User talk:Jingiby/Archive 15

Smile


Turco85 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Be happy! Jingby (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Macedonian "Question"
There is no "Macedonian question" (in the manner you describe it) outside Bulgaria's nationalist circles with extraterritorial ambitions, the same ambitions that have plagued that country since the First Balkan War. I'm afraid you've got your terms mixed up, and your statements lack sense. How? Lets review the facts: From this you draw the erroneous conclusion that this ethnic group were "Bulgarians" in the past. This is like claiming that the Earth was in the center of the universe before Copernicus's day, because most contemporary scientists believed it to be so at the time. Or like claiming that Croats and Serbs were "Illyrians" in the 18th and 19th centuries because that was the contemporary view. Your logic is seriously flawed. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The ethnic group living in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia has lived there for hundreds and hundreds of years.
 * Modern sociological science affirms this ethnic group as a seperate nation.
 * Sociological science did not always hold that view, and in the past mostly described this very same ethnic group as "Bulgarian".


 * The ethnic group living on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia and called Macedonians has lived there for 70 years. The people living on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia has lived there for around 30 000 years. Jingby (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"The ethnic group living on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia and called Macedonians has lived there for 70 years." This sentence defies logic. Quite simply, an "ethnic group" is made out of "people". The "people" of any area constitute an "ethnic group". These are nonsensical word games. Before one can consider reading further about an issue he considers illogical and easily resolved, one must see the point of such exploration. As things stand you've not refuted the simplest of arguments I've presented in my first post. With my above statement standing, a text further exploring the issue can only defy logic and be motivated in that by nationalism. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No more discussion in ths way. This is all! Jingby (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What discussion? I stated my arguments, and you tried in vain to appear "above it all". A discussion is based on presenting and refuting arguments, not ignoring them. (I apologize if I caused you to lose your temper, it's the way I debate. Bear in mind, however, that written text does not convey the tone of the conversation.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh man...
3RR violation. So, what are we going to do with you now? I had the feeling you were editing relatively constructively at some times recently, but this is really a relapse into old bad habits. Perhaps somebody will have to at least reinstate the revert limitation. For now, just a 48-h block, which is mild, given the prior history. And, by the way, the texts you were re-instating are too good English to have been written by you. Where are they from? Plagiarised? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Which texts exactly? Jingby (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * for instance the "Controversy" section you were edit-warring over? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are they from plagiarised? was your question. Which texts? Jingby (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The text you first inserted here . Where did you take that from? My cat senses tell me you didn't write that yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken them from the added refferences, Katze. Jingby (talk)


 * Then that's plagiarism, I'm afraid. Please don't do that. Statements based on sources always need to be rewritten in our own words, both in the interest of maintaining copyright and academic ethics, and in the interest of getting well-written, coherent articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Jingby (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, Special:Contributions:78.83.189.245 had better not have been you. I told you the 48 hrs was a very mild block. Jumping right into the next edit war the minute after it expires, with incivilities on the talk page, is Not A Good Idea™. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

POV
The author of this article is not a person from Macedonia, he is from the States. BTW, do not add pictures from newspapers and not especially where the journalists of NYT are BG. --  MacedonianBoy Oui? 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever read this ONE article. Read again and see the passage: Macedonians and their kinsman in Bulgaria...- KINSMAN means: - person of the same nationality or ethnic group. or A man sharing the same racial, cultural, or national background as another. About the regional and political differences in concordace with NYT article, read: IMRO. About your views read Macedonism. Jingby (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read it. Read it carefully and do not take sentences out of context. Connect it with the other sentences and paragraphs. Your so called bulgariazation of the history will be seen by proofs like this one. And stop offending me, I will talk with admins other wise. --  MacedonianBoy Oui? 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I connect it, I don't see "ethnic Macedonian" and "non-Bulgarian" anywhere. The kinsmen thing is clear evidence that the NYT author considers Macedonians to be a regional group of Bulgarians. What's more, this is in concord with NYT's established practice at the time, which was to recognize the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. You have to be truely ignorant to disregard the dozens of NYT articles that support this. NYT is not a good source for Macedonist claims, it's always on our side ;) Todor→Bozhinov 19:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

FUR on File:Посрещане 1941.jpg
Jingiby, if you are going to insist on using those fascist publications from your favourite nationalist propaganda site, please at least write fair-use rationales that make a bit of sense. The text you copy-pasted is not meant to be a fit-all template that magically creates a valid fair-use rationale if you just paste it in. You are supposed to write a precise, truthful, individual explanation in your own words of why you think this particular image is indispensible (not just useful but indispensible!) for the understanding of this particular article. Right now, the text contains at least two blatant untruths. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This photo is indispensable for me because it shows the Bulgarian Army as greeted from the local population as liberators. De facto this annexation was peacefull and without any resistance. Pro-Bulgarian feelings among the locals still prevailed. For more info, please see:
 * Hugh Poulton, Who are the Macedonians?, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1995. p. 101.;
 * Nationalism and Identity Politics in the Balkans: Greece and the Macedonian Question, by Victor Roudometof, P. 264.;
 * Nationality on the Balkans: The case of Macedonians by F. A. K. Yasamee (Balkans: A Mirror of the New World Order, Istanbul: EREN, 1995; pp. 121-132), Chapter II.

Please, Future lets disuss about it. I am not nationalist, but the historical facts have to be discussed, not deleted and the truth is important for me. It is posible, that I am wrong, but who knows. I apologize about today, regards. Jingby (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable secondary source that says these things, why would you need a photograph purporting to show them? In fact, the secondary source is much more reliable. We all know how easily photographs can be faked, or impressions can be falsified by tendentious choice of them. There are photographs of Iraqis cheering the American occupation forces when they tore down the Saddam statues. Do we cite those as proof for a statement that the occupation of Iraq "was peacefull and without any resistance"? For all we know, those Bulgarian troops in your photograph might have run into an ambush of hostile resistance around the next street corner. Or everybody standing in the street cheering might have been forced to do so or face execution. Now, I actually believe you that was not the case, but the photo as such is worthless as evidence. And anyway, providing "evidence" for this or that isn't what we ought to be doing here. We report what the secondary sources say, and we do so briefly, neutrally, without appealing to emotions, and without artificially inflating the treatment of those facts we happen to like by heaping up more references in their support than needed. (And, please, no non-free images anywhere but in actual articles.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert parole
I have blocked you for violating your 1 revert/48 hour revert parole at Military history of Bulgaria during World War II. As usual, you can request a review by adding below. Kevin (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Jingby (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking
Jingby, the Guide to writing better articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it." Many writers link every instance of an article name, creating an ugly kalaidescope of blue and red in the article. It isn't necessary. I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
 * Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Make only links relevant to the context. In particular, links to ordinary words are not generally appropriate.

OK! Jingby (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

promacedonia.org
Another thing about that promacedonia.org site: you guys have been linking to it very often with the argument it contains not just nationalist propaganda but also hosts mirrors or reliable academic literature. But, about the latter, what makes you think they do so legally? These academic texts would all be copyrighted by commercial publishers elsewhere. Can you point me to some plausible copyright declaration on that site? If not, I'm afraid we'll have to remove these links, since we have a rule of not linking to copyvio third-party sites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I can't provide such copyright declaration. Jingby (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, I'm pretty certain promacedonia.org have not obtained permission from the authors to distribute those works. Since WP:EL says we should not link to material that infringes copyright, I'd think we can still link to the public domain stuff there (e.g. Vasil Kanchov, Lyubomir Miletich, Vasil Zlatarski). But we do have to be more careful if the guidelines don't allow us to link to external copyvios.
 * So in short, I'm OK with removing the copyvio links so long as we can keep the book sources, and I don't see why not ;) The links to promacedonia.org are intended just for the readers' facilitation: you click and you get what you need instead of looking for obscure books in libraries. If we can't do that, we don't do that. Todor→Bozhinov 09:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What about kroraina?  Balkan Fever  09:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh. http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/index.html seems to be in turn a rip-off mirror of promacedonia. I'd say we have the same situation, but as far as the genuinely public-domain titles are concerned, I'd rather see them linked one step up in the copycat food-chain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean a site without a motive?  Balkan Fever  10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess promacedonia (a plain old nationalist propganda site with a clear agenda) is a tad less bad than kroraina (a personal website of some crank). But yeah, you'd think, if these things are genuinely public domain and valuable sources, wouldn't some serious website be hosting them? Actually, now that I think of it, if they are public domain we could just transfer the good ones to wikisource and link to that, couldn't we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To some people (*cough*) a lot of things will look like "good ones". Have fun trying to sort out bg wikisource after you finish with sq wikipedia :)  Balkan Fever  10:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree about the statement that promacedonia is a plain old nationalist propganda site with a clear agenda. Why? Just look at it! For example, which from these articles are propaganda:


 * Macedonia: Its races and their future, H. Brailsford (1906)
 * The Balkans from within, R. Wyon  (1904)
 * Extracts from the memoirs of Hristo Shaldev, Macedonian revolutionary (1876-1962) Macedonian Patriotic Organization "TA", Australia
 * Trouble in the Balkans J. Booth, 1905
 * Pictures from the Balkans J. Fraser (1912)
 * REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION To Inquire into the causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars Carnegie Endowment for International peace, 1914
 * THE STORY OF THE SALONICA ARMY N. Ward Price
 * THE IDEALS OF ILINDEN: USES OF MEMORY AND NATIONALISM IN SOCIALIST MACEDONIA James Krapfl
 * NATIONALITY IN THE BALKANS: THE CASE OF THE MACEDONIANS F. A. K. Yasamee
 * COME OVER INTO MACEDONIA. The story of a ten-year adventure in uplifting a war-torn people Harold Allen, 1943
 * Buffer states of the Balkans Harry Gregson (1940)
 * Edith Durham - "Queen of the Highlanders" Charles King, TLS, 04.08.2000
 * "The past is ours. Images of Greek Macedonia", Kostas Kotsakis; "Contests of heritage and the politics of preservation in the FYROM", K. S. Brown;
 * "Bulgarian archaeology. Ideology, sociopolitics and the exotic", D. Bailey
 * RESIDENCE IN BULGARIA S.St. Clair, and Charles A. Brophy (1869)
 * NATIONAL MINORITIES IN EASTERN EUROPE, 1848-1945 Raymond Pearson Jingby (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting
Like presumably many other editors, I don't particularly like it when people revert my edits without even a hint of a rationale. Especially when it's again, for the umpteenth time, in breach of their revert parole. Well, I was going to ask for a lengthening of the sanctions anyway, so here goes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, really. This was imprudence. Sorry! Jingby (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think we should do here, Jingby? You're under a restriction, which you presumably understand, and yet you break it. I see little point in another 1 or 2 week block, because you will just start over when it expires. And I see little point also in extending your revert parole, since you do not respect it. This leaves me with the option of an extended block, or a total ban from WP:ARBMAC articles for a period of time. Fut.Perf. suggests that you are capable of editing usefully, so neither of the last 2 options are appealing to me either, but I feel that there is no choice at this point. What do you have to say about it? Kevin (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This time my act was really unpremeditated. This is all, I can say. Jingby (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I extend your revert parole for another 6 months you'll make a greater effort to abide by it? That would seem like the best solution. Kevin (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, I think though about some more realistic methods. For example 2 reverts for 24 howers, or something similar to avoid such stupid unpremeditated mistakes? Jingby (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think lightening your restriction because you broke it is a suitable solution. I think that at the very least you need to be much more careful in abiding by your restrictions, and I need to see a commitment to do so from you. Kevin (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What I personally would really like to see, and I think could actually help you if you took it to heart, is that rule I initially imposed: never make a revert immediately. Always first post to the talk page, then wait for discussion, several hours. That's something you can easily make a habit of, without restricting you unnecessarily when you have some legitimate point to make. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I must to be really very careful if I wont to be an editor here. Jingby (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What I want to see is a statement from you that you will commit to abiding by your editing restrictions, whether it is an extension of your current parole, or Fut.Perf's alternative. If you can commit to one of these then you can go on, but if you are not willing to make that commitment then I will be forced to prevent you from editing these articles altogether. Kevin (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, just for clarification, that waiting time rule was in fact part of the existing revert parole already, so this isn't necessarily meant as an either-or. The wording in the ARBMAC log was: "1r/48h, for 6 months, required to precede all reverts by talk page explanation + 3 hours waiting time to allow for discussion". If you decide to reimpose something, you're of course welcome to tweak as you see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is heavy to me, but I promise to respect strictly all my restrictions. I have said all. Jingby (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, your existing WP:ARBMAC revert parole is extended for a further 6 months from today. The conditions of your revert parole are that you may only make 1 revert per 48 hours, and that revert is to be preceded by at least 3 hours with a talk page explanation. These are the same conditions that you have already been under. I will caution you that any breach of this parole will be met with an initial block of 2 weeks, and further violations will receive longer blocks. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask at my talk page. Kevin (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No questions. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Малка версия на герба
Здрасти видях че си използвал т.нар. малка версия на герба. Тя обаче не е официална и не следва да се използва за друга цел освен илюстративна във статиите за герба. --Scroch (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Еми добре! Jingby (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chart Костурско
Greetings! Your chart for the "Slavic" dialects of Greece is an excellent idea, because it shows they are more closely related to Bulgarian than to the Skopie norm. As a native speaker of the Kostur region, I noticed some errors which I have attempted to fix. Please do not interpret this as a personal attack and keep up the good work.Kostolata (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Kostolata


 * Oh please, like it was his. Anyway that "Skopje norm" includes the Kosturski govor. PMK1 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavic/Greece
I see you've been working on a linguistic features list at Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. Don't you think that content had better go into Slavic dialects of Greece? Since these two articles are still separate, one of them should deal with the historical-sociological-political issues, and one with the linguistic description, don't you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wright. It would be better it go into the Slavic dialects of Greece Jingby (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverts...
See WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
For violating your revert parole as documented at Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement, I have blocked you for two weeks.  MBisanz  talk 10:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK! Jingby (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Grecomans
My objections, mainly are about the use of the term. Because mainly it is used for all non-Greek-speaking Greeks of Balkans. But most of them are of real Greek origin, such as most of the slavophones, most of Aromanians and most of Arvanites. Maybe some of them are not of Greek origin but this is a minority. So, I think you should change the expression for the use of the term. It should be: for all non-Greek speaking Greeks of Balkans (either of Greek or non-Greek origin).Pyraechmes (talk)Chrusts 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, provide reference about your hypothesis. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Jingiby, I have no time to have a look at the situation over at Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, but It seems that an ad hoc POV team has tried to remove the Human Rights Section. What is your opinion on this? PMK1 (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your move of Macedonian Bulgarians
We currently have an Arbcom injunction that we shouldn't be moving Macedonia-related pages. Your move of Macedonian Bulgarians would violate that injunction. I personally don't find it a bad idea at all, at first sight, but could you nevertheless self-revert for now, just to avoid trouble? Thank you, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No problems. The both descriptions are equal. Jingby (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Future, if it is necessary, or a problem, I am going to revert it back? Jingby (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it would be better, just to avoid more fuss. We can still decide on the best title later on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem?
First of all, if you want to enter into conversation with someone, please, avoid using any derogatory term in order to disqualify the opponent - when supporting your point of view. I changed the text based on the reference used to support the introductory paragraph and based on numerous quotes about this (IMRO) organization - as seen on the talk pages. --138.88.103.233 (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Award
Thank you very much Gligan ! Jingby (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

G.H.o. S.S
No, I haven't forgotten. I have been doing some other things. When I finish the article on Europe, I will do one spcifically for Slavs Hxseek (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian connection?
It's all very interesting. Do you know what the origin is for the name Bogdan?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Pjetër Bogdani's father was Bishop of Skopje. --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Old Church Slavonic word for God - Бог (Bog) and "dan" maybe from "dar" (present) - present from God.-- L a v e o l  T 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby
Bulgarians had their first state VI BC in Pamir / Hindukush. These are the facts. They had been fighting out nomadic tribes attacing their state. So please keep the text as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gergana30 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jingy
Dear Jingy, spend your time on other things than deleting valuable content from the Bulgarian article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gergana30 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Прашање
Се прашувам како само ти си добил право на заклучена страна за Македонија да бидеш едитор. Не ме занима колку артикли имаш напишано и какви се ѕвезди имаш добиено. И после светот ќе мисли дека податоците напишани од бугари и грци се релевантни. Зашто тогаш јас да не бидам едитор на Бугарската или Грчката официјална страна? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragan.milcevski (talk • contribs) 07:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

JINGIBY
Please stop telling people such as Gergana to not be involved in edit wars where the three revert rule comes into consideration. After all, you are a user that has been banned from editing countless times. One time you were banned for months and it looks like due to your constant POV, vandalism and prejudiced comments regarding various ehtnicities soon you will be banned again. Due to your history on wikipedia next time you are banned may be for a far longer period than you've experienced thus far. Don't say you weren't warned.--Monshuai (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article
As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting my coments, Wiki is not the regime are used to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia&diff=300768704&oldid=300768101 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia&diff=300765619&oldid=300764551 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.169.57 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub Saharan DNA
Hi. I saw this edit. Your doubts about the relevance of this material makes it interesting to ask your opinion about whether anything in that Wikipedia article is really clearly relevant and sourced. I've raised some issues on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am already tyred to fight against all the POVs there. Regards. Jingby (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder of WP:ARBMAC
I've noticed that you've been edit-warring on Bulgarians; you are already aware that all Balkans-related articles are subject to the Arbitration committee ruling at WP:ARBMAC, which states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision."

Any further edit-warring will lead to sanctions being imposed on your account. Please see our dispute resolution suggestions for alternative ways to handle content disputes. EyeSerene talk 08:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Jingby (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
It has been brought to my attention that your recent reverts on Bulgarians were in contravention of your current revert parole. I have accordingly blocked you for two weeks, per your agreed conditions. Sanction recorded at WP:ARBMAC. EyeSerene talk 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Genetic History of Europe
I see you have tangled with Small Victory, good luck with that. In placing the tags please move then directly underneath the section head, or the higher tier section head or at the top of the lead. I moved the section heads on the section I think you intended them to be under, if this is not correct you can move them under the SSA head.PB666 yap 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Also if you would like to organize the frequencies into a table I can help with that.PB666 yap 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jingby (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thrace
Please use the article's talk page if you would like to make any edit which contradicts the given references regarding the meaning of the word "Thrace" throughout the ages. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians or Bulgarians
I see that you are suggesting in several articles that Slavs in Greece are Bulgarians. You may be right in many case, but I am afraid such initiatives as the Voivodship of Macedonia and certain VMRO plans were purely Macedonian and it is not adequate saying just Slavic or even removing the Macedonian. Thanks for your understanding. --Aleksveliki (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

България
Абе човеко какъв вандализъм, какво чудо. Меп-а в статията за Greater Bulgaria не отговаря на българската статия "Българско землище", спрете се да добавяте тези мепове. След като обсъдихме накратко с друг потребител на нашата уикипедия се разбрахме, че меповете не съвпадат и е било грешка да се добавят (аз ги бях добавил). Надявам се, че вече ще е ясно и че няма да има повторения--Ilikeliljon (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian nationalism
Hello there. Where's the bibliographical info of the source for your contribution here? Please add it. Cheers, Z.B. 94.69.127.115 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources about. I have added some of them in the article. Regards. Jingby (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of Europe
I know that you disagree with some of my edits. However, I have not seen any significant discussion from you concerning your disagreements. Unfortunately comments such as "fringe" and "Afrocentric" are too simplistic to explain a complex controversy and as a result they are not helpful. It would be great if you could articulate exactly what you disagree with. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would appeal to you to be more neutral by editing. Europeans care E-V13 and E-M81 in their DNA database and it is not a reliable source attributing those markers to Sub-Saharan Africa. Please, do not ignore the facts trough quoting older studies before E3b's origins and developments were detail researched. Regards. Jingby (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that these markers may have originated in Eurasia or North Africa. However they are still part of the expansion of e3b from Sub-Saharan Africa. The presence of new mutations occurred doesn't change the fact that E-V13 can trace its roots to Sub-Saharan Africa towards the end of the pleistocene. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

They did originate outside Sub-Saharan Africa and this is fact. Also they aren'n Sub-Saharan influence, because despite their early origin is formally East African, they arose in an area insulated from the typical Sub-Saharan influence trough high mountains and arid climate. Jingby (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to Brace et al 2005 and Ricaut et al 2006 who report sub-saharan influences in the levant. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mieczysław Domaradzki
Thank you for this info. Jingby (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohrid
Jingiby ... Please explain to your friend StanProg or something that there is a reliable source for Macedonian Jerusalem and write a concensus version on the article ... where will be the Bulgarian and the Macedonian Jerusalem... please done something I am bored with pushing on it anymore... and about the Balkan Jerusalem ok .. if the source is bad... greetigns 1111tomica (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonist
''Macedonist is a scientific term, not an insult. The term has been used to describe persons, which behavior is in concordance with the Republic of Macedonia's dominant official state doctrine, which is now current. The term is also used in an apologetic sense by some Macedonian authors''

You are not informed. Macedonist is a person that studies the Macedonian language (in Macedonia and in the world) and an insult in BG.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that Macedonistics (Македонистика) is a term, generally synonymous with disciplines such as study of the origins and developmeof the Macedonian language. Jingby (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I somehow doubt "Makedonista!!" is a very frequent swear-word in Belgrade? :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 07:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Music of Macedonia
Hi, please check if I got this section right. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 09:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not shure. Jingby (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, maybe that page should be made it would be better to make that page a disambiguation page. After all, it hardly has any content at all... Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a disambiguation page would be better solution. Jingby (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian language
Thanks for the message. I don't disagree with your edit btw, just trying to keep it simple and hopefully stable. Cheers Antipastor (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF ?


Your edits are verging on the insane, even by Balkan standards. Calling my edit "Macedonist" is ludicrous given that nowhere have I mentioned anything about a Macedonian ethnicity, or the like. The edit merely clarifies that "Bulgarian" did not mean the exact same thing as it does now, it did not possess the 'emotive' connotations it does today - as typified 100% by your irrational counter-edits which amount to nothing but the rants of a .. . .(I'll refrain from a WP:PA). Maybe you need talk to someone ? Hxseek (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never claimed you are macedonist and I am shure you are not. Jingby (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to stop with the unbelievably ridiculous terms like "Macedonist", and calm down with the Bulgarian irredentism. Macedonians are an ethnicity, they always have been. This is the view of the entire scientific community. Deal with it. You're becoming famous for calling everyone a "macedonist", and in a comic way too. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is your POV. Jingby (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No this is not "my POV". Don't be silly. Am I a "macedonist" too? How about almost every single anthropologist in the scientific community? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for sharing your opinion. However, my view is different. Jingby (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat this again. I know you don't like it, but this is not "my opinion". This is a scientifically established fact, supported by the modern mainstream scientific community at large. In other words, my statement is a scientifically proven fact (anthropology is a science, you know). To deny such standing scientific facts is very much like Creationism. If I were to say we all evolved, you could just as easily say that's "my opinion" and that "yours is different". It is not an "opinion", no matter how many times you repeat that.


 * You may not like all this, of course, but that's your problem - calm down with the aggressive Bulgarian irredentism. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not my problem, but my opinion. If you have problems, here is not a place to solve them. Thank you! End of report. Jingby (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * RE:"This is not my problem, but my opinion."
 * Yes, I agree, this is nothing more than your opinion, an opinion that goes against scientifically established facts.
 * RE:"If you have problems, here is not a place to solve them."
 * I do not have "problems". I'm trying to impress upon you the fact that these scientific facts are not debatable, in order to persuade you to at least curb your aggressive editing on Wikipedia.


 * These are not two conflicting opinions. This is science vs. your opinion. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a year
The outstanding WP:LAME at Orpheus is the final straw in several years of revert-warring and nationalistic disruptive editing. Accordingly, per WP:ARBMAC I have banned you for a year. You are able to appeal this sanction to WP:AN, by leaving your appeal here and using helpme to have somebody copy it over to there, or to the arbitration committee. Moreschi (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I protest and say that a one year block seems to be rather strict. Can he have a punishment, which fits the crime? May I suggest a 3 month ban please? IJA (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Help Request
Please, explain what I have do wrong at Orpheus, providing a lot of references about his origin and the role he had played in Thracian life. This ban is asymetric, if there was any disruptive edit here. I hope this is just a mistake. Jingby (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Jingiby! Wp:ARBMAC says that you have been blocked for a year because of the following reason: "WP:LAME trolling at Orpheus the final straw in many years of revert-warring and nationalistic disruptive editing." It means that you have been edit warring a lot. See WP:WAR for the explanation about it. I have also seen that you have been blocked previously for 3 revert rule. See WP:3RR. To contest the block, either place here, on your talk page or join  with this. Also, Many of your edits have been reverted: 1, 2, 3, etc.


 * I hope this gives you some idea of how things work. For more help, you can either;


 * either contact me directly by leaving a message on my own talk page;
 * Use a - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put , and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~ at the end;
 * Talk to us live, with this or this.
 * You can also contact me live with this.


 * Best wishes, -- Srin  ivas  11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that had done a mistake but he has reverted it himself. So, that edit is not taken into consideration. Whereas your edits were reverted by somebody else, so they are taken into consideration.  Srin  ivas  11:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to the E-mail: I will surely help you Jingby. But please, you must talk to me for that: Join with this.  Srin  ivas  11:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not the guy that kicks someone when he's down, but User:Jingby most certainly is a hardcore Bulgarian nationalist and irredentist. The kind that considers entire nations (like ethnic Macedonians) to be non-existent and instead "Bulgarians in disguise", or whatever. Its his opinion, of course, but he has been strongly pushing in that direction with his edits. He considers everyone who tries to oppose this kind of editing a "Macedonist", and has obviously revealed with his posts that he is a likely proponent of a "Greater Bulgaria" that rightfully includes Macedonia ("Macedonism will be dead!").


 * In my honest opinion, this "brand" of nationalism is usually deeply rooted, and such things do not change easily. All I'm saying is please make sure this kind of behavior does not continue before unblocking the fellow. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, Macedonians are not existing! My opinion? Any proves? Jingby (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Proof? Are you kidding? Here you go (after 2 mins). You consider Macedonians to be a Comintern invention. To you "Macedonism" means "support for Macedonian independence" (both in ethnic and political terms), and you are obviously opposed to "Macedonism". Now I know you'll try to deny this now, but I think it would serve you better to try and convince the Admins you will stop with the, frankly outrageous, POV-pushing (however utterly unconvincing that would sound imho). --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Of corse. The articles about the problem claim the same. But this is something different then: Macedonians are not existing. Yes they are! Jingby (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you to read WP:WAR and WP:3RR and read all the Help pages and then pledge that you will not do anything against the wikipedia guidelines and policies on your talk. Then will I request an admin whom I know to review the unblock request. Srin  ivas  12:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I do not claim I did anything against the wikipedia guidelines, but I state that my sanction is asymetric to my violation today. For all my older violations I had been sanctioned. It is ridiculos one editor to be sanctioned for one and the same, i.e. old, violation for a second or for a third time. This idea contradicts to the main principles of the modern law and to the rule of positive prescription. Jingby (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "In my honest opinion, this 'brand' of nationalism is usually deeply rooted, and such things do not change easily." -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, I responded to your words on the talk page. For the record the Bulgars and Bulgarians are not completely different people, but almost the same(the other part of the Bulgarians being Thracian and only one percent at the most Slavic),I explained it there, go take a look.41.132.116.121 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Jingby.

In response to the balhara article - Dobrev is actually a historian, he has a doctorate and is a senior research fellow( he is Dr Peter Dobrev). I made sure to check up on that and also to read on wikipedia about the sources etc(rules) so I did my homework before I made those edits. I disagree with you saying that the official state government website of the sole superpower in the world - the richest and most technologically developed country in the world, is not a valid source - don't you think they would have consulted many scientists, historians and researchers when writing international pages (on different countries) - being the richest and most developed country ever I would think so, even more so being a governmetn website (which is official). When writing about the date - I did not mean to sound objective or prove a fact etc, I merely added more research to contribute to making the page better and adding more info. Whats wrong with that statement staying there? I specifically wrote that 1 person (not others, more) said that - Dr Dobrev, so that it doesnt sounf objective or one sided (or I would have then said "historians say 12 century etc etc). And my other source is a scientific and historical research centre, so I disagree that it is not a valid source. Please don't be difficult in this, all I tried to do was add more info.

P.S - sorry for double, tried to remove it but it wont allow me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.1.179 (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Kind Regards

Hi, please read how to identify reliable sources. Regards. Jingby (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD
I just nominated Articles for deletion/Grecomans. -Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Macedonian Federative Organization


A tag has been placed on Macedonian Federative Organization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is in process of creation and I am going to rework and expand it, so hold on for a while, please. Jingby (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't "rework" it. A copyright violation cannot be healed by just rewording the sentences here and there. The only clean solution is to remove the material completely and start writing from scratch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean the same what you think. However this story could not be totally rewritten. It is already in the past. Jingby (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel you are unable to state a historical account completely in your own words simply because it is "already in the past", then you should refrain from editing all history topics altogether. Leave it to others who have that capacity. Seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

reverts

 * i explained the edits as much as i could for you to understand. knowing the 3rr i'll come back tomorrow ;). history revisions must be neutral non-biased and not Bulgarian property. i know that history is being written by the winers but there is something else in between the lines, the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.86.194 (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, by "nowing the 3rr i'll come back tomorrow" do you actually mean you will just come back and continue the edit war on the next day. That's quite the battlefield mentality. Why not trying the talk page instead? -- L a v e o l  T 09:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * quite or is? since you deleted my explained edits i can say that your mentality is battlefield like. i know how it works. you report me to the higher ranking admins for some hypocritical reason like vandalism or hoax or battlefield or edit war etc. my statement is not battlefield mentality, it's pure patience, like when you go fishing ;) some things need to be resolved in a civilized manner and not with blocking or reverting or reporting. i know that there are much more Bulgarians than Macedonians on Wikipedia but that's not how it should be done.c ya ;)

Bulgarians
Please take a look at the discussion page instead of reverting. Thanks.Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dina Stanisheva
Hello. Can you give me good reference about Dina Stanisheva? I need it for the Macedonian version and later on I will try to translate the whole list in English.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, read the note I left you on your talk page in Macedonian Wikipedia Jingby (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll use it. BTW I can make a small article out of that and you can make a Bulgarian one as well, if you like. Reg.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have written an article about this person in Bulgarian Wikipedia: Дина Станишева. Jingby (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

POV? Vandalsim??
How are my edits POV?, when first of all - most Bulgarians DO NOT see themselves as Slavic (so majority agrees with me), and second of all - science (not speculation and fringe theories) were used to produce the DNA evidence and on top of that there were two sources - which comply with wiki rules - I checked. I am adamant in adding this as Bulgarians have a right to know the latest genetic research of their race - it is fair that they should be aware of this research, don't you think - so please explain to me how it is POV - perhaps you are using POV by ignoring 2 compliant sources and by ignoring genetic evidence - when one uses their logic here then it looks like you are using POV, not me - I backed up my statement with 2 sources and like I said, many, many Bulgarians do not consider themselves Slavic. It seems shameful that this information and DNA evidence seems to be hated - a lot of Bulgarians and people in general might not be aware of this genetic research at the moment as it is still recent - so reading it on wikipedia - which is free and very easy to access, seems like a good place to read up on this stuff - so back to my other point - it should remain here so that Bulgarians can read it and then know more sides of the story - they have a right to know about the research that is going on about their race - it is only fair!

It seems quite selfish, shameful really, that you should try to hide this from wikipedia, thus removing any chance that a Bulgarian would read it - thus taking away a basic right to know more about their race - and then to use the excuse that it is POV (POV is a very sensitive issue on wiki, so if someone uses it in an argument they gain an unfair advantage a lot of the time), just because you don't agree with it. It is ridiculous to hide this and remove the right of people to know about it and to know more sides of the story {one side of the story - like you are trying to convey (even more so by ignoring the DNA evidence - which by the way is taken so seriously that it is used to identify criminals etc which determines if a person goes to jail or not) is actually POV, while NPOV is writing about the other side of the story as well - in this case - the genetic research}. I don't know if you are ware, but the fact is many, many Bulgarians consider the Slavic theory to be ridiculous and do not consider themselves Slavic at all, and in that regard also: including one side but not the other side of the story - only supports one view (that they are Slavic) while there is prejudice against another - POV.

I simply just don't see what is hard to understand - the DNA evidence clearly shows that modern Bulgarians are not Slavs - why do you ignore that and say I push a POV - that is a highly unfair and unjust accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is not a forum, but encyclopedia. Please, read Wikipedia rules about original research and reliable sources. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Jingby (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, and all due respect, canyou go read the wiki rules and see what are compliant sources. I checked well, and it turns out that the source from novinite.com is perfectly acceptable. And please go read the section (forgot exactly which one, but you will find it) where it says that all significant viewpoint have to be mentioned in an article for it to be neutral (and it surely is significant if there is genetic evidence and also id a lot of Bulgarians identify themselves as non Slavic). i dont see what the problem is here - I have read the rules and am respecting them by adding all signifiant viewpoints - what is wrong with that. You just say, abruptly, that I use "extreme POV and fringe theories", but how is it POV, and let alone extreme, if I abide to the wiki rules by adding all viewpoints, plus adding source to boot. And how is is fringe theories if there is genetic evidence and if many Bulgarians identify themselves as non Slavic (if no Bulgarians identified themselves as non Slavic and if only one person opposed the slavic theory, then yes - it will be fringe, but that is not the case here). It seems that you don't have any argument to back up your claims of me using POV and that it is a fringe theory - your response to my edit is just immediate revert, with no discussion, or understanding of what I am saying, plus you give no explanations or reasons (you just say extreme POV and fringe theories) - a behavior which is not rational or appropriate (it seems you just oppose all views but your own, and very strongly at that, you just want to have one viewpoint in the article, which actually goes against the rules - who is using POV now?) - from your behavior it seems that you have some prejudices to other viewpoints and theories, to such a degree that you revert it abruptly without any discussion or understanding - all of this is not right, I think, for a wikipedia editor. And by the way I know that this is not a forum, no kidding, i was simply explaining my what I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Novinite.com is not a reliable source for DNA-study. Please, check again. Jingby (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

i did check time and time again, it says in wikirules that you can use a well known newspaper as a source. If you hate this so much then why dont you phone the team who did it and get further clarification, talk to them etc and then come back and discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what I wrote to Todor - it is absolutely valid for you as well, and please reasd it, to understand my views. Also you have not ONCE explained how, what I am doing, is vandalism, but I can explain how what you are doing is vandalsim, if you read the following below. You keep calling me a vandal (without explaining and backing up that statement) - something to which I, as any respectful editor on wiki, takes great offence - offending someone on wikipedia is not acceptable. And how am i a vandal (something which, it seems, you cannot explain) when I follow all of wikiepdia's rules, especially the neutrality one. By pushing your POV (that is: putting only one view instead of all significant views - significant because it is backed up by genetic research (read more on it below) and because many Bulgarians do not consider themselves as slavic) and failing to aknow;edge another view, which is significant and is backed up by sources - here is a more complete and detailed source, with slightly more info http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903) you are disrespecting wikipedia's rules, as simple as that, and ruining this article. I simply cannot fathom why it is so hard for you to understand other views - failure to aknowledge other significant views, especially when they are backed up by compliant sources, and deleting those sources and also completely erasing that view from an article is what really constitutes vandalism, I am sure anyone would agree here. I am sick of you calling me a vandal when you do not explain yourself properly - on why I am a vandal. if you read below you would see why i am not a vandal at all, please read below.

Hi I have noted and read the past edits and comments between Kreuzkümmel and you on Bulgarians article - and I must say i am appalled at the fact that on your comment you said "such edits are NOT welcome" - what gives you the right to say what is welcome on the article? - maybe it is not welcome for you, but for others it is welcome - you cant just speak out like that for everyone. I see and understand that he was trying to say that Bulgarians are not Slavic ethnically but culturally in terms of language. Now I dont know if you are even part of Bulgarian society, because if you are then you would have been aware that a lot ( a high number) of Bulgarians don't see themselves as Slavic at all - so tell me then why such edits are NOT welcome - in that sense you are then going against a major opinion of the Bulgarians themselves (those that dont consider themselves Slavic). If you had looked yourself in the mirror more often and actually had taken notice, then you would have seen that Bulgarians dont even look like Slavs - even in the wiki articles it says that Bulgarian "slavs" look quite different to the rest of the slavs - gee, I wonder why, It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand why, all it actually takes is common sense and logic - proper rational thought. Now to my next point - I don't know if you are even aware, but there was a scientific Bulgarian expedition, Tangra, that collected DNA data from Pamirian/Iranic people last year (there were only scientists and doctors in the team, no kooks, speculators or anything like that) and they concluded, after analyzing all the DNA data ( a scientific, not fringe process) that modern day Bulgarians are very far from Slavs, genetically, and very close to Iranic/Pamirian peoples, genetically. DNA evidence is not some crack pot thing - it is a very serious study and discipline which is used by forensic pathologists (doctors - who are very respected and are scientists) for many reasons - such as to identify ancestry, to identify a murderer (which lead to a decision whether a person goes to jail or not, so it is very important and DNA science is taken seriously). Read about it here: http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians and http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 I just don't see what is difficult to understand here - DNA evidence simply shows that the Bulgarians are not Slavs (which would explain why, in the wiki articles, it says they are different in terms of genetic from other Slavs, and which would also explain why Bulgarians simply do not look Slavic). It seems you are basing your argument not on reasoning, interpretation of data and rational thought, but on some prejudices that you might have, who knows. The fact that you said such edits are not welcomed on wikipedia, indicates (perhaps clearly) that you are not willing to listen and understand other sides of the story, but only know and believe your opinion to such an extent that if anyone says something contrary to what you think, then you say that edit is not welcomed - all this indicates that you have a firm POV, not NPOV, because if you had NPOV, then you would allow the other side of the story to be on the article and would have allowed (and not resisted) that edit to be read by Bulgarians themselves who might stumble onto this page - Bulgarians who have a basic right to know all the research that is happening on their racial identity. What you seem to like doing is you want to hide this and keep it way from any Bulgarian who might read something like this - so you are in effect, forcing them to read and understand only one theory (of their origins/reace etc) in this article (which is POV according to the wiki rule page which by the way I read - it says all relevant major viewpoints and theories must be mentioned to be NPOV, if it is not done that way then it is simply POV), instead of adding all relevant (sourced) viewpointw that deal with the topic - i.e: adding the sourced info that talks about the 2010 DNA research (the two sources, after checking the wiki rule pages, actually comply as proper sources). Basically what I am saying is that if you only include one theory (that they are Slavic), you are then removing the basic right of Bulgarians (who might read this) to see and read all the viewpoints, instead of just one, which is very unfair and if it removed over and over - then it is simply shameful. For this article to be fair to all viewpoints (especially if they are backed up by DNA research and compliant sources) need to be mentioned - NPOV, not just one (that they are Slavs), otherwise it will be POV. thank you for reading and hopefully understanding Kind Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

what vandalismI am quite frankly getting sick and tired of your nonsense - you insult me (bad behaviour in wiki) by saying my edits are vandalism - let me tell you what vandalism is - "On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or other modification of the text or other material that is either humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, spam or promotion of a subject, or that is of an offensive, humiliating, or otherwise degrading nature." None of what I am doing constitues that - my edits are neither humerous, nonsensical (as I use sourced DNA information to back my statement - by the way if a theory is backed up by DNA evidence it immediately becomes a significant view anyway - it seems, according to you, that DNA is useless, as you are ignoring it and never commenting on it; but how can it be useless if it is used in medicine and forensics - which are two very respected fields and are so important that they decide if a person is prosecuted or not). I have tried to reason with you and show you the wiki ruels of neutrality (and ignore all rules rule, if it goes agains common sense), but you dont seem to want to cooperate an d insult me by saying my edits constitute vandalism - never once did you actually stop and properly explain how what i am doing is apperently wrong (you never once explained how my edits constitute vandalism) while I explained, clearly, what you are doing is wrong - you seem to be a ultra nationalist of the slavic theory (inmy opinion, no offence), and I cant fathom why, since in the article itself it says the DNA of the "slavic" Bulgarians is seperetated from the tight cluster of other slavic peoples, yet you still cling to this theory so much that you are not willing to listen and rationally examin other viewpoints (which are pretty significant if DNA research backs them up) - a behaviour, which I am sure everyone will agree, is not acceptable on wikipedia - let me summarise - I have explained my rational thoughts on the mattr plus I explained how what you are doing is wrong - but you have not done any of those things. Let me ask you again (before you call me a vandal unjustly gain) - how is my theory a fringe theory (and it is not kust my theory) when I have compliant sources with DNA research to back up my statements (need I reming you of the respect that DNA research gets in medicne and forensics), and on top of that - many Bulgarians do not see themselves as slavic - so I do not see the sense why you people (who are just 3 people it seems) continue to push a theory that goes against what a lot of people believe and more importantly, a theory that goes against DNA research. True, the slavic theory is a significant viewpoint, but there is another one too, which you guys unjustly remove without proper explanations on why you are doing so (after all it just follows the wikipedia neutrality rules, so I simply just cannot understand why you guys are doing it) and then you call me a vandal - how is that, in any way, fair? And to make the matter more confusing, all that you are doing all the time is just calling me a vandal, POV, vandal, POV, without ever discussing the ppoints I made - to any rational person it would seem that the behaviour you are displaying is senseless. I am not looking for any fights here or any arguments, neither do I like to "vandalise" pages, I have never done that and get irritated when people doing (by adding insults, crude humour, blanking etc). I am not that type of person who you seem to think I am. I am just following the good order of things and tryong to make the page better, while you just call me a vandal the whole time, never properly explaining anything, and then you people say that I go against editor concensus - what consencus when I am an editor and I dont agree, neither do other people it seems. I have not, so far (and am not planning to), gone against any wikipedia rules, but you people seem to be going against them, when you remove sourced info of a significant viewpont (I have already explained how it is significant and not fringe) and when you do not, even briefly, aknowledge special genetic research that was done on the matter. I ask you - if youare so againt this (as it would surely seem) why dont yougo phone the team that did the research, talk to them and have a discussion about the whole matter and then come back to discuss here. As a matter of fact it would seem that you have not even read the sources (everyone in the team, by the way, was a scientist or a doctor, who are scientist anyway). I do not undertsand why you just dont understand what I am saying - it is not fair, and goes against the rules, to only add and push one viewpoint as you are doing, and ignore the others - ignoring other research and scientific viewpoints can lead to scientific inncacuracy and can lead to many unwanted mistakes in the future

Read this again: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903 It is an updated page that contains more info.

PLUS READ ALL MY COMMENTS ON THE EDITS

If after all this you still think that i am a vandal, then (in my opinion) you don't belong in wikipedia, especially if you offend people with no just reason (by not explaing yourself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide reliable, scientific, secondary University sources in English language supporting your extreme views. News on IT free-site in Bulgaria are nothing, but a reliable reference. Stop blind reverds. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)