User talk:Edin balgarin

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Edin Balgarin. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated removal of sourced content on Maltese people
Hello. Your repeated removal of sourced content on the article has been reverted by multiple other editors now, showing that you do not have support for it. So get support from other editors on the talk page of the article, before removing it again, or you risk getting blocked for edit-warring! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Tom. Thanks for the above message. I'm currently struggling to understand your position on the matter. The message above implies that you have taken a "policeman" position whereby you are enforcing WP's policies, which is fair enough. However, your decision to boldly revert me and your failure to bring an equivalent message across to the other editor (there is just one) suggests that you have a take on the issue being reported. If this is so, you may have noticed the bottom thread on Talk:Maltese people which I began last time. Feel free to add your points there, or even here if you believe I have missed a point. Thanks. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. For almost three weeks now (starting on 12 November) you have been repeatedly changing/removing content to push your own favourite theory, about the Maltese people being related to Arabs only, in spite of sources saying they're a mix of multiple ethnicities (and apparently mainly descended from Europeans, not Arabs), edits of yours that have equally repeatedly been reverted by other editors. Which means that you must get support from other editors on the talk page of the article, before changing to your preferred version again. If other editors don't agree with you, and support your changes, you can't make them, no matter how strongly you feel about it. It's as simple as that. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BS, and straw man at best. First of all, you continuously remove "Arabs" despite seeming to know that the two nations are related. Second, where you attack the straw man, the multiple sources state that the "Europeans" have MIXED with the Maghrebi Arabs to arrive from Sicily to create the Maltese nation. The so-called "Europeans" became assimilated. If you are claiming that the Maltese descend from "Europeans" then the onus is on you to provide two types of source: A) How did those "Europeans" end up speaking an Afro-Asiantic language? B) What happened to the ORIGINAL people to speak the Afro-Asiantic language, i.e. did they leave Malta in the 15th century? If you can't find sources for these, then Maltese people are no different to Bulgarians. I myself am one eighth Turkish from Bulgaria, but this doesn't make the Turks and Bulgarians "related". When people inter-marry and the children choose to go with one ethnicity over the other, it's goodbye to the one whose language has been sacrificed. In fact, the whole thing is a carry-over from Italians whereby ONE editor with a conspicuously pro-Italian agenda is pushing an age old claim that Maltese people are "Arabicised Italians" and something that is further expanded by the same individual to claim that GREEKS are relatives of Italians. See however that it doesn't say this on the Greeks page. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

English/Germanic
Hey, man, totally with you on the classification argument. For some reason the concept of ethnolinguistic identity among the English peoples of the British Isles is completely askew of that of the general world/academia. It's a heavy politicized issue and sees certain regions of the British Isles, namely Scotland, Ireland and Wales, trying to classify themselves as Celtic and distinct to the English, despite them all speaking the same West Germanic language and their cultures/societies being practically indistinguishable today.

1% of Scotland, my own country, actually speaks a Celtic language today but apparently the entire nation is Celtic despite us having spoken English or Norse for almost 1500 years in some parts and for around 800 years in roughly half of the nation, if not more. But apparently we're Celtic because the people there used to speak Celtic languages, even though they spoke other languages before they spoke Celtic languages for literally thousands and thousands of years.

It's a very tiring issue, I try my best to educate people on it and bring them around to a more logical and rational way of thinking. I don't know, there's nothing political about classing them all as English speaking Germanic peoples and nations. You can still be distinct political and national identities but you're still part of the same ethnolinguistic bloc.
 * Hello Scottish IP! Thanks for the message! I spent a whole month in lovely Stornaway not so long ago and how lovely it is! And having a Bulgarian accent was well received as I didn't get taken by the locals for a "south of the border bastard"! :) But honestly, great people! I must say it is very commendable of you to be accepting of a Germanic heritage whilst coming from any of the non-English home nations. Now so you know, I agree with you 100% of the way. The ENGLISH people, are as far as I am concerned, a Germanic people through and through. Every source that is used to supply Germanic lists and every source that says the Dutch and Germans are Germanic, also lists the English. It's just that some editors like to conflate a separate factor, that being that those Germanic people came into contact with non-Germanics and so the English are a hybrid rather than a cut and dried member of one wider family. By "non-Germanics" I mean Norman French and Celts (obviously we cannot include Vikings but that would certainly be a factor if we were talking about whether English were West or North Germanic - to which I would firmly argue WEST Germanic). Yet in truth, who is pure? Germanic and Romance people are traditionally mixed on both sides of the linguistic contour running from northern France through Belgium (Flemmish and Wallonian), through Luxembourg and down the French and German border and further on with the Italian and Austrian border: then you get the Slavic-Romance-Germanic tripoint where Austria and Italy meet Slovenia. In truth, Italians, Danubian Germans, and Slovenes live on all three sides of all three borders and are culturally closer to one another in these parts than to Slavic, Germanic and Romance people farther afield (such as Polish, Swedish and Portuguese). My point is that the nations have all intermarried and none is pure. And as for Celts, they have had a presence everywhere from your homeland all the way to the Carpathians, and so their seed remains within modern-day people. That said, I am mildly cautious about bestowing the title of Germanic over Irish, Scottish and Welsh folk. In Northern Ireland for example, the loyalist factions to the Crown (chiefly the Protestants) don't even embrace the word "Irish" and just use the comprehensive "British". They clearly don't object to a Germanic identity. But Scots as a whole community worry little about the language barrier to exist in Scotland itself. It is not like in my native Bulgaria where Turks speak a separate language and are thereby a separate ethnic community. Most in Scotland embrace a "Scottish" identity and clearly they see a need to attach themselves to a wider faction, and clearly this should not be the same as those English people and so all that it left is to forge a Celtic bloc. On the one hand, power languages (such as English and Russian, and historically our Slavic language over the non-Slavic Bulgars) have a way of thrusting themselves upon communities, so once a family abandons Language 1 and adopts Language 2 and within a generation the names change, it becomes possible - in older Bulgaria let's say - that a person identifying as Bulgarian may be unaware that all 16 of his double-great grandparents were Bulgars - making him 100% Bulgar in a Slavic guise. BUT, power languages do not flex their muscles remotely. A community generally gives up its language when the more resilient linguistic group (albeit a lesser figure) is IN THE MIDST. That way they really DO mix and in the end, one solid nation stands - but what happened to the Thracians? I'll lay odds that I myself have Thracian ancestry. With Scotland, Wales and Ireland, not only did the language survive in certain pockets, but campaigns are in place to revive and encourage their continuity. In Wales, it has even happened that people have ADOPTED Welsh a generation or so ago. Do they know that their ancestors may NEVER have spoken Welsh? An eternal flame Welsh may be, but is it an honest marker of a community? The borders don't mean much as you know. Where England ends and Scotland begins is an administrative boundary, and it was probably never the case that Germanics all lives south and Celts all lived north. Sure original Celts were driven to the edges of the island, but Anglo-Saxons did follow and join them within. It's the existence of Celtic languages that is the problem here!! :))) Without them, there would hardly be need for English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish to identify differently, but even if they did, you can all call yourselves Germanic and forget Celtic the same way Bohemia (Czech Rep) is of Celtic origin by name. I doubt that anybody within the British Isles truly believes that a line exists anywhere that renders all people one side of it ethnic group X and the others over the frontier group Y. And in all honestly, pan-ethnicities are man-made constructs. Maybe it is time we all abandoned them and just stuck to your primary identity (Bulgarian not Slavic, Scottish not Germanic/Celtic, etc). So I am prepared to give you support if you want to introduce a Germanic element to Scots, Welsh and Irish but it won't be an easy ride looking at the double-standards over English by the bundle of naive ignoramuses I have had to argue with. --Edin balgarin (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, some of the comments I seen you receive in that English people discussion thread made me beat my head against a wall, they were painfully devoid of logic and rationality.

Stornoway is one of the few remaining parts with a Celtic linguistic presence in Scotland today, so a very fitting place for you to visit, haha! But the truth is the vast majority of Scotland (99%, which itself is quite incredible to be so linguistically homogenous) is English speaking and has been for centuries, in around half the country English was the dominant and only language since the 1200s and in the southeast and some other areas English has been entrenched for 1500 YEARS (far longer than Gaelic was ever spoken in the vast majority of Scotland)!

I think these broader ethnolinguistic groupings are still important for historical and academic purposes. I agree they don't factor in much in the everyday person's life or understanding of the world but I think they have a critically important place.

Scottish topic
They just seem to be ignoring me now on the talk page, lol. Ridiculous. What do you think the reason for such fierce resistance to this is? Is it just because it includes the word German? And is it coming from English people or English people in denial of their Englishness (those living in Scotland etc.), haha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I have spent the past few weeks in Bulgaria and did not log in during this time as I was tied up with domestic matters - though I am pleased to say that all of the foxes have now been shot! :) Anyhow, yes you are right it is ridiculous. I've seen it a lot over the years: an army of blue-eyes boys who are in bed with the admins clump together to push a point. When their pathetic argument dries up, they start to ignore the objectors and in the end, will invoke weak technicalities to restore their apologetic version and in the end, have the fair-minded editor blocked or sanctioned. It's thanks to such cretins that WP:WINARS. --Edin balgarin (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Germanic Britain
https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Germanic_Europe.gif

Here's something you might be interested in. As you can read here: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml it seems the actual genetic input from Germanic peoples into the British Isles population has been severely downplayed and underestimated. Both England AND (the apparently Celtic Scotland) are over 50% descended from Anglo-Saxons, Norse and other Germanic groups that settled the islands between the 400s onwards.

So we have now not only them all speaking a Germanic language and mostly having a Germanic names, but even being more 'genetically Germanic' than regions like Austria and southern Germany which have long been solidly considered a part of the Germanic world and are clearly listed as a Germanic ethnic group on Wikipedia. But most interesting of all here is that we can clearly see even the so-called Celtic parts of the British Isles like Ireland actually have significant levels of Germanic blood, it's around 30% or so for the entire island and it's not much lower for Wales.

So in what ways are these people not Germanic? This remains a complete mystery. And why does this not mean the Irish and Welsh are clearly not Celtic ethnic groups since they have significant levels of non-Celtic admixture? This remains a complete mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2022
 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:. Girth Summit  (blether) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a man in my mid forties, a native English speaker, and a teacher of the English language. Singular they has a long history, and it has been in standard usage throughout my life. That a non-native English speaker might not know that is perhaps understandable; that they might be apparently unwilling to learn, and want to stick to what they were taught in their country is perhaps disappointing, but not exactly a blocking offense; what would be unacceptable would be if someone were to resort to shockingly offensive and patronising rhetoric in an apparent attempt to win a discussion about pronoun choices. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to demonstrate an understanding of how inappropriate it was for you to use the phrase above in any context, that it is commonplace to refer to a single person as 'they' if you are unaware of their gender, and that it is a behavioural expectation that you do so here to refer to someone who has expressed a preference for that. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Singular they has been in use at least since the days of Shakespeare. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - I recognise its long history. It's not just about historic examples though - the point I was making was that in my lifetime, its use has been entirely routine and normal. I'm sure one could find the occasional contrarian grammarian who might disagree, but they'd be in the minority, and they'd be wrong. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The use of male pronouns when gender is unknown is historical, as you know, and has been outdated for decades now. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Edin balgarin: I am in my sixties, and a writer by profession. The English language (both British English and American English) is my livelihood. I have professional proficiency in English as well as being a native speaker. Do you know how arrogant you appear when I come here and find you, a Bulgarian who is not a native English speaker, trying to dictate correct English usage to us? How would you feel if I claimed I'd been taught Bulgarian in England and started claiming I knew how to speak Bulgarian better than you, and better than Bulgarian language professionals? I'll add one other thing, about your offensive insult above - refering to a human as "it" is grossly unacceptable, whatever their gender. If you spend time at Wikipedia and listen and learn, you can potentially improve your English significantly. But coming here and arrogantly trying to teach it to us got you exactly what you deserved. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

. I have just caught up with the activities of the past 48 hours and have spent the last hour reading and analysing the comments. It's a pity I wasn't able to make representations in the short time I was free to edit and while the admin noticeboard discussion was live. I may have been able to avoin the editing ban. For the record, the reason I do not edit 24/7 like some accounts is because I drive for a living, and while all this was happening, I was transporting goods all around the country. I spend more nights a year sleeping in the truck than I do at home. Incidentally, I carry my mobile only when on the job, whereas when it comes to editing Wikipedia, I prefer a PC. Smartphones for me just don't cut the mustard for Wiki and emailing. First of all, I apologise for the offence I have caused; I really did not know that the ramifications were this far-reaching and stirred up resentment in so many people. Having thought about it, I believe there is a way that you may allow me to resume editing privileges. I can think of two solutions for how we go forward. I will put these across to you after your reply. In the meantime, you may be interested in the following posts whereby I address what I believe to be a misunderstanding on everybody else's part. --Edin balgarin (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You are at liberty to request unblock, or to ask questions about what led to your block. I warn you though that if you resort to offensive rhetoric again, your ability to edit this talk page will be revoked. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . I am glad you're about at this time. No there will be no offensive rhetoric. I plan to discuss a way forward. If one is agreed then I can proceed with an unblock request. In the meantime, I will address two others to participate in the discussion. It will give everyone a chance to reply first, then I'll make my proposals. I'm in no rush to edit these next hours. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need to start pinging other users, if that it what you were intending to do. I am the blocking administrator - you can discuss the block with me. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

. I just wish to quickly use this opportunity to thank you for suggesting a warning instead of a block. It is much appreciated. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

. (also Girth Summit, please take note of this message to Boing). I believe that there was a grave miscomprehension somewhere. The offending remark which I floated in the main message, which I won't repeat but which made reference to an organ, was actually a wrongly paraphrased statement which is trending. It should have started, "if you" and not "if it". However just to clarify, "it" was in reference to a baby and by no means a bold suggestion that is how we should address a person not wishing to disclose sex. As it happens, that term would equally be a solecism. Now be aware that I don't use "correct language" as a pretext to go insulting people. Now Girth being a teacher, and you being a writer do not change the basic approach: there is descriptivism and prescriptivism. Most teaching methods in the 21st century follow the descriptive approach. Now I am not some stiff-necked purist in what I expect but I feel as a foreigner that I need to respect what I have been taught, and just for the record, you cannot speak Bulgarian, Russian, or any Slavic tongue without betraying the sex of the person you are talking to and the person you are talking about. Meanwhile if this were Hungarian Wikipedia, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because there is no noun gender, and as such, everything has one article and one pronoun, etc. That includes the words for "man" and "woman". English doesn't have the benefits of Hungarian here, but is not as far-gone as a Slavic language either which is why I am prepared to suggest a fair and friendly solution (possibly with my next post). Though first let me clarify something. I have never for a moment stated that English has not used "they" for unspecified for centuries. I meant it is in recent times that it has caught on as a "call me this" expression. Now if you as a person presumably born in the late 1950s knew about that type of thing in the 1960s then I'm sorry for my ignorance. The point I was raising with you is that a feature which has existed for a long time does not necessarily make it standard concerning prescriptivists. A good example is the word, "ain't". It's older than the two of us put together, but its acceptance in official print has never been streamlined. Now regardless how we as a community operate Wikipedia, there are still those in the present day that will consider "they" for a singular as anathema. That was my point. So just to clarify before I return to Girth that no I did not mean to offend anybody, and yes I accept that I will have no choice but to be more mindful before "opening my mouth" (typing freely). I hope we've cleared this little part up now. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand the misunderstanding of your use of that quote, and that you meant no offence in using "it". However, in the 21st century, use of singular they is indeed descriptive, not prescriptive. It really has been part of standard English usage for decades. I remember learning of singular they usage in school, which was a long time before the 21st century. Boing! on Tour (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely think that replacing the word 'it' with the word 'you' in that phrase would render it inoffensive, I don't know what to say to you. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey slow down. I was explaining that I paraphrased something wrongly, meaning I am not the original author. I am not justifying being offensive. I will never again mention such a thing. That is a promise above all said in proposal. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

To Girth, as you don't wish to be pinged. I realise that as a person I am on the wrong side of a red line with regards attitudes to people's life choices. I appreciate also that on Wikipedia, the community policies may often be to write things in a way not necessarily universally embraced. This is a case in point. One opens a biographical article for the first time, sees that it is blazoned with "they" whereby in the real world everybody might be saying "she", so this person may hit the edit button to find a mountain of aggressive caveats "XXX does not identify as a woman, so you must use THEY", etc. Now I am happy not to disrupt this policy, though to be honest, I don't really touch those articles. Now in the case of Horse Eye's Back, I believe I can write about such a person and - even in some longwinded way - avoid the need to suggest "him" or "her". Believe me, it is manageable. Solution two: I will use "they", "them", etc for singular but strictly on the proviso that it stops there, i.e. goes no further. I've seen how salami tactics begin: one gives the finger before being told to give the whole hand, then the arm and in the end, one has been incrementally consumed. I can walk away from Wikipedia myself if I am not welcome here, neither with talk page access revoked nor with the ban lifted - or even with the ban lifted for that matter. I don't wish to hang about where I am not welcome, but for seven years this has never been an issue. Now do either of my suggestions sound hope for an official unblock request? --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to police people's beliefs or opinions - I have no mandate to require that our editors adhere to a common set of values. However, if one is going to express a potentially controversial opinion on what they know to be an issue close to many people's hearts, I can think of no good-faith reason why they would choose to do so in such flippant, patronising and vulgar terms.
 * You are welcome to request unblock and I will allow another admin to review it. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request, March 2022
. Yeah I take your point. I meant that and assumed it got through that way. I will make a fresh unblock request and hopefully the next one will include the full details. --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I would strongly recommend reading the Universal Code of Conduct thoroughly, particularly the second section on expected behaviour. While the code has not yet been formally adopted by the community (voting is currently underway), you may find an administrator willing to unblock if you promise to adhere to the expectations described there, particularly those discussing empathy, and respect for people's gender identities and preferred pronouns. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Girth. Yeah I've just gone through the page from top to bottom. Thanks. --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * you seem to have gone out of your way to avoid using the singular they even as you pledge to use it in the future, you even seem to put it in scare quotes much of the time. Do you actually intend to use the singular they or are you going to try to sneak around using it (for example "Now in the case of Horse Eye's Back, I believe I can write about such a person and - even in some longwinded way - avoid the need to suggest "him" or "her".")? Going out of your way to avoid using someone's pronouns is just a soft version of the hard POV pushing you've engaged in. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will refer to people as they in the singular where it is their wish. --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo and PARITY
Sorry to see you are blocked. Obviously I don't know whether you have quietly walked away or whether you don't know yet. In the event that you are in the shallows at the time of my writing and intend to appeal at a later time, please be aware that regarding the Kosovo border issue, it is not a WP:PARITY matter. The policy which supports your position is WP:WEIGHT. The confusion may arise from the concept that we need parity itself. Best wishes and good luck in whatever you decide to do from here on. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . Thank you for the information. You were right. I had not yet registered the block and as you can see, yes I am in the process of discussing it. --Edin balgarin (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh good. Glad to see you didn't abandon the project. I wish you all the best with your appeal for unblock. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

S/He
That is what I write instead of they when I do not know. Hope that helps. 66.103.52.68 (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Anon. --Edin balgarin (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)