User talk:Jingiby/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Oh my word?

Are you slow??Or are you trying to be slow? HOW MANY TIMES must I say to you (I am sick of it now) that my sources are COMPLIANT to wikipedia, did you get that? I said COMPLIANT, COMPLIANT, COMPLIANT, I will say it again: COMPLIANT. Now do you finally understand that my sources are fine. Oh my word - you do it again, another statement without an explanation: "blind revert" - a senseless statement as I have just put in a massive effort of explaining to you why they are not blind, and you still think my edits constitute vandalism. I have now grabbed my hair in frustration and awe on how you can still say these things without EXPLAINING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they arn't. Fullstop. Jingby (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There you go again - you say my revert is a "blind one" - I have JUST PUT IN A MASSIVE EFFORT OF EXPLAINING TO YOU why they cannot possibly be blind and you still think my edits constitute vandalsim - I am now in awe and in shock at how you can possibly say that after you have just read what I had to say. I am also SICK AND TIRED FOR EXPLAINING FOR THE 20TH TIME THAT MY SOURCES ARE COMLIANT, compliant, compliant - I will say it another five times so that it can go into your head - compliant, compliant, compliant, complaint, compliant - did you get that???? I said my sources are compliant, compliant.

I have read the wiki rules and made sure that a newspaper article (from a MAJOR newspaper by the way) is a compliant source - you just dont seem to understand that do you, nowhere does it say you JUST have to use university sources and nothing else, does it now?

By the way, in the Bulgarian article of Bulgarians, it says in the lede that they are a Balkan people 0 you left it like that there so why are you so adament in saying that they are slavic, and in the process ignoring wikipedia's rules? In general (in my opinion), it seems you are a hypocrite - you hate vandalism and try to remove it from various articles(something I respect), but in this case (in my opinion) you seem to be doing it yourself? What gives Jingiby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You know that by saying "no, they arent. Fullstop" that you really look like an uncooperative person, who knows and firmly stands by his belief and his belief only. Yet again you dont explain yourself in this whole argument - you just respond with one sentence replies all the time - looks to me like childish behaviour. To someone who just comes (from the outside, and looks at the argument for the first time randomly) and who might view the whole argument so far - it can look like you are very uncooperative and not willing to aknowledge other views. in essence, from the outside, if someone were to view everything so far, it would seem that your, not mine, behaviour is unnaceptable and constitutes vandalsim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians

Please direct your attention here. Cheers, m.o.p 02:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Krste Misirkov

Can you tell me which one of these Кръсте/Кръстю/Кръстьо is the most often used in Bulgaria? It is a bit odd to have all three there. My proposal is to put only the most often Bulgarian variant of the name, which I assume is Кръсте. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That thought of Misirkov, where I can read it? I would like to check it.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby, thanks for the link but as far as I understood Bugarian,

Но ето, че се раздават викове на самите македонци: ние сме българи, повече българи от самите българи в България... Вий сте могли да победите България, да и наложите каквито си щете договори, но с това не се изменя нашето убеждение, нашето съзнание, че вий не сме сърби, че ний досега сме се казвали българи, тъй се казваме и днес и така искаме да се казваме и в бъдеще.

this is not Misirkov's statement. It is paraphrasing of what might the Macedonians said. I would like to remove it. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality in speech

You know that it is against the rules of Wikipedia to spread irredentism of this kind: "Macedonian language did not exist". And you know from Pulevski's work that it existed, which is a pain in the ass for the Bulgarian propaganda. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pulevski is only a pioneer. One-man language is a fiction. Jingby (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

By contemporary please emphasize Bulgarian BAN' soldiers. One-man language? Does BAN allow you to read something there or you read just selected biographies of important Macedonian people? Please do not be ridiculous and be update your knowledge, do not base it on Kanchov's agenda :). --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Irredentism? Please, check the meaning of the word. Contemporary scientists did not think such a language existed. How could they be pioneers in something that existed from pre-historic time? --Laveol ^T 14:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing

Removing sourced information without justification is disruptive, so don't do it again. That you believe that some theory is fringe doesn't permit you to simply remove reliable sources. Kostja (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are disruptive. This people are neither independant, nor historians. Jingby (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How exactly are they not independent, nor historians? Your speculations are not ground for removing reliable sources. Kostja (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the article about the Bulgars. Iranian hypothessis is a fringe Bulgarian view only. B. Dimitrov is a speculant, Dobrev is economist. Jingby (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bulgarians. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kostja (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Костя, земи се гръмни! Jingby (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Много убедителен аргумент. Вече разбрах, че иранската теория е фантазия :)

Шегата настрана, няма да е лошо да прочетеш WP:AVOIDYOU, а не да пишеш първото, което ти дойде наум. Kostja (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mайтап бе, Уили! Jingby (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I2

Hi (like the new name ? )

Where is this new information from Nordvelt from ? Do u have a copy ?

I, too, have seen the pattern you are speaking about. However, there are few problems with it. (1) You say that Nordvelt found that I2-N is older than I2-S; however, this is at odds with earlier findings which suggested that the diversity of I2 is greater in the Dinaric Alps than in Moldavia, so it means it is older (ie originated) there (eg during ice age, or whatever) (2) If there were large-scale Slavic invasions, sources and geography states that most were focussed on northern Bulgaria, the Vardar-morava region and possibly macedonia. However, these regions have lower I2 frequencies than Dalmatia, which was protected by the Dinaric alps chain. (3) If you read Curta's & Dzino's books, they argue that there was no such thing as a massive Slavic invasion. Simply, the post-Roman Balkan provincials switched' their language to Slavic. Of course there were few immigrants, but this always hapepned, even during Roman times (eg resettling Getae, Sarmatians, etc within Balkans). Slovenski Volk (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We will have to await formal publication by Nordvelt hoepfully, because the sire is not RS 9especially the guy who wrote about expansion from the area of Great Moravia). And, what was the last part about the Preslav literary scholl, and its connection with Curta's bias ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That citation does not prove anything. It's main purpose is religious/ hegiographic (ie praising god and glorifying the work of Cyril). It is not a historical document. ANyway, it stating that the SLavs were illiterate and pagan doesn't prove they migrated from anywhere. During ROman times, 95% of the people inside the ROman empire were illiterate and probably pagan. Only societal elites were literate and Christian. I'm not denying that people called Sklavenes raided into the Balkans. However, the process which brought about the linguistic Slavonification , and later creation of "Slavic" ethnic identity, was far more complex than an invasion scenario, and one which took centuries, into the 10th or so century. Essentially, the post-Roman Balkan provincials changed their language to Slavic as part of a broader process of significant social, cultural and political change. Curta is not Slavophobe, but his approach might appear to be becuase it is very new. It takes time to absorb what he is saying, it is very complex and non mainstram. ANyway, then read Danijel Dzino's book Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat. He is Croatian, and certainly not 'anti-Slavic'. ALthough he focuses on Dalmatia,his approach can be applied to all Balkans. Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The book of Curta was translated in Bulgarian in 2010 [1] and I have it at home, but his view is very biased. By the way, all today Romanians and Moldovians used as administrative and church language Church Slavonic untill the beginning of 18th century. Here you can check it: Slavic superstratum in Romanian. Jingby (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse there is a Slavic superstratum in Romanian. The Romanian voivodes probably spoke Slavic fluently, they just chose to rather speak Romanian officially in early modern times.

I don't think Curta is biased just becuase of his Romanian background. What exactly do you find biased in his work ? {I agree with most of what he says. However, i do find him slightly over-critical of the literary sources; and his denial of a Slavic identity until 12th century - this was apparent already by 900 ADSlovenski Volk (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am planning to write an artile (ie propper , for publishing, on Bulgars. My Bulgarian is a bit shaky. If u can, is there any English translation of Zlatarsky's article (esp the early sections abut the Bulgar origins. [2]) Slovenski Volk (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not have such info about Zlatarski, but probably no. I found only this translations in German: Vasil Slatarski, Geschichte der Bulgaren I: Von der Gründung des bulgarischen Reiches bis zur Türkenzeit (679-1396) / Bulgarische Bibliothek 5, Leipzig 1918 and Die Besiedlung der Balkanhalbinsel durch die Slaven / Revue internationale des études balkaniques 4 (1936), 358-375. I think that he is the classics in the Genre. Jingby (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Cool. I'll have to go through it. Can understand most of it. Between my Macedonian mother, and Russian girlfriend, we should manage, LOL. BTW: Who is Vasil Goldsmith ? (SOunds like a Bulgarian Jew !)

Yeah, Nordvelt's opinion is very interesting. But how do you account why I2 is so high in Dalmatia, behind the Dinaric mountains ?

The problem with geneticists is that they are not propper historians, They see a pattern and automacticcaly try to pice it with some historical event they vaguely know about. Eg, the pattern of R1a in the Balkans need not be related to Slavic migration. But if you take into account millenia of people moving from the steppe to the Balkans - "Kurgans", Goths, Scythians, Slavs, Sarmatians, - then the R1a pattern we see today in the Balkans is the accumulated result of thousands of smaller-scaled movements. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting map, however, I really do not see a convincing link between the Kiev culture and all Slavic cultures. I hope to elaborate on this later. I think the Bulgarians article is better now, thanks to your changes.

I really think that the Dacians, Thracians, etc did not 'lose' their culture and language as much as books generally claim. All this talk of Romanization, etc, i think is too over-estimated. if you think about it : 95% of the provincial population (in Balkans, Gaul, Brittain, wherever) were simple farmers or cattle-herders. They had no real reason to wear togas, learn Latin, eat reclined, etc, etc. The only people who became "Romanized" were people who needed to be - ie those "elites" within local or imperial government, "social climbers", clergy, soldiers, and maybe artisans/ traders . The rest, I suspect, continued living their traditional life, and spoke their traditional language. I would reckon native Balkan languages continued to have been spoken as late as the 8th century. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So there was a clade of I2 in Dalmatia already, then another one entered 500 CE from Moldavia ?

The Slavs did not come from the Kievl culture. THis theory was based on outdated archaeological models. Ie - the "Slavic culture" from the 7th-9th centuries was seen as an Iron Age peoples, which handmade pottery, wooden sunken-huts, little jewellery, etc. Just immediately prior to this, ie 2nd - 5th centuries CE, there existed 4 'cultures' in eastern Europe : Przeworsk, Chernyakov, Kiev and WIelbark. Because the Slavic culture of subsequent period did not have as elaborate pottery types or ornamenets as that of Chernyakov, Wiel or PRz, then it was merely (by a process of elimiation) equated with the simple, forest materials of the Kiev cutlure.

This does not follow. Firstly, if anything, the Kiev culture was Baltic and/or Finnic. Secondly, the fact that there was a simplification of material culture in much of the former east, including inside the Byzantine proinces, was not a result of the SLavs "bringing in" their simple culture with them, but because the of "systems collapse". To produce wheel-made pottery, intricate jewellery, etc, requires a relatively advance society to specialize, organize economic surplus, wide-ranging trade contacts. This all seems to have collapsed in much of Europe, even into "Germanic areas" of Saxony. Likely this was the result of the collapse of ROman EMpire, which accounted for most of the economic trade and cultural influences which catalyzed technological development in barbaricum. ALso the Huns were fierce and simply hoarded all the loot for themselves rather than stimulating general prosperity. THus society regressed- settlements became smaller, pottery was made by hand to suit local pruposes, and there was less need to display wealth in the form of special jewellery. Thus the changes was firstly a socio-economic change.

This created a vaccuum - as you say- and facilitated the spread of SLavic language. This was spread by the Avars who used it as the langauge of their Empire. The Avars re-created trade and culture contacts throughout EUrope, which spread the language. Later, people became aware that they all speak Slavic, and realized they were all "Slavs" Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey buddy. I have been thinking that, whilst Nordtvedt's stuff is interesting, it technically does not meet WP:RS criteria. You might want to hold off adding it in everywhere. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Technically you are absolutely right. But my sixth sence are telling me, that Nordtvedtd is closely to te truth. Let hold the things off. Regs. Jingby (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources to Pomak origins

Hello Jingiby. I ask you to reconsider your reverting of my addition to the intro om Pomaks. I am rather new to this game, and I see now that I need some help making the referencing good enough. I wrote 5ff in the the Aarbakke reference, meaning page 5 and the following pages according to the pagination of the document. This is page 27 in the pdf-file, which may make the referencing confusing. For instance: In the lower part of page 5 (27) you will find the sentence "There exists a plethora of books with more or less fanciful theories about the Pomaks." Don't you think this is a relevant source? The other source, which you have deleted, is even more relevant. On page 106 and 107 according to the pagination of the document (page 12 and 13 in the pdf file), she discusses the different Greek and Turkish theories of origin. I think these two sources justify the sentence "although alternative narratives ..." I think that it is a good thing that these two authors do not propose any theories themselves, but just refer to others. Then the alternative theories themselves can be treated in the lower part of the article, where they belong. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 79.160.40.10 the alternative theories are treaten in the lower part of the article, because they are simply fringe views. Regs.

The point is: There exists "alternative narratives", fringe or not, and they have been heavily discussed through years and years, as those two sources shows (and I could give more, similar sources). That is in itself an interesting fact that should be represented in the article. Your point about fringe is still covered by the wording "are usually considered" in contrast to "although ... have been proposed". Actually, the very fact that this has been edited in and out of the intro many times, strengthens my view. I will try to get time to continue this discussion on the Pomak talk page. Regards 79.160.40.10 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

However, here is an encyclopedia, not a place for collections of alternative narratives, fairy-tales, science-fictions or fantasy-stories. Regs. Jingby (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess we have to agree that we disagree! Could I ask you to transfer what we have discussed here to the Pomak talk page, so that we can let other people give their view. I do not know how to make the transfer, and it would be silly to use your and my time to repeat the same things arguments. Is that OK with you? 79.160.40.10 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done! Jingby (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanx! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Song zajdi zajdi

I explained in my message to you, Aleksandar Sarievski(1922-2002) was only Folk song singer and he can't compose or write something that is 500 years old {absurd} This is Macedonia root song, just like Chinese, Black American, Indian, Egypt etc. Root Song/folk song and it belongs to the people and not to Mr. Sarievski. Composer and writer is unknown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.144.54 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Song Zajdi Zajdi edit

Please give solid prof thet Aleksandar Sarievski composed and wrote this song, you cant because musical score/arrangements for this song made Orchestra of Radio Television Serbia (former Yugoslavia) back in 1950's based on version played, sung on weddings, taverns, street...etc. song is tranfered from generation to genaration way before Aleksandar Sarievski was even born.--70.130.144.54 (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You must give it to change the stabile version of the article at the moment. Jingby (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

re: song zajdi zajdi

These are not my personal claims and opinions these are facts changed (2002) due to new born Macedonia fictional history--70.130.144.54 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Aleksandar Sarievski

Again This is not my personal opinion about Composer and writer of this song reffer to Jugodisc Company history - Aleksandar Sarievski was assigned to this Label as folk singer not as composer or writer of traditional Macedonian songs.On You Tube you can find him singing different traditional Macedonian songs for Jugodisc in 1950's. Please read Record labels while you listening to Aleksandar Sarievski--70.130.144.54 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Zoupan

Please respond to this discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature

You may wish to sign your comment here. Thanks, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 14:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Torlaks

I'm absolutely not getting involved in the Torlaks dispute (although I might protect the article if this mess continues), but you made a serious mistake in your edit summaries.

Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of Zoupan's viewpoint, it is clear that he believes that his edits are for the benefit of Wikipedia. He is not adding swear words or telephone numbers or pictures of toilets or saying that when he is the handsomest man on the planet and all women love him.

He is not committing vandalism.

By describing his edits as vandalism, you make him feel angrier towards you, and you lessen the chances of this dispute being resolved peaceably. Furthermore, you are implying that he does not actually believe in what he is saying. A sincere edit is never vandalism. In this respect (and only in this respect), Its truth or falsity is irrelevant.

I strongly suggest that you leave Zoupan an apology for having called his edits "vandalism". Make it clear that you strongly disagree with his opinions, but also make it clear that you admit he meant well. This is something very minor; it will not do you any harm to apologize. Concede that Zoupan truly believes what he says.

Okay? DS (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wright. Jingby (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OCS

<sarcasm>What about the Eastern Macedonian recension?</sarcasm> --124.169.206.209 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cepenkov

Those sources do not show how Cepenkov classified the dialect he wrote in. Sure, he considered himself Bulgarian but—as far as those sources are concerned—he did not consider his language as such or at least did not say so. --124.148.245.171 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Gene barrier

That is interesting, and would certainly make sense given that, historically the Don has always been cited as some kind of barrier. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert-warring

Stop the disruptive blind revert-warring on Macedonian language. You ought to know better by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fut.Perf. It's refreshing to see some level-headed, articulate people still watching the Balkan articles. I can't so much as add a comma without being ganged up on. Have you seen the state of Old Church Slavonic? Looking at the talk page, it seems I'm not the only Aussie who has tried to do something... --124.148.227.163 (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, yes, you're not the only Aussie IP to edit a number of articles, with a knowledge on wiki editing, but yet refusing to create an account for no apparent reason. Fut, the welcome notice was not needed. He has been editing for quite some time now. Although, I cannot see anything that wrong with his latest edits (from this particular IP that is).--Laveol ^T 07:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am suspecting this is our old Australian friend from Perth - Frightner, who was banned a years ago and now writes under differnt IPs. Jingby (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I have a fairly good knowledge of Wiki markup and all that. Or was that sarcasm? The welcome messages are just informal formalities, and Fut.Perf.'s was a much more pleasant and polite one compared to Jingby's usual biting. Help me out with an original nickname and I'll make an account. :) And no, I'm not any former user as I've never had an account. --124.148.227.163 (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bulgar language

Абе мойто момче ( :) извинявай ако си с много по-голям от мен), като си българин и си си сложил прякора на Апостола, защо си изтрил скромниОТ ми опит да покажУВАМ, че тюркскиОТ ни произход и това, че сме дошлЕ Бог знае от къде из далечните пустини на Азия, са изключително спорни въпроси и не е уйбаво да се твърдят като твръди и аксиоматични енциклопедични данни. Не е тук мястото да се навлиза в полемика и подробности, но все повече везните наклоняват в друга посока... Hansen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.171.65 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

--89.215.171.65 (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC) : Who are you and why are you making these strange reverts?

89.215.171.65, before changing articles and pushing your opinion, please read the discussions on the talk-pages and read the added sources. Then discuss them on the talk-page and if there will be any objections you can edit free the article. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

--89.215.171.65 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Call me Hansen. 10x

Bulgaria#Politics

Deputy Prime Minister is not a "propagand". --Aleksd (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Torlakian edits

Hi! Sorry for the inconvenience, I have explained my edits on the article's talk page. By reading about Torlakian, there is no conclusion of it being a separate South Slavic language, and as such, its inappropriate to add a language box, the image is still there (Possible POV though?). I have added extensive info on the history of the area in terms of nationality, although information on this is scarce. I have clarified the views of Kantz and Blanqui, they were heavily different of what was really said. Regards. --92.32.45.19 (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think your edits are POV-ish and inappropriate to this linguistic article. Regs. Jingby (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello. Thanks for the help and for solving the problem at Jovan Sterija Popovic article. It was getting out of hand... It is easy for the IP editor to do whatever he wants when wiki rules almost doesn`t mean anything for him :). Anyway, thank you for solving the dispute. I think this is acceptable for everybody. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

About Mihajlo Apostolski article

Hi. As you can see (here: [3]) non of the information that you added was removed from the article. The article was reorganizes. I added several references in order to stress what this person has done for the Macedonian nation and for the Republic of Macedonia at all. This is not a way for collaborative improvement of the content of Wikipedia. I already gave you an advice on Wikipedia on Macedonian language that we have to collaborate in order to improve the content. At the same time, as you can see the Bulgarian version of the article is not updated as much as this one and the article for Mihajlo Apostolski on Wikipedia on Macedonian language. I hope we will understand each other better in future. I hope you will not remove the undated version of the article again. Thank you for the understanding. I wish you a lot of pleasant moments while editing here. Kind regards, --Wikimk (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

On a contrary, stop manipulating the article. You have removed a lot of information and described an Academician source as Peter Lang (publishing company), as Bulgarian reference. The sources from the Communist Yugoslavia are biased and out of date. Please, use English language sources from scientific journals or publishing houses. Jingby (talk)

Hi. I am trying to make the article look decent. Please stop removing valuable data from the article only because you he fought in WWII for Macedonian state and Macedonian nation. I hope you can understand this.
Concerning the communist sources, that is the reason why Wikipedia is a collaborative project. The article will be not objective if it does not reflect different opinions, even if they are as bed as the communist sources or the sources of axis allied Bulgaria in WWII. --Wikimk (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to collect all views, including unreliable and biased, i.e. fringe science, but only NPOV. Jingby (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but i will have to repeat myself. Why sources from axis allied Bulgaria in WWII should be considered as more reliable than communist sources? That is why we have to present both sources. Kind regards, --Wikimk (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No sources issued before 1945 are used here. Jingby (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dimitre Minchev (Military Publishing House, Sofia, 2002) Bulgarian Camagne Committees in Macedonia - 1941, Shtip, July 23, 1941, Document № 41.
But, it does not matter. Did not answer my question. Why sources from axis allied Bulgaria in WWII should be considered as more reliable than communist sources?
Kind regards,--Wikimk (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this discussion is still going on on two places. That is not good. It is hard to follow the conversation if we continue like this. --Wikimk (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jungiby, why are you re-editing my submissions about the bulgar language? The version you state is not the official of the Bulgarian historians and the state anymore, please accept the new one. The iranian origin of the language has been proven as correct for more than 5 years now, and I can list many publications here. Please edit this publication and treat the iranian theory with some respect, not with the irony you imply. Please correct these articles to add the theory or I will add it myself. These opinions are a disgrace for the Bulgarians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.228.249 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 87.121.228.249! Sorry, but here is not Bulgarian forum, but world encyclopedia. Regards! Jingby (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Minorities of Greece

Would you like to explain this revert, and provide feedback on the talk page to explain this revert. Which parts exactly were not sourced reliably? Which part of the old version did not happen? In which instances was the requirements of WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG not met? It is likely that this will have to go to an admin. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It would make sense to identify the issues which you believe are not true, and we can work them out. There is no reason to merely chime "nationalistic POV", etc. and automatically revert everything. I have reverted yours once, so that the matter can be brought up on the talk page. Please read the actual sources, and realise that I have posted on nothing but actual occurances. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the article Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. Stop POV. You do not have reached consensus to change so substantially this special articles. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:77.77.25.241

In regards to this edit, there is NO WAY that such edits, in which an IP removes messages from their own talk page, can be called vandalism. Please see WP:VANDAL, and please don't be so trigger-happy. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK! Thank you. Jingby (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

POVs on the articles

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor

l, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.

• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

-ovo

Hi Jingiby. Are you aware of any good references for the Slavic genitive ending -ovo/ -evo, eg Trnovo, Kumanovo, Kosovo. Going by the historic and toponymic distribution, these are clearly of a Bulgaro-Macedonian provenance Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Soryy, I did'nt find such source. Regards. 10:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/AngBent

I asked the administrators for an intervention against the edit warring of Special:Contributions/AngBent. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Pylambert (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The decision is "declined" and "Please take this issue to WP:ANI" ( see here). So the vandal may go on with his disruptive edits. --Pylambert (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The procedure has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Keep on the good work. --Pylambert (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Third and last attempt after "tell other Greek users of this interference, so we can stop the Bulgarian POV" (sic !). Note that he edits also under IPs 46.176.88.230, 46.177.71.53, 46.176.13.209, 46.176.224.54. --Pylambert (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grob.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grob.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The image has been used on the article Gotse Delchev for years, but yesterday it was deleted by vandal. I restored the photo back there. Regards. Jingby (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

The ancient languages of the local people had already gone extinct before the arrival of the Slavs, mostly due to Hellenization since the antiquity and to a lesser degree to Romanisation during Roman rule. Their cultural influence was highly reduced due to the repeated barbaric invasions on the Balkans during the early Middle Ages by Goths, Celts, Huns, and Sarmatians, accompanied by Byzantine influence and later slavicisation. '

I think we should change this. Frankly, I do not believe it. Personal intuition suggests that Thracian had not gone extinct. 90% of the population were simple farmers/ peasants. Why would they need to give up their own language and learn Latin ? Only soldiers, politicans and social climbers needed to do so. I came accross a reference that argues that Thracian was spoken till at least the 8th century. I'll try to remember what it was and included it, if you agree Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thracian became extinct during the second half of the 6th century,[4] or even during the 5th century.[5] [6]. Jingby (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct; so it had not gone extinct before the arrival of Slavs but might have been in use still in certain areas when the Slavs arrived (Mocsy Pannonia and Upper Moesia p 358). NB The Thracian liturgical script in Asia Minor was introduced in 6th century Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. But it is not shure. If it was gone extinct during the 5-th century - that was before the arrival of Slavs. Jingby (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But we might nevertheless pose that it might have still been spoken, esp given that there is a reference (and that many of the early Slavic chieftains names like Perbundos, Musokois, etc do not sound anything SLavic, but rather Thraco-Dacian) Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Regs. Jingby (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Good articLe Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia

You allege that they are numerically strongest in Bulgaria, but can you link me to groups representing these people in Bulgaria, or other evidence that shows there is a self-identifying population of these people. In Macedonia across the entirety of the country there are groups representing these people and the child refugees/deca begalci. What evidence, apart from questionable estimates do you have that says they are such a large group, as you allege they are. And secondly, the Prilep-Bitola dialect is not bulgarian, so how could it's prohibtion be considered a banning of the Bulgarian language? Lunch for Two (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact is a fact. We do not discuss here the organizations of the diaspora, but its presence. You can check also IMRO – Bulgarian National Movement. Jingby (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a fact. You only believe it to be a fact because you fail to appreciated sources which are not to your liking. That political party is a group of Bulgarians from Bulgaria, they have no link to Greece at all. Show me evidence? Surely if they were so numerous, as you allege, it would be easy to find many examples of these people's existence. And by this I mean their existence in 2011, not several hundred years ago. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saint Naum. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there is sockpuppetry involved, you will need to file a case at WP:SPI and wait for the result. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK! Jingby (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Jingiby,

I reverted your addition to the FiG8 SPI page because your case seems to be involving a completely different person. You may want to lodge a brand new investigation. If your SPI does relate to the user FiG8, my apologies. Your Lord and Master (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jingby (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Proti, Florina

Can you please explain your revert here please? I thought that my edit mentioned both of the viewpoints that Kanchov held? By his own admission the people called themselves "Macedonian/Македонци", and the surrounding people's also called them that. My edit reflected both of the viewpoints. Please elaborate on your revert, I with some good faith think that we can arrived at a mutually acceptable way to phrase this. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As per citted source and general scientific consensus. Macedonian identiity became detectable during 1940-s and especially after 1944.Jingby (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here you have him expressly saying that these people call themselves Macedonians (they self identify as Macedonians), and other peoples of the time acknowledge this and also call them that. It is not Black and white, the source is cited. Please provide an explanation relevant to the point I made. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dimitar Dimitrov

This person has lived for the better part of their life in Skopje? How are they not from Skopje? I feel that you are following me and reverting at every possible opportunity. Please stop this behaviour. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He is currently citizen of the city of Skopje. But he is not from this place, i.e. he is not from Skopje. Jingby (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He has lived in Skopje for 30+ years. By this logic, Does Julia Gillard need the Category:People from Adelaide or does Barack Obama need the Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois? By your logic, No, however others seem to think differently (and no there is no need for discussion to add such tags, it is nothing more than commonsense). Please stop these ridiculous revert wars you keep starting with me across Wikipedia. Thank you. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are kidding me? Do I really have to take this to an admin now? Lunch for Two (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

нашинци. не вашинци

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6gLgcEteGk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.6 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You Tube is not a source for Wikipedia. Jingby (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

is a personal friendship with that man a sourse? which language they speak in bulgaria? i don't know how to prove but nevertheless they call themselves "nashinci" no matter what you think of do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.6 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal friends are not reliable source, but Univesity Professors' publications in Academic journals issued by University publishing houses. Jingby (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

so can you give me a sourse in which they say they are not "nashinci"? since you delete like you have the data of the whole world in you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.6 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

i guess this is a reliable sourse? prof. dr. Aneta Svetieva? http://www.scribd.com/doc/38609973/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0-%D0%97%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B8-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%A2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B8-%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8-%D0%B8-%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8-%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.6 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Balkan DNA

Interesting. So what exactly is it showing: all Balkan peoples are (1) extremely uniform (2) 67% intermediacy between European and west Asian 'genetic make up' ? Can you explain to me - they appear to have both automosal DNA (? from eye colour, muscle) and are they matchig this with mtDNA and y-DNA ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

on it's own, wiThout text, it makes little sense. I think it's just attempted to do something like Fst, Ie comparing genetic distances b/w varius Balkan people's c.f. other regions. However, it's a dubious-looking data set Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

possibly, however, according to the paper I referenced, written in the 2000s, the author included them as Dinarics. The paper you highlight was written in the 1930s, not that it matters. I think Coon argued that western Macedonians are Dinarics, those from east (ie Strumica, etc) are more the Bulgarian type Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

According to William Z. Ripley's book The races of Europe of 1910 and his ethnographic map, the situation is the same. In western Macedonia are Albanians. Jingby (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

that's not exactly true. He depicts the region around and NW of Ohrid as Albanian, much like the situation today. I don;t know what Ripley described Macedonians as, I haven;t read his actual work. As for Coon, he includes Macedonia as a province of Bulgaria, but suggests that Macedonians approach Dinaric attributes, ie their being tallest of Bulgarians and with the highest cephalic index. From what I saw when I was in Maceodnia 2 weeks ago, (true) Macedonians are a varied lot. Some look frankly dark, others (like my brother and mother) are blonde, blue-eyed. Unfortunately, I've only met 3 Bulgarians. A mate from school, one young chap in Greece and a nurse from work: kinda green -eyed and brown hair Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that;s very much what Coon wrote. SO Bulgarians are quite varied, though mostly Mediterranean, Macedonians similar, approaching more Dinaric, whislt the Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins are typically "Dinaric". Anyhow, I want to touch up the SOuth Slavs Genetics section soon, just make it more streamlined. I;m not convinced that Nordveldt's theory about I2a2 suffices as a WP:RS, tho Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. WHen does he date this split in Vistula region to ? And how did he arrive at that conclusion ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So, from what I discern:

• Hg I arrives in Europe from Near East in Upper Palaeolithic, possibly already as several different sub-clades, or possibly borke up in the Balkans, i.e: I2a1 (P 37), I1, I2c, I2a2; and they disperse throughout Europe and amplify to various extents during/ after LGM
• P 37 (I2a1) has several offshoots

- M 26 - in SW Europe, including Sardinia (possibly constituted a minor element in the Franco-Cantabrian ice-age refuge)

- M 233 to western Europe

- M 423: which splits around Vistula to Isles and Dinaric major sub-groups

• I1 seems to have stayed 'together' more splitting into different sub-clades rather later c.f. I2

• I2a2 (M223) also appears to have expanded around northern/ central Europe.

However, by Ken;s admission, his theories are just 'brainstorming'. If he wants to commit to them, he needs to publish them properly. We need to get this article New Phylogenetic Relationships for Y-chromosome Haplogroup I: Reappraising its Phylogeography and Prehistory. Published in 2007 by Underhill, it has new data on Hg I. Its published in a book. One of the libraries in Sydney has it, ill try getting it in the next couple of weeks

I think that most clades which dispersed from Balkans have something to do with the Balkan Neolithic. As I read more and more archaeology, the central-eastern Balkans in Neolithic was a "flourishing; civilization. It had villages bigger than in Mesopotamia ! It was rich, cultured and densely populated. If there was ever an event which populated Europe, it was this Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Its definitely getting very interesting, not only Hg I, but R1b, R1a, E3b, J2 - all the Hgs found in Europe are getting greater clarity, thus revealing far more complex, layered demographic history. The only problem lies in the fact that age estimates continue to vary widely, and most likely, continue to do so. This makes it pin-pointing them to this or that event still very tenuous. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The major problem with that theory, however, is that diversity of Hg I appears to be greatest in Dalmatia, therefor must be oldest there. ALso , the Slavic invasions barely penetrated Dalmatia. They were more focussed on the eastern Balkans. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Can you please explain to me what was wrong with this? Lunch for Two (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You can explain the situation, but not delete referenced text. For example: The Great Powers were unhappy with this extension of Russian power on the Balkans, and Serbia feared the establishment of Greater Bulgaria would harm their interests in the Ottoman heritage. This prompted them to obtain a revision of the Threaty of San Stefano through the Treaty of Berlin in the same year. Jingby (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You know very well I removed it the first time. Providing a source does not make things immune from removal. Is it fine if I revert now? Lunch for Two (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you have reverted the Kanchov reference? Thanks. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"...Whether we call ourselves Bulgarians or Macedonians, we have always maintained a separate, unified and different from the Serbs ethnicity, with Bulgarian consciousness"... Retrived from "Народността на македонците", К. П. Мисирков, в-к "20-ти Юлии", бр. 5, 11 Май 1924. Jingby (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats nice. I am talking about Kanchov not Misirkov. What is your objection? Why should this not be mentioned? Lunch for Two (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dialogue

I urge to participate in dialogur before simply conducting mass reverts on my edits. Dialogue and consensus was achieved at Ethnic Macedonians between myself and another user, you chose Not to participate despite being the reverting editor (who reverted based on no consensus, then chose not to participate when consensus was being made). I urge you to show good faith and participate in discussions rather than simply doing "hit and runs" on article. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The dialogue must to predict your mass changes (edits). Not vice versa. Jingby (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a friendly round of relationship counseling for the two of you, over at WP:AE? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things about your most recent revert [7]: (1) You are just at 3RR now, and with your block history, I wouldn't rely on not getting blocked even below this if this goes to AE, if I were you. Better revert yourself. (2) My argument stands: the preceding sentence speaks of estimates "possibly 10,000 to 30,000"; your sentence quotes an estimate (not a "count" as you wrongly said in your edit summary) at approximately 10,000; that is within the range of the previous sentence, so it does not contradict it (in fact, the figure of 10,000 probably goes back to the same ultimate source, via Danforth, in both references). (3) My other argument also stands: your wording about "as per leading experts" is ridiculous peacock language. (4) Can you please finally get rid of this extremely annoying habit of inundating articles with rows of more and more footnotes for the same thing? It's this kind of behaviour that still marks you as being the inveterate POV pusher you've always been. Whenever I see a row of more than three footnotes on a single sentence, I know an article has been butchered by agenda editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The data I have added is taken from much more reliable sources then the previous one. It differs drastically from the data-number of Slavic-speakers pointed in previous claims. There is no reason for self-correction, or revert. Jingby (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it really beyond your powers to see that "10,000" is within the range of "10,000–30,000"?? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Check here, please. The number is 10,000.The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691043566, p. 78.

Have you still not grasped the point that "10,000" is within the range of "10,000–30,000"?? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not understand you. Check here, please. The total estimate ranges from 10,000: [8], [9], [10] and so on. Jingby (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, you broke 3RR now. I'm not going to bother with WP:AN3, I'm going straight to WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nowadays you have provoked me with your biased edits. I know your aim was to blocke me. That will change nothing. I am right on the basis of the added reliable University sources. You are wrong by this case. Regards. Jingby (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

no one will buy your nationalistic crap about gorani people. they call themselves "nashinci" and their language "nashinski". so whatever you achieve, it's inside these pages, not in the field where it matters wp:ani . 79.125.227.60 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment dear IP-sock of a blocked User. Jingby (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Jingiby. I would like to take your attention at Bulgarians article where I already done my third revert on that disruption http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarians&action=historysubmit&diff=447496238&oldid=447400161 . You see the user Lunch for Two is removing mass of sources and information there as in the most articles he edited and I would be happy if you support me and back the longstanding version before the disruption. Of the drastic removal - briefly the second estimate for Bulgaria was removed without any explonation neither in the edit summary or in the talk page, reliable sources from MFA which give present-day numbers and even official data (see the source- official information of Bulgarian citizens in FYROM) were deleted with the POV that censuses before 10-20 years are the only reliable sources. For example the 2001 census in Hungary counted about 1,000 Bulgarians and the present-day number of MFA is 5,000 by both Bulgarian and Hungarian authorities and so he removed the second number claiming it is not reliable and taking only the 2001 census, the same has been done in mass of countries including USA and Canada where the immigrants growed much more significantly than Hungary. Such large removal of reliable sources should not be left not only in Bulgarians but in any other article the user edits. 213.226.17.10 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some Bulgarian sources which say there are 1,500,000 Bulgarians in Macedonia and 1,000,000 in Greece. IP, should we also use these? I meean, after all, these can also be sourced. Lunch for Two (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization

Hello Jingiby. This article is on my watch list due to some past IP vandalism. Regarding this edit. I see that you tried to insert the same material in May but it was reverted. This is the kind of issue that you you should consider proposing on the talk page for a discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK! Jingby (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Jingiby

You get into a lot of disputes in the area of Macedonia/Bulgaria, and you never seem to wait for a consensus on the talk page before reverting. This is the only thing that people are going to remember about you unless you can make a convincing case for yourself at WP:AE#Jingiby. Please try to be rational there. It would help if you can diagnose what caused you to be blocked so many times in the past, so you can ensure us that these problems are behind you. Your comment here seems frivolous and unhelpful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right, except for my comment. I meant that the time changes me in a positive sense. At least, I hope. Regards. Jingby (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see the result of this AE request here. We are relying on the assurance of better behavior that you gave here. Be aware that any admin may issue a sanction under WP:ARBMAC without making a new request at Arbitration Enforcement if they perceive that your editing in the area of Macedonia and Bulgaria is inappropriate. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Jingby (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wisco2000 has complained about your edits, and EyeSerene has been looking into the matter. See a discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Jingiby. The thing I noticed myself is that you seem to be edit warring at National Liberation War of Macedonia. I told EyeSerene that you would qualify for a block, but suggested he consider placing the article under a 1RR restriction. In this series of edits you made an 11,000 byte change in the article, for which I assume you have no talk page consensus. I don't think this meets the expectation of 'better behavior' that is mentioned in my 7 September comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, the 11,000 byte change was just restoration of deleted without any explanation chapter. Regs. Jingby (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)