User talk:Jingiby

Aromanians

You support your opinion about Balkan people on a Sultan's firman? Is sultan ethnologist or sociologist?

If we accept (I say "if") sultan's firman as a sociology study(!), we should mention the following:

Vlachs are the today Romanians.

Aromanians is a different tribe far away from the Romanian lands, with a different ethnic backround, different origin and different customs. The only connection with the Vlachs (today's Romanians) is that their languages come from Latin (separated from latin laguage in different centuries and with individual differencies). In 1905 Romanian Foreign Policy and Propaganda tried to usurp Aromanians in order to extend their influence in Southern Balkans. After 2 decades of propaganda, money spended and pressoures to the Ottoman government (supported also by Austrungaria) for that scope, Ottoman Administration recognized the Aromanians, not as an individual nation, but as part of the Great Vlach (Romanian) nation and allowed them to have the Romanian school and church system.

So, this firman, is just a proof that Aromanians are connected with the Greeks, since Ottomans tried unsuccessfully, to put them under Romanian control, during the Macedonian struggle. Additionally I would like to mention that Aromanians declare to be Greeks in 99% percentage for the last two centuries (that we have data). And another thing: from the 18th century Aromanians used to consist Greco-Roman Associations in central Europe as immigrants, because the believed in common nationality.

According to the above, I correct the article. User:Pyraechmes Chrusts

IP 78.184.196.148

Hi Jingiby. Since I saw you reverted 78.184.196.148 (talk · contribs) on various articles, just FYI, I opened another SPI for Maurice07. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of the Albanians are wrong. Albanians are more than 11 million on the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.176.101 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you very much

(talk) 22:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians

Направих картинка с изображения на известни българи, по подобие на тези, които стоят на статиите за германците, англичаните, французите и др. и я приложих към таблицата в статията. Направих го, защото старият дизайн с няколко големи снимки с по една фамилия отдолу изглежда, меко казано, безумно. Извинявам се предварително на създателите му, но наподобява на надгробна плоча. Може да сме изчезваща нация, но все още не сме умряла нация, за щастие. Ако си ви харесва така, оставете си го. Няма смисъл да го слагам, а вие да го триете. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be better to discuss your suggestions about the images in the info-box on the talk page of the article Bulgarians and to gain a consensus about your proposal with other editors at first. Thank you. Jingiby (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	"Длабоко се извинувам" што Ви се мешам во ВМРО (внатрешна Македонска револуционерна организација). Stavo Culum 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please give more constructive explanation for the removed edits for the article Blaže Konesk

Hi,

Could you please explain what is not constructive(see here: [1])about adding informing the readers that all the sources you have previously added were Bulgarian or the authors are Bulgarian?

There is nothing to be ashamed of.

BTW, next time when you give similar advice to someone please have in mind that you have been previously blocked for removal of the content and vandalism.

Regards,

Wikimk (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can check after the last Macedonian source I have added, Koneski himself recognized that his village and his family were pro-Serbian. Also, claiming book as Historical dictionary of Republic of Macedonia is pro-Bulgarian is biased view. Jingiby (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The controversial Bulgarian genetic section

I told you that Im not going to make an edit without any sources and yet you have reported for sockpuppet investigation. Have you even read what Ive told you on this talk page? You are showing so much ignorance here. You also seem to not have read and understood what Ive explained about the genetic section. This is how ignorant you are, or you seem to be like a corrupted computer system. I don't know now if you are really a human from the messages you are pasting, it actually seems like a virus. Now PLEASE do not report to the sockpuppet investigation centre because I have nothing to do with stormfighter or the warrior people you have claimed to the investigator. Maybe they are similar people who don't agree with how this article is explained. However im definitely not one of them or know them. I wouldn't change the section without any sources, I am going to find various sources that is reliable. Ivan1488 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry Mr Jingiby, I won't edit without any reliable evidence.Chavdarov1 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep calm. Jingiby (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMRO-BNM

I saw that you'v deleted the tags I've put of the article IMRO – Bulgarian National Movement. The article is obviously done under original research. Only few Bulgarian media news articles are put as references, which I don't see as reliable. Which comes to the notability of the article, it isn't mentioned by any other political researchers or outside media except the Bulgarian ones. I put the tags so the article could be improved and expanded, also so that reliable sources could be added. Blok Glo (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian media and news articles are not reliable references about what? Jingiby 13:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia articles must have a worldwide view on the subject. Blok Glo (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop your spam. Are there some disputed fact on this article or aren't? Jingiby 13:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Abcourse there is, I'm just disputing it. Blok Glo (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to please do not threaten to block my account without a reason as you just did. I know you don't even have the rights to do that. And if you think I should be blocked please be more specific about what next time. Respectfully, Blok Glo (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You we're the one that started the edit war, removing the rightfully places tags in the first place, based on the article's controversies in the talk pages. Secondly I know that you haven't even the user rights to block me, and if you did you need to have a good explanation which you certainly don't. Please do not track and dismantle my edits in different articles, stop threatening me for no particular reason. Hope you'll understand, Blok Glo (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Almost none of the tags was placed rightfully, you have understand I hope. However, some of them were hanging until reliable sources were added or are still hanging where they are rightfully placed. Of corse, I don't have the rigts to block you and I don't wish your block. However I can warn you when you are wrong and if it becomes necessarily I may report you to the administration. Thank you. 11:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Blaže Koneski

Review Wikipedia:Citing sources. Andreevski (1991) does not mention this person's native language, and you've twice given the wrong page number for Kostov (2010). Make sure you format the citation correctly; at the moment it suggests that there are two authors, Kostov and Peter Lang, while the latter is actually the publisher. --124.169.245.119 (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]