User talk:Jingiby/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Nikola Karev Discussion

Hello, the source I left was from the Greek parliament's archive, you can look at it here https://srv-web1.parliament.gr/display_doc.asp?item=47395&seg=67871

Could you please tell me how a parliamentary archive is not reliable? In fact, you have mentioned this interview other times on the revision preceding my edit, so it seems misleading to not mention all the context of the section of the interview, that is my opinion. I can give you a translation of the newspaper, if you wish you can verify the translation manually

translation page: https:/upwiki/wikibooks/mk/6/69/Karev1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darpos (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please check: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.

See also Wikipedia:AGE MATTERS and WP:PRIMARY.

1. Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, .
2. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
3. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Check also the the analysis of the historian Eleftheria Vambakovska who published the primary source you have cited, which analysis is a reliable secondary source. It is cited in the article as follows:

1. As to the content of the interview, I leave it free for interpretations by scientists and readers. In my opinion it contains contradictory and illogical claims. The interview actually begins with an illogical claim. Karev asserts he is a Bulgarian by conviction ("Bulgarophronos"), and on the first question of the reporter: "Are you a Macedonian", he answers with "yes"! The reporter declared Karev was a Macedonian, but Bulgarized one. The interview begins with a question "are you a Macedonian"? that means Karev's ethnic origin was more important for the interviewer – whether he is a "Macedonian", which to the Greeks was a synonymous of a "Greek". Otherwise, to the Greeks "(Bulgarian) by conviction" was not so important – the conviction is acquirable and it can by changed. "Bulgarophronos", literally translated would mean – a man who thinks like a Bulgarian, a man who thinks like all other Bulgarians.

Also in the article are a lot of other secondary sources based on other primary sources claiming Karev had Bulgarian identity. For example:

1. Yet the identity problem was glaring, Karev reportedly addressed an assembly of 60 Bulgarian, Greek and Vlach inhabitants, to establish his “temporary government” but he referred to those assembled “brother Bulgarians”. The revolutionaries flew Bulgarian flags, killed five Greek Patriarchists, accused to be Ottoman spies, and subsequently attacked the local Muslims (Turks and Albanians). For more see: Michael Palairet, Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 2), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, ISBN 1443888494, p. 149.

Also:

1. The phenomenon noted by Mise Karev, that Nikola carried Bulgarian baggage at some points in Yugoslav history, is confirmed by others in the town. They do not, however, necessarily link the origin of this version of Nikola Karev's career to a policy of disinformation by Kolisevski and his associates. Some people recall their grandparents’ unshakable conviction that in 1903 Karev addressed himself to his "brother Bulgarians" as recorded in the account given by Nicolaos Ballas... Karev's own close links to Sofia — he spent extended periods there before and after the Uprising — gave further grist to the rumor mill that associated him closely with pro-Bulgarian forces. For more see: Keith Brown, The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation, Princeton University Press, 2018, ISBN 0691188432, p. 152.

Also keep in mind that after 1944 the name of Nikola Karev was present in the anthem of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia: "Today over Macedonia", but was deleted in 1953 without explanation by the communist leadership led by Lazar Kolishevski, ostensibly as Nikola and his brothers Petar and Georgi were considered to be "Bulgarophiles". For more see: Последното интервју на Мише Карев: Колишевски и Страхил Гигов сакале да ги прогласат Гоце, Даме и Никола за Бугари! 02.08.2018 Денешен весник. Jingiby (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A part of an archive which is historical does not function like a scholarly article, because the interview is not studying history, it is studying what to them was the present, addition simply points out what the interview said, and that his ethnic identification might have changed through the years, and is currently disputed.

I recommend you read "On Macedonian Matters" by Krste Misirkov, a book released in 1903 just after the uprising, written by a self identified Macedonian-Bulgarian, to see how the idea of the Macedonian ethnicity was formed and why it might have affected the self-identification of many revolutionaries.

This also serves as an explanation to the point on the anthem, during uncertain times, people's thoughts change, it also should be noted the point is already uncertain, as there doesn't seem to be any in-depth analysis on why Nikola Karev was removed, sometimes parts of anthems are randomly removed to simply sound better, for example, the current anthem of N. Macedonia does not feature tje original "Mother Macedonia" verse, this verse, if you read it, really had no use for being removed other than well, music is an art. User:Darpos

We discuss here about Karev. Nikola Kirov was cousin of Karev. His writings, which are among the most known primary sources on the rebellion, mention Bulgarians, Vlachs (Aromanians), and Greeks (sic: Grecomans), who participated in the events in Krushevo. Although post-World War II Yugoslav Communist historians objected to Kirov's classification of Krusevo's Slavic population as Bulgarian, they quickly adopted everything else in his narrative of the events in 1903 as definitive. However, during the Informbiro period, the name of insurgents leader Nikola Karev was scrapped from the Macedonian anthem, as he and his brothers were suspected of being bulgarophile elements. Some modern Macedonian historians such as Blaže Ristovski have recognized, that the entity, nowadays a symbol of the Macedonian statehood, was composed of people who identified themselves as "Greeks", "Vlachs" (Aromanians), and "Bulgarians".

Alright, let us take a look at the current page, clearly mentions Karev was interviewed by a Greek journalist, the exact one in question, your sources also confirm this, none of the sources dispute the authenticity of the interview, so by using them and mentioning them in the article, you recognize the authenticity of the interview. So, the next logical step, would be to see the interview for yourself, and use the information you find in the interview accordingly. Greece is a country in EU, so it is easy to assume its parliamentary archives have no been tampered with, and when we take a look at that interview, we see, that, by that time, at the eve of the Ilinden uprising, Karev sees himself only as a Macedonian, and sees the committee, as not being in service of Bulgaria, in fact, just as the current article proves, Karev wanted to help create an independent Macedonian republic free from Bulgaria, which aligns both with Krste Misirkov's book as a historical source and his comments in the exact interview in greece's parliamentary archives. How do you justify denying this, and denying clean and simply neutrality, no Macedonism, simply neutrality.

Gropa family

Hello, My edit to Gropa family was to remove Infobox parameters that do not work as they are not supported by {{Infobox family}}. If you open the page in edit mode and click on "Show preview", you will see warnings about these unsupported parameters: "image_map_caption" "color" "ethnicity" "image_map". For further evidence, you will find that Gropa family appears in Category:Pages using infobox family with unknown parameters. So nothing from those parameters affects what is displayed on the published page. If you want to keep the information in the source code, can we at least comment them out so that the page does not continue to generate warnings and it will not appear in that category? Thank you. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Jingiby (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Vokil/Uokil, Ukil, & Dulo

Why did you delete my edits in the Vokil & Dulo articles, & comment "not related"? The clan-names did appear on the so-called Nominalia of Bulgarian knyazes (scan). You being a native Bulgarian speaker, reading OCSl would be even easier for you than for me: Дꙋло appeared 9 times (left page, lines 11, 12, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28) Вокиль 1 time (left page, line 26) Оукиль two times (right page, line 1 & line 3). Erminwin (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, because these both khans died before the invention of the Cyrillic script, their native language was Turkic and there is no data whether they spoke Old Slavic. The found nominalia is late artifact. The original was on two stone inscriptions, which were composed in mixture of Greek and Bulgar languages, during the 7-8 century. Jingiby (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent criticisms

Hello, I have recently noticed users have criticized your edits. While not all of these critiques are completely valid, some of them, according to the very Wikipedia guidelines, are, and should be kept in mind. This is normal for topics related to the Balkans and Balkan history. As such, I believe that some pages could include more information from sources used, and look at multiple points of views in a way that adds context for those views without directly denouncing them, but rather, having the information speak for itself. This not only refers to the conflicts between Bulgaria and the Republic of North Macedonia, but all pages on the Balkans, by the controversial nature of the region, a less than ideal amount of the neutrality that is encouraged in the Wikipedia guidelines is normal, but this can be changed, and quite possibly take part in making Wikipedia a truly reliable resource for even the most controversial of topics, as well as minimize left and right criticisms between users in a disagreement. I believe that any user interested in edits about the Balkans could contribute to this revamp in favour of a neutral point of view.

What do you say? --Darpos (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say that this sounds good, but I think that all the points of view are reflected in the articles in question. Each according to its weight and significance. I have noticed that you are trying to replace the leitmotif of some of the articles by changing the ideas supported by credible secondary sources with your personal interpretations of primary ones. This, I hope you know, is absolutely unacceptable here. Jingiby (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

While I understand your point, in my defense, I am merely pointing out what the primary sources say, there is not much to be interpreted in sources such as historical newspapers, unless the newspapers themselves are cryptic, while my edits could be more neutral, bias is human nature, I believe that the sources we already have, and other sources, including primary ones which do not require actual in-depth interpretation, could be used in a way that discloses more info, this disclosure of info, would be able to let the reader make up their mind about any controversial topic, this is a form of neutrality, now, there is an argument to be made on what form of neutrality is right for Wikipedia, but in all cases, leaving articles about controversial topics cut short compromises neutrality (whether intentionally or non-intentionally). You are of course an experienced Wikipedia user, and I am not here to call you out on your nearly countless contributions for them being "misleading", but merely point out how those contributions could be improved, as a citizen of North Macedonia, who has been intrigued in the Bulgaria-North Macedonia dispute especially, I believe that I have studied some of the ins and outs of my country's point of view, and with your knowledge, I believe that we can bring this neutrality to a more stabilized point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darpos (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand you too, but it appears that you may add original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

We are working on a Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları about Ottoman times female slavery with a special focus on the state of non-elite common women slavery in those times.

We are looking for help in further update of the article draft with references about Ottoman time female slavery and slave markets from all Black sea coastal Countries and cities there of that includes Bulgaria and including it's cities like Ahtopol(Ahtenbolu), Burgas, Varna.

Please do have a look at Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları and help expand the draft with (Bulgarian) refs if you find topic interested in.

This request is being made to you since you seem to have worked previously on article History of Bulgaria

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ly

This is Bulgarian propaganda That not tru wat he takling abut Macedonija has never bin Bulgarian We was okuped but we was Macedonian And that ly shud not be okayd in Wikipedia That is kriminel Space71 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi there. Please read the Wikipedia:Vandalism page.

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism."

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. ... Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. ..."

"Mislabeling good-faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia;"

Upon reviewing your edits and talk page it seams that your strong chauvinistic view on Bulgarian supremacy inhibits your perception of what Wikipedia is. Pixius talk 22:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Pixius . Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. I hope that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Jingiby (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! This is a 2 way street. By marking something as vandalism ( which, by any of the conditions mentioned above, is not ) you deviate from the path of proper decorum. Pixius talk 08:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Vangel Dinu

Also Jingiby, while you are at it, it may be good to create an article for Vangel Dinu (the Vlach president of the Ilinden Republic). I might have misspelled his name as I don't know it on top of my head. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

By Iliden Republic I meant Krusevo republic sorry. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no data available about him, enough to make a separate article. Jingiby (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello,

This is to let you know there is an ANI thread relating to you/your edits Nosebagbear (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nosebagbear. Jingiby (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits: Marko Bocari

Good day Jingiby,

I noticed that you have reverted my edit at the Article about Marko Bocari.

I am not sure if you have read my comment to it, explaining the reason for the edit. I wrote that: "Regarding several Edit-Wars about the first sentence, claiming him as only "Greek", I consider it more neutral by exchanging the "Greek" to "Souliote"."

Maybe after reading it again, you may understand my point of view.

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jingiby

It would be great if you could answer.

So I know that you acknowledged my comment.

--InNeed95 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, InNeed95. Botsaris is described also as a Souliot, not only as a Greek. That keeps the balance in the article. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Good evening @Jingiby,

First, thanks for finally answering me :)

Second, it indirectly shows his Souliot Albanian origin.

It says "Captain of the Souliots".

Being the Captain of a lets say for a peoples group, doesnt directly mean he/she is of the same ehtnic background as them. If you know what I mean.

--InNeed95 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources on Second Bulgarian Empire

I'm adding cited information from the "Nomenclature" section. Please, refer to my changes punctually.

Hi, nomenclature info is undue weight and not for the lead. Jingiby (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for clearing up those citation issues so quickly. Excellent work on that historiography article. Very interesting to read. Muttnick (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Regards. Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Good Sources

https://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=826

https://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=1460

https://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=2422

To summarize some points from what I read:

- Nikola Karev 'went to Bulgaria to see his homeland'

- Nikola Karev was inspired by Gotse Delchev and Vasil Levski for a state that will be without nationalism that divides the different nationalities

- He was inspired by Bulgarian revolutionaries in Bulgaria to return to Macedonia and fulfill his socialist ideals.

This is just from the few things I read, there is more. --SeriousCherno (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In the long source, there is a chapter titled Nikola Karev --SeriousCherno (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also Jingiby, we still have to add the section that we got consensus for on Nikola Karev talkpage: 'On Stanatiou ironic question whether he was a direct descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but refused to answer on the question whether he himself was a Greek. In the interview Stamatiou describes Karev as a Bulgarinized Macedonian. During this period of time, the label 'Macedonian' had various meanings, as today. Then putting the footnotes at the end.' --SeriousCherno (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Just notifying you that I have started a dispute resolution that you are involved in if you want to contribute to the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Nikola_Karev

--SeriousCherno (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Ottoman Grand Viziers. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ——Serial 20:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Peer reviewed source

Hello Jingiby,

Just sending you a peer-reviewed source about the Bulgarian-Macedonian language dispute that you may find useful.

https://www.scribd.com/document/497634788/White-Book-About-the-Language-Dispute-Between-Bulgaria-and-Republic-of-North-Macedonia

--SeriousCherno (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, SeriousCherno. Jingiby (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Bosniak Grand Viziers

Stop putting up false information on the list of Ottoman Grand Viziers. There's no source nor mention of Serb Grand Viziers, let alone from Bosnia (so Bosnia, Hercegovina, Krajina, Dalmatia, Sandzak, and other Bosnian regions.

Hi, with the creation of Socialist Yugoslavia in 1945, Bosnia and Herzegovina was restored as a territorial entity and as one of the six constituent republics of the federal state of Yugoslavia. To resolve the Serb-Croat dispute over Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Yugoslav government in 1971 recognized Bosnian Muslims as a nationality. Bosniak nationalism rose in strength since the 1980s, especially following Alija Izetbegović's publishing of the Islamic Declaration that called for an Islamic renewal amongst Bosniaks. Upon Bosnia and Herzegovina's declaration of independence from Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, the great majority of Bosnian Muslims aligned themselves with the Bosniak identity. In September 1993, the Second Bosniak Congress formed a basis for the official establishment of the ethnic name Bosniak and deprecation of the former Muslim in use during SFR Yugoslavia.Jingiby (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The very first confirmed mention of the term "Bosnjak" was done by Bosnian king Tvrtko II, which was done in the 15th century. Before this, the terms Bosnjanin and Botsniaki/Botsinaki were used for the native population of Bosnia. After that, many historical figures (including Ottoman Sultans Mehmed II and Suleiman the Magnificent, and Miho Simun Bobali, all in the 15th and 16th century-) used the term Bosniak (as Bosnjak, Bosnak, Bosnjan, etc.). The Hungarian politician Beni Kallay tried restoring the term "Bosniak" for all natives of Bosnia, which was, at this point, (19th century) only used by Bosniak Muslims and some Catholic Bosniaks. This restoration failed because of the forced assimilation of Catholic and Orthodox Bosniaks by Croat and Serb nationalists. Again; I need you to stop spreading fake information over Wikipedia. Others are also complaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndependentYugoSlav (talk • contribs) 20:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

IndependentYugoSlav, may you provide reliable sources in support of this claim? Jingiby (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern South Slavic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Macedonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision of edits

Hi, Jingiby. Hope you're doing well. After many weeks of you reverting this one user, a few days ago you seem to have reinstated their edits. [1] I'm curious whether you experienced a change of heart or if this was a mistake? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I waited a while longer, but nothing changed. I invited the editor, who is constantly changing the article, to present all the sources here, but to no avail. Therefore, I return the article to the referenced version. Jingiby (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you, Jingiby! For always protecting and reverting attacks of vandals on Wikipedia! Thegreatguym (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Thegreatguym. Jingiby (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Vevchani Edit July 2021

I noticed you also removed my edit on the Wikipedia page of the village of Vevchani. Can you elaborate why you did that?

I removed an edit that is unnecessary and that edit is for the use of a language that is not English or Macedonian. As said, according to the law on languages in the country. Macedonian language is the official language within all of the countries local communities these are municipalities, cities, villages etc. Minority languages within these entities/inhabited areas are only second official when the municipality and/or, city/village's population has 20% and above who speak the language of a minorty group. Therefore the official language in the village of Vevchani according to the census of 2002 is Macedonian spoken by close to 99% of the population, the addition of another language accepted by law as a minortiy language by the Republic of N Macedonia (Aromanian,Albanian,Bosnian,Serbian,Romani,Turkish) can only be done if it meets the certain criteria therefore my removal of the label "Veçani" is supported by the constitution of the country when it comes to integrating the languages of minority nationalities, NOT on a state (parliamentary) level where the country has a co-official language in accordance to Macedonian but on a local level (municipalities, cities, villages, populated areas etc). In conclusion the official language used in the village of Vevchani is Macedonian by about 99% the use of any other languages can only be done if the population speaks a minority language who can form 20% and above of the population that speaks the language as well as being a recognized language within the country (Aromanian,Albanian,Bosnian,Serbian,Romani,Turkish)therefore Macedonian should be the only version used in the definition of the name of the Vevchani Wikipedia page. It is in accordance with the constitution and the law on languages as well as in accordance with Wikipedia's community friendly guidelines and policy. If I am wrong like I said in the beginning elaborate. I do hope for your understanding and support.

Naturee (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Since the status of the Albanian language in North Macedonia is nearly equated to the Macedonian as a second official language, and the village is almost next to the Albanian border, I assumed that there is a significant Albanian minority, but now I see that this is not the case. Jingiby (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit village of Pustec

What right do you have to change my edit to the village of Pustec?

Is it legal to add the term "Bulgarian" to the name of the village Pustec? No, because according to the Municipality of Pustec and the Albanian government Bulgarian is not a co-official language of the village of Pustec who according to the census identify 99% as Macedonians and their native language as Macedonian to who the village children also study. Is it moral to add the term "Bulgarian" to the name of the village of Pustec? No, because the villagers in their right to self identify and affiliate to which this right is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees they have this right. Is it common sense amongst editors to only include Albanian and Macedonian. Yes, because its part of Albania therefore Albanian is official and Macedonian is co-official as the villagers speak Macedonian that is recognized in Pustec. So far numerous editors have edited this page in accordance with my edit. If you think I am wrong than please elaborate as again I repeat official data such as the Municipality states I am in the correct and anything that is contradictory is your opinion and not in line with reality. I dont want war-editing, I also don't want unnecessary information to be presented that can be used as political propaganda, Wikipedia needs to not be used for political propaganda to which it could be used to misinform the public about the village such as the addition of a foreign language not native to the country of Albania neither to the people of Pustec. That is why I removed the tag that said "Macedonian and Bulgarian:" why dont we say "Macedonian and Croatian", do you know why we don't say that, because it is absurd and uncounted for. Thank you for your understanding. Naturee (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Wikipedia has its own rules. Per these rules all geographical places inhabited in the past by a significant Bulgarian community, or that are still inhabited by Bulgarians in lesser extent may be listed in the corresponding article with their Bulgarian names. Jingiby (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello, I just saw you changed my edit in regard to the English version of the Wikipedia page titled Gjorgji Pulevski. Yes, I have read the Wikipedia policy and this is what it states: "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community" and "editors should use common sense".

My edit was made from a common sense perspective. Publishing editions of a book in the sections "Works" that are written by an author and published by a person/body other then the person to whose page is dedicated to is off topic and misinformative, in this case the book is titled: "Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него" Author: Коста Църнушанов Publisher: Университетско изд-во "Св. Климент Охридски", 1992. Subjective opinions that are part of an essay or book when it comes to anything that is contradictory to the truth are against Wikipedia's guidelines and policy. For each information editors need to back it up with a link to the edition in this case the book that is titled “Jazitshnica, soderzsayushtaja starobolgarski ezik, uredena em izpravlena da se uchat bolgarski i makedonski sinove i kerki", such a book doesn't have a date of writing nor an original copy, therefore other than the book by Author: Коста Църнушанов this book either doesn't exist and/or is a subject of speculation. From this remark it needs to not be approved as part of the "Works" section as not only its legitimacy is at question but also it is against the copyright guideline to credit another author's work in the section of "Works" of Gjorgjia Pulevski such as the case with the link to Коста Църнушанов book. I would appreciate if you contribute to the topics from a objective point of view and put subjective views aside such as the case with the book written in the sections "Works", “Jazitshnica, soderzsayushtaja starobolgarski ezik, uredena em izpravlena da se uchat bolgarski i makedonski sinove i kerki" and the book that is actually presented in the link "Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него" to which both additions need to be removed. If you think something is not constructive then please elaborate, as any person can have their views but they need to be backed up. I think we can all agree on that. If there is something I missed on while reading Wikipedia's guidelines and policy then inform me. I do hope for your support and understanding fellow Wikipedia admirer.

Naturee (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have provided a lot of links. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph for you to take a look

I was reading the WW2 in Yugoslav Macedonia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_Yugoslav_Macedonia#cite_note-131)

And stumbled upon this paragraph with just one source.

"Macedonia gained the respect of its allies through its contribution to the victory over fascism. It gained recognition of the newly established Macedonian Republic by the Allies, even though within the framework of the Yugoslavian Federation. And through the National Liberation War of Macedonia, for the first time in modern history, the Macedonian people managed to obtain their statehood, nation and language. These events marked the defeat of the Bulgarian nationalism and the victory of the Macedonism in the area."

I don't think it makes sense compared to what else is written on the page, it seems a bit of a fringe theory. Just letting you know in case you want to take a look. --SeriousCherno (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am going to check it. Jingiby (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Bulgar Calendar

Hello Jingiby,

The source I have used for editing the page is from Unesco in 1976 statement of recognition for the Bulgar calendar. As well I did added instead Khanate the First Bulgarian Empire which also leads to the following article of the Empire not khanate which is more accurate. The work behind the calendar can be find in the work from Petar Dobrev, Assoc. Prof. Vassil Uhllenski, Institute of Astronomy BAS, Yordan Valchev, Boris Rogev, Prof. Mosko Moskov, Ventseslav Bachvarov, Ivan Bogdanov and Petar Petrov. Nikolay.rusev (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikolay.rusev. You need provide WP:RS in English, which can be verified. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not have in source English which can be verified. Disregard my request about the mote info on this request. Just a question about the ediot on khanate into empire? Is that debatable? Nikolay.rusev (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Falsehood

Hi. It is not disruptive editing,

I only used accidentally my logged out account. Please do not include unsourced infromation in the article. Thank youNapoleon Sumpter (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bulgars + Kubrat

Hi dear Editor,

I have disputed 2 times over the recent month about the Bulgaris origins and Kubrat article which implemented the origins of them which CLEARLY states the Bulgars have Turkic origins. To clear this up, that is one of the hypothesis which is accepted over the origins of the Bulgars. Up to date the origins are not fully understood. Therefore I would like you to stop reverting my edit on Kubrat ,since the Turkic origins is just a theory,not a fact proven with evidence. You can also keep in mind that the Bulgars article first sentence need an edit too and implement Turkic is just a theory,not a fact. Look upon the source more objectively while editing or creating articles. The way you are reverting and editing articles is just close minded way,not taking in consideration that Turkic tribe theory is just a theory not a fact. Please consider this. Thank you!

Best Regards, Nikolay

Hi, the origins of the Bulgars is disputed, but prevealing academic consensus is they were Turkic people. The fact that you have challenged something does not mean that you are right and does not give you the right to change a text supported by academic sources. Jingiby (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jingiby, I am not going to argue or initiate a discussion but it seems to me that your assessment is badly outdated, with the majority of the scientists involved currently supporting the mixed origins theory whereas the Bulgars have multiple ethnicity origins including, among others, people of Iranic, Turkic and Ugric extractions, and integrating several dozens of still other ethnic groups in their long history. Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Apcbg. A strinking example is The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, edited by Oliver Nicholson, publisher: Oxford University Press Print Publication Date: 2018 Print ISBN-13:9780198662778, which claims about the Bulgars: A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states: Danubian-Balkan Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire, 681–1018) and Volga Bulgaria (early 10th century–1241). They derived from Oghuric-Turkic tribes, driven westward from Mongolia and south Siberia to the Pontic steppes in successive waves by turmoil associated with the Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. - mid - 2nd cent. AD) and subsequently by warfare between the Rouran / * Avar (c.402-552) and northern Wei (386-534) states. By the way the Turkic origin of their language is not disputed by no one the international researchers. Jingiby (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Apcbg. It seems to me that I must clarify something. There is a difference between the origin of the original Bulgars and that of their ancestors who arrived in Europe. The origin of the Bulgars was located in the area at the border of Northern Mongolia and Southern Siberia. This is the area of the appearance of the Proto-Turks, where they came in contact with the Mongols. Centuries later, these people who migrated long time reached Europe, Then they were already ethnogenetically different. They were mixed with Huns, Ugrians, Iranoids and even with Slavs. But their original origins remain Turkic, as does that of their language. Jingiby (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jingiby, You are not responding on a discussion which I recently opened about prof. Boris Simeonov and his work implemented in the article which indeed challenges the book you have shared here in thia discussion. Please be so kind to reapond with reliable english source and forward Prof Simeonov work which was used in the article with ISBN. If you are unable to to do, It makes the source unreliable and invalid to be in this article. Best Regards Nikolay.rusev (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Bulgars Article question

Hello Jingiby,

 I see your responsible for the Bulgars article from the active discussions and the archive.
 I want to know where you or the editors found the english source of Boris Simeonov’s work or book to implement them in the article which links the Bulgars to Pugu, Tiele and Toquz Oguz. I am curious to find/read where this information was found.I do have Prof. Simeonov’s work but it’s only in his mother language. 
 Please be specific which book/work of Prof. Boris Simeonov has been used in the article in English and ISBN will be appreciated.

PS. I do have different understanding from his work. Will be helpful and useful if I can use the editors or your resource from the professor.

Thank you Nikolay.rusev (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No answer , but no changed either. Well done Nikolay.rusev (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Slavic migrations map

This map is very poorly made and not only it is poorly made but such a depiction is profoundly contradicting archaeological findings and conclusions. Novakovic isn't an internationally recognized historian nor an expert on the topic. It also contradicts other maps which can be commonly found in the historiography and archaeology literature on the Early Slavs.

The replaced map is in accordance with literature.

I see this map is sourced. There is no reason to delete it. Jingiby (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Anastasius I Dicorus

Hello Jingiby,

As I mentioned in my Edit summery the term "Illyrian" can be used to refer to ethnic Illyrians but also for any person from Illyricum. This can be seen in "Count Marcellinus and His Chronicle" where on page 49 the word word illyricianus, which is Latin for Illyrian, is defined as anyone from Illyricum. With this in mind as well as the fact that "The fragments of late antique patria" which is the book previously used to argue that he was ethnically Illyrian, unlike The Chronicle barely talks about the Illyrians or Illyricum, mentioning them only 3 times in the entire 400 page book and as such it doesnʻt clarify what it means by "Illyrian" so it canʻt really be used as a source of Anastasius ethnic identity. With all these facts in mind, I believe, for the sake of accuracy and objectivity, we shouldnʻt ascribe an ethnic identity to Anastasius and if you agree with me I suggest you change the claim of ethnic identification with regional origin from Illyricum, which is established to be true in the Chronicle and add page 49 of The Chronicle as a further source.

This is the first time Iʻm writing on a talk page, sorry if anything is off.

Please write back soon, Just another normal guy

Hi, per encyclopedia Britannica online: The Byzantine Empire; From Illyria to Albania; When the Roman Empire divided into East and West in 395, the territories of modern Albania became part of the Byzantine Empire. As in the Roman Empire, some Illyrians rose to positions of eminence in the new empire. Three of the emperors who shaped the early history of Byzantium (reigning from 491 to 565) were of Illyrian origin: Anastasius I, Justin I, and—the most celebrated of Byzantine emperors—Justinian I. That excludes your suggestion about Anastasius I. Also according to "The Role of the Bishop in Late Antiquity: Conflict and Compromise. Classical Studies and Ancient History" with authors Andrew Fear, José Fernández Urbiña, Mar Marcos and Mar Marcos Sanchez; A&C Black, 2013, ISBN 1780932170, p. 176: according to the chronicle of Count Marcellinus – himself an Illyrian – the Illyrians in the capital continued to have a strong sense of their ethnic and cultural origins. That excludes your suggestion about Marcellinus. Jingiby (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Al-Bulgariy

Hello, I'm BurakD53. I have already mentioned in the description that the resource was already registered. But I guess I should use the same source again. I have just edited. BurakD53 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC+3)

Hi BurakD53. Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Jingiby (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, BurakD53 Wiktionary is already not source. Unpublished Volga Bulgarian inscriptions A. H. Khalikov and J. G. Muhametshin is source. Witionary has just page number. Please fix my edit. Thanks. BurakD53 (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC+3)

Hi, BurakD53 Bulgar language is not Danube Bulgar language. It's both. The original name that I added from Volga Bulgar because I don't have source from Danube Bulgar. Read name of page. BurakD53 (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC+3)

Originally the Bulgars used the Orkhon script. Only one group of the Bulgars adopted the Arabic script. For the rest it was unknown. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello, may I ask what IP vandalism? What does that mean. Wikchacap (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain why my edit was once again erased, I think you have made a mistake. The paragraph said that “Bulgarians are ethnic Slavs native to Bulgaria”, that does not make sense because Slavs are not native to Bulgaria. It is more correct to to say that “Bulgarians are ethnic Balkans which are native to Bulgaria” which supports the statement and idea that they are native. I am trying to improve Wikipedia, not harm it :) Wikchacap (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, your recent edits appear that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Jingiby (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata Vandalism

https://www.wikidata.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Q360160&oldid=1505453310

Hi Jingiby, just here to report a vandalism on the Wikidata page of Gotse Delchev. Unfortunately I can't revert it as I am new. --Perhaps87 (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have corrected it per main article on Wikipedia. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Omar Sharif, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lebanese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you, Jingiby! For reverting false infromation! Thegreatguym (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thegreatguym. Thenk you, but why did you publish such information on Wikipedia? Only to check somebody's reaction or something else? This behavior is strange. Jingiby (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hristijan Mickoski & NATO

I'm not sure why you canceled my edit with the explanation "There is often a difference between what somebody claims and what he does." Wikipedia must be sourced. Here are at least two sources for VMRO-DPMNE's support for NATO membership: At the Stoltenberg-Mickoski meeting in September 2018, in the light of the 2018 referendum, the message was that "VMRO-DPMNE supports NATO and EU membership"; On February 11, 2020, VMRO-DPMNE, despite remarks on the Prespa Agreement, voted for ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty. The coordinator of the parliamentary group of VMRO-DPMNE, Nikola Micevski addressed that his party is orchestratedly accused by SDSM representatives that as a party they are not for NATO, saying "We are a political party that follows the principles of legality and reality, that can criticize and have the right to challenge it, but in no case do we as a party intend to jeopardize the essential commitment and deserved membership in NATO that the country has been waiting for for a full 12 years." (rough translation of mine, the point is there). Both Micevski and Nola Ismajloska-Starova emphasize that the Declaration on the accession of the Republic of Macedonia to NATO in 1993, a key document of the Macedonian Parliament, was adopted by VMRO-DPMNE.; In the statute of VMRO-DPMNE (PDF linked) in Article 8, under the basic goals and tasks of the party: "entry in the European Union and NATO". A statement issued by VMRO-DPMNE on September 14, 2020, titled "VMRO-DPMNE has always seen Macedonia in NATO and EU and to today it looks towards the West", quotes Aleksandar Pandov, president of the Patriotic Institute of VMRO-DPMNE, who emphasizes that "VMRO-DPMNE is the first party to demand that Macedonia join NATO." The source currently on the page is from an author, Erol Rizaov, which is a political comment. If Mickoski and VMRO-DPMNE are against Macedonia's membership in NATO, then Wikipedia should have a source in which Mickoski or VMRO-DPMNE say that. Идеологист (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia does not deny what politicians say. Politicians often say one thing and do the opposite. However, Wikipedia uses political analysis to determine whether a politician's claims are true. I do not object to adding Mickoski's statement and the conditions under which he would support such membership. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1762 leto

added a link pointing to Ottoman Macedonia

Yoakim Karchovski

added a link pointing to Stip

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Danela Arsovsla

Sirite lazni vesti. Gospodjata Danela nema bugarsko drzavjanstvo ili licna karta i toa sto go pravite e zloupotreba na Wikipedia. Татунчо (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, here is English language Wikipedia. Please, write in English. Wikipedia works based on sources, not on personal opinions. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Scope of Historical controversies category

I'm not disagreeing with your edit comment on Skopje 2014. However, my understanding of that category was that it is a category for articles that concerns historiographical debates (i.e. academic debates between historians about said historical issues). While the Skopje 2014 project certainly has its historical issues, as far as I can tell, the article itself is moreso concerned with the planning around the project, and not the actual historical debate concerning the name Macedonia. If anything, the article that should be linked to the historical controversies category should be Macedonia naming dispute. The Macedonia naming debate is the controversy (which should be linked to the category given that is what the debate centres around). Skopje 2014 is only a consequence of said debate, not what centres it. Leventio (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Leventio, your way of thinking is also right. Jingiby (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jingiby reported by Dandarmkd. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Marry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
	Hello everybody, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, to every Wikipedian, who celebrates these holidays! Jingiby (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

I made a mistake on the page called Turkic peoples by mistake and deleted some things. I had a hard time bringing it back. Thank you for bringing it back. Tutsens Woman (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Please use cittion templates

When adding citations to articles please use citation templates, these help with formatting and for ease of editing. Bare references like the one you added to Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Kiradjieffs

Hi Jingiby, hope you're doing well. I noticed you reverted my edit as "not an improvement" and then left a vague message on my talkpage with no rationale for the reversion. Care to explain anything? --Local hero ^talk 16:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh oh. See below. This seems to be an ongoing problem. --2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)