2020 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ponyo bons mots 18:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You guys are so pathetic. Block as much you want but facts always prevail and no human can change that!!!!! Alvin2020 (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)