User talk:Jingiby

Disscusion article Bulgarians

Number of Bulgarians The total number of Bulgarians according to the quoted and recognized sources is over 10 million, rather than 8 mln. The calculations were wrong-therefore I edited the article with the correct number. Furtermore 8 mln is unrealistically low number, having in mind that in 1989, only in Bulgaria lived 9 mln people(since then at least 1,5 mln have emigrated in the US, EU, Australia, etc.) Moreover, the Bulgarian disapora is historically large due to lost territories to neighbours and large waves of immigrations during the 18-20th century. Only in Ukraine, people of Bulgarian descent are at least 500 000, in Moldova 100 000, etc. Therefore, even though the realistic number is much higher than 10 mln, we should accept that number, since that is verifiable, according to all sources quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.1.125 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide this quoted and recognized sources about 10,000,000 Bulgarians. If no, I will revert the number back to the previous simple calculation. Jingby (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, sum up the number of Bulgarians country by country and you would find that calculations add up to 10 mln. By "quoted and verified sources" I meant the ones, already recognized in the article. Simply sum up and you would see that it adds to 10 mln, rather than 8 mln. In addition, the mirror articles about Bulgarians in the Finnish and Lithuanian wiki projects quote number of Bulgarians between 10 and 11 mln people. In addition, in the articles for Bulgarian language many of the different wikipedia projects, quote the number of Bularian speakers as 11-12 mln.

Last but not least, in the article for Greece it shows 16 mln people (highly overestimated number) without any reference. Romanians claim that they are 29 mln including Moldovans without reference. Why such double standards and why would you not modify the article for Greeks and Romanians asking for a source? Why you would want to put a lower number than the real one, even though the calculations on the site add up to 10 mln?

ps the actual number is much higher, but let us stick us to the alredy verified sources. ps2 the number as it is now and the Foreign Ministry Data only refers to people born on the territory of Bulgaria and their descendants. Thus excluding large Bulgarian origin populations in neighbouring countries. But even such narrower concept of "Bulgarian" adds up to 10 mln, rather than 8mln. Therefore, instead of threats, let us better take calculators.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozhani buditel (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lozhani buditel (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby, it seems like you just edit the information not because you are concerned wth obejectivity, but out of personal motives. Yes, it is not precisely 10 mln -it adds up to 9.600 000, but as you perfectly well know-the number here is a low estimate and it does not include all 202 countries in the world. Wikipedia is not pure mathematics and not pure science. Sometimes logic is as importany as figures and "sources". And I am doing a PhD Politics in England and perfectly well know what objectivity and verifiability stands out for. So I am not here to waist my time. Therefore 10 mln is a realistic (although still a very low estimate) number of Bulgarians around the world. Please, do not put your ego about logic and objectivity and leave the number intact.

Our nation is daing. This is the truth. Stop with the phantasy. Jingby (talk)

Well it seems you want to help it d(AI) die much sooner than it happens. And what kind of argument is that? I am far from PHantasy (fantasy), since I am very down to Earth and objectivity is my aim. I am doing a PhD Politics in England and trust me-what you are doing to change numbers just to suit your calculations for lesser number of Bulgarians and prove your ego is far from being of any academic or scentific worth. Therefore stop your alterations.Lozhani buditel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.1.125 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jingby, i don`t know which nation is dying, but first educate yourself and then write in EN Wikipedia. Even so, this is not demographic research in Bulgaria, but in whole the world. So stop reversing, i`ll ask for help from administrators, because you are absolute vandal! Подпоручикъ (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Whether the numbers of Bulgarians are currently shrinking or not has nothing to do with the statistical data backed by reliable sources. It is unacceptbale to forge the statictics to suit someones idea of a dying or a growing nation. If the summary of the most resent statistics shows more than 10 milion Bulgarians living around the globe then that is the number to be shown in Wikipedia. If in a few years a new data shows 9 million or less then it will be changed to that number. For now, lets leave it as it is - over 10 million. Internedko (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Jingby, it may sound like a cliché, but Bulgaria has always been one of the most influential pathways between the East and the West. Today, the NATO and EU membership, followed by the latest economic developments and the large investments in Bulgaria in its energy sector, are the hallmarks that guarantee peace and security in South-Eastern Europe, the challenging Caspian-Black Sea region and even the Middle-East. Only ignorant fools may think that this great nation is dying. Bulgaria is becoming a rich nation and this is a fact.

Many data forced by certain circles pertaining the Bulgarian population are biased. The claims that the total number of Bulgarians around the world is less than 9 millions is not logically and statistically correct. Only the number of post-1990 emigrants is around 1.5 million. Together with the descendants of the Macedono-Bulgarian emigrants of the World Wars at the beginning of the XX century, who now live in the USA, Canada and Australia, this may sum up to at least 2 millions. We must also take into account the inevitable process of unfolding the truth about the Macedonian Bulgarians, whose number is around 1.3 millions in the Republic of Macedonia. So, there are at least 12 million Bulgarians in Bulgaria, Macedonia, USA, Canada and Australia.

The overall well-being in the Bulgarian society stimulates the growth of the population and it will be significantly increased in the next decade. On the other hand, the talented people who left Bulgaria, dispersed all over the developed countries, will provide a solid background for further political and diplomatic support for their homeland, through their various professional orientations and the active involvement in the scientific and cultural life of the societies where they live.

As a Macedonian Bulgarian, born and living in the Republic of Macedonia, I would ask you Jingby to stop altering the numbers and respect the opinions of all other Wikipedians. Relativefrequency (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not put your ego above objectiviy

Jingiby in the article Bulgarians you deliberatley lowered all numbers by countries just to prove your point that Bulgarians are over 9 mln , but not over 10 mln people. Is taht objective? ..Pathetic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozhani buditel (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Не се изживявай като съвестта на България, защото нито имаш компетентността за това, нито правото да си последна иснатнция за обективност на всички българи, още повече че наистина това не е реалната бройка на българите и ти много добре го знаеш.

If this is an encyclopaedia, but not nationalistic phantasy forum...I am showing just the facts with references. Jingby (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you claim that you are that objective, why dont you correct the articles on Turkey and Greece, where without any references they claim they are 70mln or 16 mln -numbers highly exaggerated, but have double standards and apply them only to Bulgaria. Second of all, who told you you are the biggest expert in the field and only your data is objective-read the discussion everyone else told you to leave the number and you still change it. There is consensus rule in wikipedia. Reading your history it seems you have been annoying quite many people here with your anti-bulgarian entries. You are trying to hide your anti-bulgarianism with the mask of objectivity. Please, first learn how to write proper English and then claim yu can edit wikipedia. phantasy is spelled with "f".

Still banned

Jingiby, according to your entry in WP:ARBMAC, you are still topic-banned from all Balkans-related articles, even though your sockpuppetry block has run out. The topic ban was for six months, not three. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, one of the leading principles in the Roman and European Law is that more severe penalty absorbs the lightly one. I was banned from all Balkans-related articles several weeks before you banned my effectively from all topics for three monts! I think thе legal principles have to be valid here! Regards! Jingby (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jingiby, but I think wikilawyering will not get you very far here. You were topic-banned for a longer time, and then you were blocked for a shorter time because you kept breaking the topic ban through sockpuppetry.

I'd like to acknowledge though that your edit to Bulgaria today seems to have been mostly good, and actually removed some Bulgarian nationalist POV material. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Future, I am banned still by this IP 88.203.200.74 for all, not only for Balkan-related topics? Jingby (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, that IP block went for two days longer than the main block; lifted now. You are definitely allowed to edit in other areas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis

Don't remove sourced data from the Bulgarian ethnogenesis section--Ivailo82 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Boris

Please address my comments on the Talk:Boris (first name) page. Some of the changes you made are not correct. Sotnik (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anatolism

Sorry, I've had to delete that article of yours. It was totally copied (plagiarised) from its source. Moreover I doubt if it would have stood a test of notability. Anybody can coin a term in -ism; the question is whether it's a widely used concept beyond that one source you had. Also, those -ism terms are often inherently non-neutral and may be a very poor choice for framing the topic of an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I will insist about creating of such an article. After reworking! Regards! Jingby (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Read the content before jumping to any hasty conclusions... The guy is a hungarian from Transilvania and what he added it's completely his personal opinion and completely original research, Cheers ! Rezistenta (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of those studies are made by him and that's original research . I think that's also the reason why you've reverted the article to the previous version. There are not pro-magyar arguments just anti-romanian arguments . The conclusions drawn by him don't emerge by the results of those studies Rezistenta (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that conclusion man, what other guy wrote !!! Rezistenta (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Check your e-mail Rezistenta (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen! I have a hard time understanding your presence on the Wikipedia sites related to Romania or Romanians, when your view, if I am to briefly present it, sounds like that: "Romania is only formed of Moldavia (a part of it) and Wallachia and that's it. Romanians are people coming from the Balkans, without any background and their presence on the actual teritorry of Romania is the result of more or less recent migrations". While this is your point of view, on which you are completely entitled to own, as a private, own view about history, it cannot be tolerated as a documented scientifical piece of knowledge. Sorry about that. And about the severly limited conclusions of User:Rezistenta, I will not loose too much time commenting them. I hope you understand my message and please do not push it more. I really don't like scandal. User:MariusPetruStanica 12:55,5 July 2008 (UTC)

turkish people

pls stop editing turkic related topics, you dont know anything about turkic people and all i want to say that, anatolianism is completely bullshit and has nothing about turkish pple.--Orkh (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do not know anything about them, but Encyclopedia Britanica and the World Univercities know much more then you. I use their knowledges for Wikipedia, but not nationalistic POV-s! Regards! 12:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

nobody cares brittanica, here is wikipedia, here is not depends on ONE source, an stop editing those pages--Orkh (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

hey Jingiby you hate Turkic people because you are a racist Slavic Bulgarian... but you hate your Turkic ancestries... everybody hate you, racist pig!!--85.107.110.87 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect the Turkic peoples, however the Bulgars were Turkic! Your problem are the reliable sources. According to Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Regards! See:Wikipedia:Verifiability Jingby (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish people article

Hi, I am trying to improve the article today as I have already tried to give everybody the oppurtunity to try and improve it. I thank you for the work you did yesturday. The sentences that i am removing today are those of which do NOT support what we are writting, there is also alot of repetion which should also be removed. Also there are references like this; (Clisson et al. 2002) and (Rolf et al. 1999) which do not have any other informmation about the references, thus it is not reliable (and MUST be removed). Please allow me to try an improve the section and if you have any objections we talk about them on the disscusion page. I thank you in advance for you cooperation! :D Thetruthonly (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Jingby (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "WP:See also".

Blocks and stuff

Hello, I've indef-blocked Orkh (talk · contribs), he seems to have been a pain indeed. However, I must also warn you to please avoid breaking your topic ban. I saw edits on Vlachs, Bulgars, Gotse Delchev and others. Now, most of them seem to have been minor, so I'm not going to get the big trout out yet, but still, please be careful with this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Verstanden! Especially about the Bulgars; they are seminomadic people from Central Asia and settled on several places in Europe. This topic is not Balkan-releted, but Eurasian-related, I think. Regards! Jingby (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you were told not to edit any Blakan related articles, talkpages etc, so just don't. Be patient and don't breach your block - it would only make matters worse. If you have a comment on any of those articles leave it on my talkpage. --Laveol ^T 10:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Including talkpages etc.?!? OK! However I will not discuss Balkan problems on your talkpage! Jingby (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, why not? --Laveol ^T 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

By this situation it could be seen as breack of the ban about Balkan related articles! All depends of the way of thinking - positive or negative! Jingby (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance needed with reading a Bulgarian source

Hi. In processing articles at the copyright problem board, I've encountered one with which I need assistance, and I'm hoping you can help. :) (I come to you by virtue of (a) your being listed here and (b) your active presence. Many of those editors are here intermittently if they come at all.) The article Dobroslavtsi Air Base has been tagged as a potential copyright infringement of this source. The tagger asserted a belief that the article was a direct translation. While it's okay to use the original as a basis of information, a direct translation is a "derivative work" and is protected by the copyright of the original. If you had an opportunity to review the source and the article as it stood before blanking and let me know if it seems to be too close of a translation, I would be grateful. If you don't, please let me know that, too, so that I can go down the list and look for another Wikipedian who meets (a) and (b). :D I'll be watching your userpage, so I'll see if you have an opportunity to reply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, I agree the article was translated from this source as you pointed, but not directly! It was not posible "derivative work" and after small improvement and shortening it cann exists on Wikipedia as separate article. Regards! Jingby (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Biased"

Ne vi li e sram da narichate izuchavania ot Bulgariski anthropolozi i istoritsi "biased"... A koe ne e "biased" i li taka narecheno subektivno? Mojebi vie haresvate materiali pisani za pra-Bulgari ot Ruski i zapadni istoritsi v 19 i 20 vek kogato Evro-tsentrobejni politicheski tendentsii na klasicheskiat imperialisum sa suzdali obstoiatelstva poradi koito na dadeni lichnosti i natsionlani zad-granichni sili im e iznasialo da predstavat vsiako pleme sus koreni izvun Evropa kato varvarsko. Che taka i nie da budem prestaveni kato polu-varvari za da oburnem grub na chast ot nashata istoria i vuv sushtoto vreme da obiknem Slavianskite si bratia okupatori ot velikiat sayuz. Za razlika ot mnogo drugi hora, az izpolzvam akademichni materiali kogato pisha vuv Wikipedia. Ne moga da kaja sushtoto za teb. A che nie Bulgarite sme narod sus razlichni koreni e absolutna realnost, ot koiato ne biva da se sramuvame. Sushto ne triabva da se opasiavame da pokajem che horata/plemenata ot koito se e suzdal nashiat kompositen narod imat istoria i kultura, a ne taka narechena varvarska identichnost. Niama da razresha luji da se pishat kakto i samo stari perspektiviti da se pokazvat. Obratniat vraiant bi bil akt na neovajenie spriamo moiite pradedi, kakto i tvoiite, makar che ochevidno ne si dostatuchno zrial i li umen za da saubrazish svoiata naglost! Razbrali, i li si niakakuv samo-mrazesht Bulgarin sus kompleksi no bez kapka smelost i trudolubie cherez koeto da vlojish vreme i usilia da prochetesh vsichki akademichni perspektivi po vuprosa pod silata na otvoren i zainteresovan itelekt sus koiito da stignesh do maksimalno neutralni izvodi?!?

Zasrasami se i ne se opitvaii da govorish zad gurba mi bez da me poznavash i li bez da si vidial sus kakvo sum doprinesal za Bulgarski statii vuv wikipedia. Tuk stava vupros da se predstaviat vsichki akademichni perpesktivi. Kaji tova koeto kazvash za informatsiata koiato sum predstavil na Dr. Petur Dobrev ot Bulgarska Akademia po Nauka (BAN), koiito e napravil poveche prouchvania za pra-Bulgarite ot vseki drug vuv poslednite dve desetiletia. --Monshuai (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Turkish people

If you are the author of this diagram, please upload it to WP:COMMONS so that we may use it as a diagram. An SVG version would be much appreciated. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not the author of this diagram! Jingby (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK! Jingby (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban

Hmmmph, yes, what about that ban, isn't it still running? (I'm too lazy right now to find out when it was imposed.) If you want it reviewed, we might talk about that, but why are you unilaterally just ignoring it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It runned out [1]! Jingby (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, how time flies... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And what about Bulgarians ??? Jingby (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I see. Didn't have much time yet to look into that one. Can you give me a very brief overview of what the content dispute is about? It's a bit too complex to take in at a glance. Of course, I'd recommend you should be rather careful about reverting (what with just coming back from a ban and so on), but I can see the other guy's behaviour may be rather problematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is about the orinin of the Bulgars - Turkic or Iranian. The most reliable references are given by me in the article as follows -

^ Образуване на българската държава. проф. Петър Петров (Издателство Наука и изкуство, София, 1981)

^ Образуване на българската народност.проф. Димитър Ангелов (Издателство Наука и изкуство, “Векове”, София, 1971)

^ A history of the First Bulgarian Empire.Prof. Steven Runciman (G. Bell & Sons, London 1930)

^ История на българската държава през средните векове Васил Н. Златарски (I изд. София 1918; II изд., Наука и изкуство, София 1970, под ред. на проф. Петър Хр. Петров)

^ История на българите с поправки и добавки от самия автор акад. Константин Иречек (Издателство Наука и изкуство, 1978) проф. Петър Хр. Петров

^ Rashev, Rasho. 1992. On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians. p. 23-33 in: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. In honour of Prof. V. Beshevliev, Veliko Tarnovo

^ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online - Bolgar Turkic

^ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online - Bulgars

^ Sedlar, Jean W. East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. University of Washington Press, 1994. page 6

^ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online - Bulgar

^ Bowersock, G. W. & Grabar, Oleg. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World. Harvard University Press, 1998. page 354

^ Chadwick, Henry. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church : from Apostolic Times. Oxford University Press, 2003. page 109

^ Reuter, Timothy. The New Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge University Press, 2000. page 492

^ Heinz Siegert: Osteuropa – Vom Ursprung bis Moskaus Aufstieg, Panorama der Weltgeschichte, Bd. II, hg. von Dr. Heinrich Pleticha, Gütersloh 1985, p. 46

^ P. B. Golden An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. - Wisbaden, 1992. - p.92-104

^ [René Grousset: Die Steppenvölker, München 1970, p. 249]

^ Harald Haarmann: Protobulgaren in: Lexikon der untergegangenen Völker, München 2005, p.225

^ Большая советская энциклопедия

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgarians"

The same is concluded in the article about the Bulgars!

There are other hypothesises as Iranian, Finno - Ugric and others, but the leading international theory is the Turkic. Some Bulgarian nationalists are pushing as leading the Iranian hypothesis, let from anti - Turkey sentiments! Jingby (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. I really hate doing this, because you are probably right about the sources, but you've been revert-warring again so much I can hardly not block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No problems. This is the correct decision! Regards! Jingby (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am compiling all the sources that are needed. I have also gotten moderators (not the ones that you seem to be friends with) to look into your historically inappropriate behaviour and your previous bans. This and your recent deletion of academic work produced by members of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences will be looked at. We will be talking again in a few weeks. Regards.--Monshuai (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Very nice! Jingby (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A friendly reminder...

Just a friendly note about style, could you please change your habit of ending every second sentence and edit summary of yours with an exclamation mark? It really is very uncommon in English, and has a very unnerving effect. Like listening to a person who is shouting excitedly all the time. Seeing all those exclamation marks makes my head explode. A simple full stop will do just fine and will make you sound much calmer and more reasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me! Jingby (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! You did it again!!! ;-P Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Jingby (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

Jingiby it is quite obvious that you have a major POV before even reading the articles. It is clear you are on one mission: Prove Macedonian = Bulgarian. It is evident by your statements in the Macedonians of Bulgaria, and the flags of Macedonia. It is amazing that many people have such interest in a landlocked country like Macedonia.

Krusevo set a precedent for Macedonia, and in the "use" it doesn't say it was used as the flag of Macedonia, but the flag of Krusevo therefore it is relevant. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All I ask is to be objective and at least discuss an issue before removing or adding large chunks of information, and I'll do the same. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby, which "banned user" do you claim this is? [2] Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unser alter fürchterlicher Freund. Grüsse. Jingby (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unser fürchterlicher Freund lebt aber auf der anderen Seite der Erdkugel, oder? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, wahrscheinlich besucht er im Sommer seine Heimat, aber ich bin nicht ganz sicher. Alles ist technologisch möglich. Jingby (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oder vielleicht ist es nur ein anderer Benutzer. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you guys think I am, but I am Mactruth I simply forgot my password. Listen Jingiby, you post images with sources such as "MPO" and "Bulgarian Museum" which doesn't cut it for me. You have been reverting and adding information without discussing it first, which goes completely against WP policy. The only thing you should change without discussion is wording or spelling. Anyways, you are convinced Macedonians = Bulgarians even though the articles (though bias) provide information that Macedonian conscious grew in the 1800s from intellects of Macedonia. Again, great evidence with amazing timing by the Bulgarian government to find all this now. But, I also have documents which prove my argument, and its good enough for me. You also forget about the rebellion of Macedonians against Nazi Bulgarians during WW2. All the best 98.243.158.123 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just a taste: A Woman In The Balkans by Winifred Gordon, 1918, page 115
• Macedonian appeal
• Monastir Road 98.243.158.123 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

700 AD map of Slavic tribes

Hi. Yeah i can do a new map.

I am aware of Zlatarski's theory. I think i have already discussed the issue regarding the Bulgarian colonization of the Kerramissian plain. Kuber's "Bulgars" were actually predominantly Roman Christian captives of the Avar khanate - a mixture of ethnicities. YEs, Kuber was likely a Bulgar himself, but we have not so far established any proof linking him to the DUlo clan. Nor do we have any evidence that his tribes established any sort of centralised state in Macedonia. In fact, many people scattered around back to their homes in the regions around thessaloniki despite Kuber's attempts to prevent this.

Kuber's clan is often referred to as the Seramisianoi - after Sirmium (where they were originally based). I can include themin the map, sure. But the map focuses on the Sklavinias. If i add every other tribe that also existed in the Balkans at that time - such as the proto-Vlachs, , it might get crowded. Hxseek (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure . I see your point that there weremore than 1 Bulgar settlements in Balkans. Nice maps. I can include them , but like i said, the map ocuses of the Sklavinias, no on every other single tribe in the Balkans also. I just also include establshied territories/ states. Hxseek (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I'd love to read Mikulchik but my Macedonian/ Bulgarian is so slow that it takes me 5 minutes to read 1 line. Hxseek (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd be happy to add it - I will call the the Keramisians, as they were called by the Byzantines. ABout the Bulgar khanate: i don;t know where you got the idea that i am representing it as 100, 000 Bulgars. It is common knowledge that there were only 10 or 20 G Bulgars, as you say. I will re-do the map- I will put it in this weekend. I hope you will like it. Hxseek (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK> CHeck new map For sure mate Hxseek (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will upgrade it . Just away on business now. Will do it in 2 weeks Hxseek (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have this map [3] in larger resolution ? ? Just rrying to read the names of Slavic tribes in red colour around macedonia and southern Bulgaria is a bit hard. Hxseek (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i see. Its a shame we do not have that map bigger, Coz its the best one actually showing individual south slav tribes. Hxseek (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but see the settlements of the Bulgars, marked with darker pinc-blu color. Only in Dobrudja and Bessarabia and in the central part of Western Macedonia. Jingby (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Those last few were great. They will certainly help. I will do a new map weekend after next. Fala Hxseek (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

National Liberation Front (Macedonia)

Hi! Due to my technical mistake I delete your last edit in this article. I am sorry!--AKeckarov (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Back by popular demand

Oh noes! Ur englishz are beaten myn! Lol. Do you want me to find the diff where you used it as a verb? Besides, when it's used as a noun it's almost always singular and not used in the context of "stopping" it. Use a thesaurus and get back to me on whether you have an appropriate word. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 09:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian Scientific Institute

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Macedonian Scientific Institute, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/mpr/mni.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Macedonian Scientific Institute

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

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A Joke

• Mactruth: Knock Knock
• Jingiby: Who's there
• Mactruth: Boo
• Jingiby: Boo who...
• Mactruth: Don't cry about not being able to use bias sources

Hope that made you laugh just a little, because from your articles you seem way to into it. Mactruth (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. What's with the lame joke? --Laveol ^T 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert parole

Man, Jingiby, you are so damned lucky I was busy with other stuff on 25/26 August. For you to go breaking 3RR on a Macedonian page is really suicidal. Talk about mice when the cat is not at home...

Okay, I'm putting the lot of you on a revert parole again. Not more than 1rv per 48h, on all articles, for the next 6 months, and you are strictly required to precede every revert with a meaningful explanation and attempt for discussion on the relevant talk page, allowing for a minimum of 3 hours for discussion before you revert.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Българска екзархия

Здравей! По повод на текста за българската екзарихия, който махна в сатията за македонизма, аз мисля, че този текст беше съвсем коректен и информираше читателите, че преди македонизмът да се появи, мнозинството славяноезични в областта Македония са гласували за екзархията, т.е. разкриваше част от немакедонистката предистория на македонизма. Помисли, моля дали да не го върнем.--AKeckarov (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Не мисля, че е си струва. Добавих пак там във рубриката "виж още" статията "Македонския въпрос" и "История на етническите македонци" [4]. Който се интересува просто ще кликне там и ще се дообразова в детайли. Нещата са ясни. Поздрави. Jingby (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Извинявай, но някои твои намеси ме карат да мисля, че вършиш или си повлиян от македонистка пропаганда. Нали сърбо-македонисткото схващане е това за аморфната маса, липсата на национално съзнание, неопределеност и т.н. Брайлсфорд на много други места ясно си говори за македонски българи, но македонистката пропаганда набляга на едно от малкото, за които може да се хване. Къкъв е смисълът да й пригласяме и помагаме?--AKeckarov (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Уви, такъв е процеса на постепенна дебългаризация на региона. Искаме или не, но от началото на 20 век с малки изключения ние сме губещите, та чак и до днес. Мисля, че най-голяма вина имаме ние българите, но не е тук мястото за коментар. Jingby (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Съгласен съм, но като македонец не бих се съгласил да се подменя историята. Дебългаризацията може да е основен факт от един определен момент, но във всеки случай за болшинството от населението в МК в началото на ХХ век това не е така. Дебългаризацията намира своите основания и до ден чрез изкривяването на фактите за миналото, чрез пренасяне на някои днешни политически реалности върху миналото.--AKeckarov (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Човече, погледни картата. Виж какъв дял контролираме ние сега и прецени каква част от населението на днешната географска област се чувстват българи и колко са били преди 130 години, каква част от региона са обитавали и т.н. Коментарът е излишен. Jingby (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Нешо не се разбираме. Аз ти говоря за миналото и за факта, че и в началото на ХХ век славяноезичните жители на МК в голямата си част са се чувствали българи и не само това - те СА били българи. В този смисъл един от любимите лайтмотиви на сръбската пропаганда, възприети впоследствие от македонистката, е обяснението на всичко българско в МК с влиянието (разбирай пропагандата) на Екзархията - един абсурден аргумент, като се има предвид, че македонските българи са част от Българското Възраждане, а то започва много преди Екзархията. Затова ми е странно, че човек, който би трябвало да защитава обективното представяне на историята на МК, се хваща на тоя въдица. P.S. Благодаря за популяризирането на един антибългарски материал със спорни исторически компетенции като този.--AKeckarov (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Аз не защитавам ничия позиция. Това е световна енциклопедия. И пак ще повторя, българската позиция през последните 100 години, включително и сега не е за защита, а за ожалване. За разлика от сръбската, колкото и да ми е неприятно. За гърците, които бяха 15% от населението на областта, а днес са над 50% няма да коментирам. Jingby (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Точно защото е световна енциклопедия, би следало да се възразява на македонистките (не македонските) твърдения и да настояваме да се представят нещата честно и обективно. Колкото до българската позиция, тя ще бъде още по за ожалване, ако не се намери начин да бъде представена адекватно. Аз впрочем, в случая на мисля, че защитавам българската позиция, тъй като става дума за въпрос, който едва в последните десетилетия някои пропаганди успяха да поизкривят донякъде. Преди това, включително и в конкретния времеви контекст той имаше сравнително ясен отговор сред съвременниците си, особено чужденците - македонците в голямата си част са българи. Т.е. македонец е регионално понятие. Разибира се, могат да се намерят и изключения, но, ако ние самите почнем да ги търсим и представяме, значи македонистката пропаганда е спечелила още една победа.--AKeckarov (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Моля те, не мисли, че се заяждам. Не знам колко хора ценят това, което правиш, но аз определно съм от тях. Въпреки различни мои съображения. Поздрав, --AKeckarov (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

So, I was just reminded that both you and Cukiger were on revert limitation, right? You both broke it, you most certainly did on Ivan Mihailov, probably elsewhere too. In light of your history, I can hardly block you for less than Cukiger. So: ten days for both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Danke sehr, liebe Katze. Jingby (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good provocation "Jin-gibi". Thanks for all. Jingby (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment my IP is not banned. What does it mean? Probably the admins have understood they were wrong with this "Jin-gibi" or what? Jingby (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, yes, basically that's what happened [5]. Sorry, Moreschi must have forgotten to post a notification here. I'd been talking with him and the checkusers. Looks likely you were the victim of a joe job there. Welcome back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

I am in the process of writing an article about the genetic history of South Slavs. I'd welcome you to read through it when i;m done Hxseek (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Референца

Џингиби, дај ми доказателство (цитат или референца) че новото правителство коешто го забрањава ВМРО на Михајлов е про-советско. Поздрав. --Revizionist (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Приятелю, и какво като ти дам? Аз ти дадох доказателства, че ВМРО-обединена е участвала в изграждането на Акционните Комитети, но ти го бришеш. Ето ти още едно доказателство за това. Васил Хаджикимов е един от основателите на Комитетите и бивш член на ВМРО-обединена.[6][7]

Що се касае до 19 майците и просъветската им политика чети тука;[8] Но да не се караме ще сменя "просъветски" с "авторитарен" ОК! Jingby (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Така е ОК Џингби. Зашто “просоветско“ е правителството на Ѓорѓи Димитров, а правителството коешто забрањава ВМРО на Михајлов е објавено от Коминтерната за “реакционерно“. Но такак какшто ти си го формулирал в последното ти изменение е добре. Поздрав. --Revizionist (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece

An article that you have been involved in editing, Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece. Thank you. Avg (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pomaks

Can you please read my comments before undoing? Your text has been moved, not deleted. It has no place in the intro because it is giving too much importance to a fringe theory. If you believe Bulgarians are predominantly Thracian descendants, that's your opinion, but it's sharply in contrast with the scholarly concensus: that Bulgarians were formed by Slavs and Bulgars mostly, i.e. you're POV-pushing plain and simple. The disputed DNA paragraph (which I call bullshit because genetics and ethnicity are very far-apart concepts) has been moved to the "Alternative origin theories" section: at the moment, your text is duplicated in the article, so undo your edit and let only one copy of it remain. I hope you're not really blind, in which case I apologize, but I believe what I've done is so apparent that your edits are simply ridiculous.

Remember WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE! Alternative theories might be OK on pseudo-scientific Bulgarian forums, but this is an encyclopedia and we don't tolerate bullshit here. Now take a break, slowly review my last edits once again, and revert yourself. You don't need to apologize, it's fine. Todor→Bozhinov 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, Jingiby, I've closed an eye to your reverting quite a couple of times now. You are still under revert parole, have you forgotten again? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DNA

Paleo-mtDNA analysis and population genetic aspects of old Thracian populations from South-East of Romania Cardos G. et al.

ABSTRACT:

We have performed a study of mtDNA polymorphisms (HVR I and HVR II sequences) on the skeletal remains of some old Thracian populations from SE of Romania, dating from the Bronze and Iron Age in order to show their contribution to the foundation of the modern Romanian genetic pool and the degree of their genetic kinships with other old and modern human European populations. For this purpose we have applied and adapted three DNA extraction methods: the phenol/chloroform, the guanidine isotiocianat and silica particles and thirdly the Invisorb Forensic Kit (Invitek)-based DNA extraction method. We amplified by PCR short fragments of HVR I and HVR II and sequenced them by the Sanger method. So far, we have obtained mtDNA from 13 Thracian individuals, which we have compared with several modern mtDNA sequences from 5 European present-day populations; (Italian, Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian). Our results reflect an evident genetic similarity between the old Thracian individuals and the modern populations from SE of Europe. Jingby (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Odrysian kingdom.JPG

By the 5th century BC, the Thracian presence was pervasive enough to have made Herodotus (book 5) call them the second-most numerous people in the part of the world known by him (after the Indians), and potentially the most powerful, if not for their disunity. Jingby (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Two haplogroups (E3b1a2-V13 and J2b1-M102) after several last researches (Cruciani et al 2007 etc) hypothetically in the old time could be united tribes groups or some tribes concentrated in area of modern Albania and in territory of ancient Illyria and a part of Thrace. Their peak frequencies there. E3b1a2 in Albania (Kosovo) has frequency about 32 % (and with downturn in Macedonia - 18 %), and J2b1 in Albania - 17 %. Areas with the lowered frequencies - Macedonia, Bulgaria also is connected to Thracian tribes and was exposed to numerous intrusions. Interesting that J2b1 also is high enough in a turkish part of Thrace. It is possible to assume, that J2b1 hypothetically is "the thracian genetic signature ", also time as E3b1a2 can be named "illyrian". It is known also, that the population of Thrace as a matter of fact were a mix from Illyrian and Thracian tribes and made a part a mix of earlier IE-tribes with a fair impurity local peace tribes groups (farmers).Jingby (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Standard genetic distances between Bulgarians and other populations obtained using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies:

Population Standard genetic distance:

Macedonians 2.60

Greeks 3.17

Romanians 7.58

Croatians 8.30

Cretans 8.64

Slovenians 14.56

Armenians 15.40

Spanish 21.14

French 23.56

Sardinians 24.22

Italians 24.55

North Italians (Bergamo) 27.38

Lebanese (KZ) 28.43

Jewish-non-Ashkenazi 28.70

Jewish Ashkenzai (Polish, Russians) 30.12

Jewish Ashkenazi 31.48

Czech 33.99

Turkish 35.40

Germans 38.14

Lebanese (NS) 40.98

Belgians 44.58

Algerians 44.96

Mongolians 67.21 Jingby (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it that hard to understand that genetics are very far apart from ethnicity? Such "research" is bound to fail for that very reason: you're equating totally different concepts. Identity and nation are so distant from genetic origin that it's not even fun to explain it. What is noticeable about the genetic proximity list above? That geography seems to be the main factor. And location is hardly an argument for ethnicity, am I right? 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This are evidences for origins not for ethnicity. The matters are different. Jingby (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jingiby. This is very nice to read, but also wrong in some general details: It is possible to assume, that J2b1 hypothetically is "the thracian genetic signature ", also time as E3b1a2 can be named "illyrian". Actually I've found somewhere that actually E3b1a2-V13 was connected to Thracians, the position of its origin and evaluated time completely corresponded to the proto-Thracian migration from Anatolia 9.000 yrs ago. Both E3b1a2 and J2b1 were components of Neolithic agriculturist migration story from the east to Europe, or subcomponents developed after migration in the same place. J2 groups were probably the main components to form proto-Greek people (J2a1 - was defined somewhere as proto-Greeks, it originated in Greece).

Connecting E3b1a2 to Illyrians is completely wrong, although it certainly contributed to the Illyrian ethnogenesis, but more to the eastern Illyrian tribes, often described as Thraco-Illyrians (like Dardani tribe) and not "Illyrians proper"! Illyrians proper are defined by "Illyrian culture" - not too much influenced by the Hallstat culture coming from the west. Illyrians proper settled an area between Glasinac in Bosnia to northern Albania, or in modern geography: the most of Bosnia&Herzegovina, southern Croatia (Dalmatia), Montenegro, northern Albania. It's exactly a region with huge frequency of the autochtonuos Paleolithic I2a. Ie Dalmatae tribe who belonged to the Illyrian proper group lived in the central Dalmatia where you can find absolute peak of I2a - over 70% and very very low E3.

It's known that Illyrians in general (70-100 different tribes in the western Balkan) developed during the Bronze Age as admixture of the autochtonuos Paleolithic settlers and Indo-Europeans who came during the Neolithic. However in that period those people were still not "Illyrians", but rather proto-Illyrians. Only in the Iron Age when their tribal organization (Indo-European influence) was finished, we can speak about Illyrians. Illyrian Kingdom was established by the Ardiaei tribe, settled by the Adriatic coast and islands in the southern Dalmatia and western Montenegro. By time other tribes were included and paralelly this Kingdom grew up and spread to the east and south (Epirus), so therefore included also those tribes that were settled in the northern Albania (like Taulanti tribe). If you want to search for the main genetic component of the Illyrians proper, then it's I2a in the 1st place. E3 subgroup found in small percentages by the eastern Adriatic coast is not (possible) "proto-Thracian" E3b1a2, but rather another subgroup that came with sea migrations from the Asia Minor, during Neolithic. So if there was some significiant contribution of E3 to Ardiaei or Liburnians (northern Dalmatia), it was this Levantine E3 and not Balkanic E3b1a2. Large percentage of E3b1a2 found among the Albanians could have been rather of their Arvanites component than their Illyrian component.

However it's also very important to notice that genetic pool in the western and northern Balkan didn't change a lot from the Iron Age up to now. Probably only R1a somewhat increased because of the late Antique immigrants from the north, but it's question how much. R1a certainly contributed in some degree to the Pannonian "Illyrian" tribes (not Illyrians proper) or some other like Iapodes (who were practically inland family to the maritime Liburnians). Also there was probably even lower percentage of E3b1a2 and J2 in B&H, since it's logical to presume that a large part of these people moved during the Ottoman expansion to the west and settled there. Of course this is all simplified, but I guess it helps you to get the better picture. And it's definitely very hard to speak about Y-chrommosome HGs and people by ethnicity - ethnicities change rapidly!

Hxseek prepares an article about the genetic pool of the South Slavs, we have discussion in his talk page, so feel free to contribute. Some stuff about the Bulgarians will be appreciated, I guess. Zenanarh (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The DNA data about Bulgarians are very scare. However in the Bulgarian DNA Project - the Results, which are published from the Group Administrator are following:

1) Haplogroup I - 22,6%,

2) Haplogroup E1b1 - 21,5%,

3) Haplogroup J1 - 17%;

4) Haplogroup R1a - 13%;

5) Haplogroup R1b - 12,5%;

6) Haplogroup G2 - 0,04%;

7) Haplogroup Q - 0,02%;

8) Haplogroup L - 0,01%.

In Eupedia's Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups by region in percentage is written: Note that figures are only indicative. Several sources were used and averages recalculated by merging the data available. Being approximations, numbers were rounded up to 0.5%. The results are following:

1) Haplogroup R1b - 18%

2) Haplogroup R1a - 14%

3) Haplogroup I1 - 3%

4) Haplogroup I2 - 33%

5) Haplogroup I2* - 1%

6) Haplogroup J - 17%

7) Haplogroup K + T - 1%

8) Haplogroup G - 1%

9) Haplogroup E1b1 - 12%

Jingby (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Approximations are OK. There's always +/- tolerance included, small pattern represents a whole area or a group + other distortions, but not often quoted :) Zenanarh (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some good data, that Eupedia site is good. But Bulgarians do not have 17% of J1. Rather, it's J2 which they have at rates of over 15%. J1 is only 5% (still a rather high proportion as far as euro's are concerned). See Semino 2004 and di Giacomo 2004 (ref on Haplo J2 page here on wiki). It will certainly be used for my article hat I will (hopefull ) write soon

And yeah, Zennarnah is right. We cannot euquate E3b with Thracians, and I2 with Illyrians. Populations back then were just as mixed as they are now. Rather, these haplogroup frequencies suggests migratory patterns. And Y-DNA data is only one part of the picture, only shows 25% of the genetic picture. There's also mtDNA and autosomal DNA. But, essentially, what seeems to be the case is that geography is the ultimate factor influencing genetic make up, moreso than language or culture. This means that the genetic make up of European populations was largely made by the end of the Bronze age at the latest. Later migrations of Slavs, Bulgars, Goths, etc did little to disrupt this pattern Hxseek (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slavic dialects of Greece

An article that you have been involved in editing, Slavic dialects of Greece, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic dialects of Greece. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Theodosius of Skopje

The sentence 'He is considered a Bulgarian in Bulgaria and an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia.' is irrelevant and useless. Isn't it enough that his name is written in Bulgarian/Macedonian in the first sentence of the article. The guy was a Bulgarian scholar and a translator into Bulgarian and he was important figure in the history of Macedonia and Bulgaria. Isn't that enough? Why the silly sentence? --Chief White Halfoat (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, keep calm. Jingby (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

|| Well, why, I am calm. lol. Nevermind, Pozdravi. --Chief White Halfoat (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian nationalism

Oops, sorry about that mistake. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

mtDNA

Hey mate. do you have the link for the full paper to Paleo-mtDNA analysis and population genetic aspects of old Thracian populations from South-East of Romania, Cardos G. et al ?

Hxseek (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you are: [9] Jingby (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Merry christmas Hxseek (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hg E-V13

Template:Turkish ethnicity

Hi Jingiby, I just noticed today that you changed the figures of the Turks in Bulgaria to 746,664 from 800,000. I am confused becaused all the references next to the figure you put state 800,000 Turks in Bulgara. I believe that the figure you added is from the 2001 census and therefore I have not changed it. However, I truly believe that the figure is 800,000 since its neally 2009 (and the Turkish population is increasing)! Can you please let me know what you think? Thank you in advance. Justinz84 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not shure if the Turks in Bulgaria are more or less then the official data 746,664. The Bulgarian population decreased constantly in the last 20 years (including the Turks). Regards.Jingby (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have tried looking for recent articles indicating the 800,000 figure:

• The Embassy of Bulgaria (United States) http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/WebPage/About%20Bulgaria/Jewish%20Heritage.htm
• Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (2005) http://www.birn.eu.com/en/45/130/1860/

I have found more references but I dont want to bother you too much- please let me know if you want more references before I change anything on the template. Once again, thank you. Justinz84 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i think you made a mistake :)

..because I am not part of your edit-war in the article Macedonism :) I just uploaded the picture for a better visual explanation. regards Seegef (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Prilep1944.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Prilep1944.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Bryges

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Bryges. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice

I've made a request for a translation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bulgaria#Help_needed_with_translation that would help develop the article about Dobruja, to which you have contributed in the past. Please have a look.Baltaci (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

Iraq and Syrian Turkmen

These groups are Turkish- just like the Cypriots etc. In 1959, the Iraqi government made the Turkmen term official to further isolate the Iraqi Turks from Turkey. Also the TURKISH language has become an official language in Iraq just a few months ago. They are not Turkmen people- if they were they would be in that article. Turco85 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Iraq and Syrian Turkmen

These groups are Turkish- just like the Cypriots etc. In 1959, the Iraqi government made the Turkmen term official to further isolate the Iraqi Turks from Turkey. Also the TURKISH language has become an official language in Iraq just a few months ago. They are not Turkmen people- if they were they would be in that article. Turco85 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Turco85 (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Hi Jingiby! Hope your well. Unfortunately there is very little on this subject however I have obtained an Iraqi Turkmen site take a look at this:

• http://www.kirkuk.us/ index . php ? action= Definition of the Turkmen -this reference backs up what I said about the Laussane Peace Treaty negotiations in 1924 which tried to isolate the Iraqi Turkmen from Turkish people
• http://www.kirkuk.us/index.php?action=Origin -this reference states all the times of immigration and specifies on the immigrations of the Seljuk’s, and Ottomans especially during the time of Suleiman the Magnificent.
• http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=94167 - In late december (2008) the Kirkuk parliament passed a decision to make the Turkish language one of the official languages of the region.

See also:

• http://www.turkmen.nl/KNKC.pdf
• http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/ethnic-origin-of-iraqs-turkmens/
• http://www.buzzle.com/articles/kerkuk-and-the-turkmen-of-iraq.html

File:Bulgarian dialect map-yus.png

Hello, re. File:Bulgarian dialect map-yus.png, can you clarify who made this map, copyright-wise? Did you create it yourself, did you copy the graphics directly out of the atlas you are citing, or did you get it from somewhere else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I get the map from Bulgarian Wikipedia under GFDL. The author is Пламен Цветков. Please see here: [10]. Regards. Jingby (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, thanks. I've added a link to the source. Nice map too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile

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

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

Re: Macedonian "Question"

There is no "Macedonian question" (in the manner you describe it) outside Bulgaria's nationalist circles with extraterritorial ambitions, the same ambitions that have plagued that country since the First Balkan War. I'm afraid you've got your terms mixed up, and your statements lack sense. How? Lets review the facts:

• The ethnic group living in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia has lived there for hundreds and hundreds of years.
• Modern sociological science affirms this ethnic group as a seperate nation.
• Sociological science did not always hold that view, and in the past mostly described this very same ethnic group as "Bulgarian".

From this you draw the erroneous conclusion that this ethnic group were "Bulgarians" in the past. This is like claiming that the Earth was in the center of the universe before Copernicus's day, because most contemporary scientists believed it to be so at the time. Or like claiming that Croats and Serbs were "Illyrians" in the 18th and 19th centuries because that was the contemporary view. Your logic is seriously flawed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Oh man...

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

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

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

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

The text you first inserted here [11]. Where did you take that from? My cat senses tell me you didn't write that yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I agree. Jingby (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

POV

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

NYT article about the Macedonians and Macedonia, NYT, Chicago December 6, 1903

Did you ever read this ONE article. Read again and see the passage: Macedonians and their kinsman in Bulgaria...- KINSMAN means: - person of the same nationality or ethnic group. [12] or A man sharing the same racial, cultural, or national background as another [13]. About the regional and political differences in concordace with NYT article, read: IMRO. About your views read Macedonism. Jingby (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read it. Read it carefully and do not take sentences out of context. Connect it with the other sentences and paragraphs. Your so called bulgariazation of the history will be seen by proofs like this one. And stop offending me, I will talk with admins other wise. -- MacedonianBoy  ^Oui? 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I connect it, I don't see "ethnic Macedonian" and "non-Bulgarian" anywhere. The kinsmen thing is clear evidence that the NYT author considers Macedonians to be a regional group of Bulgarians. What's more, this is in concord with NYT's established practice at the time, which was to recognize the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. You have to be truely ignorant to disregard the dozens of NYT articles that support this. NYT is not a good source for Macedonist claims, it's always on our side ;) Todor→Bozhinov 19:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

FUR on File:Посрещане 1941.jpg

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

This photo is indispensable for me because it shows the Bulgarian Army as greeted from the local population as liberators. De facto this annexation was peacefull and without any resistance. Pro-Bulgarian feelings among the locals still prevailed. For more info, please see:

• Hugh Poulton, Who are the Macedonians?, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1995. p. 101.;
• Nationalism and Identity Politics in the Balkans: Greece and the Macedonian Question, by Victor Roudometof, P. 264.;
• Nationality on the Balkans: The case of Macedonians by F. A. K. Yasamee (Balkans: A Mirror of the New World Order, Istanbul: EREN, 1995; pp. 121-132), Chapter II.

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

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

Revert parole

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

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

Linking

Jingby, the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it." Many writers link every instance of an article name, creating an ugly kalaidescope of blue and red in the article. It isn't necessary.

• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
• Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. In particular, links to ordinary words are not generally appropriate.

I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

promacedonia.org

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

Hm, I can't provide such copyright declaration. Jingby (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I'm pretty certain promacedonia.org have not obtained permission from the authors to distribute those works. Since WP:EL says we should not link to material that infringes copyright, I'd think we can still link to the public domain stuff there (e.g. Vasil Kanchov, Lyubomir Miletich, Vasil Zlatarski). But we do have to be more careful if the guidelines don't allow us to link to external copyvios.

So in short, I'm OK with removing the copyvio links so long as we can keep the book sources, and I don't see why not ;) The links to promacedonia.org are intended just for the readers' facilitation: you click and you get what you need instead of looking for obscure books in libraries. If we can't do that, we don't do that. Todor→Bozhinov 09:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What about kroraina? BalkanFever 09:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

You mean a site without a motive? BalkanFever 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess promacedonia (a plain old nationalist propganda site with a clear agenda) is a tad less bad than kroraina (a personal website of some crank). But yeah, you'd think, if these things are genuinely public domain and valuable sources, wouldn't some serious website be hosting them? Actually, now that I think of it, if they are public domain we could just transfer the good ones to wikisource and link to that, couldn't we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reverting

Like presumably many other editors, I don't particularly like it when people revert my edits without even a hint of a rationale ([14]). Especially when it's again, for the umpteenth time, in breach of their revert parole. Well, I was going to ask for a lengthening of the sanctions anyway, so here goes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

This time my act was really unpremeditated. This is all, I can say. Jingby (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So if I extend your revert parole for another 6 months you'll make a greater effort to abide by it? That would seem like the best solution. Kevin (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, I think though about some more realistic methods. For example 2 reverts for 24 howers, or something similar to avoid such stupid unpremeditated mistakes? Jingby (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think lightening your restriction because you broke it is a suitable solution. I think that at the very least you need to be much more careful in abiding by your restrictions, and I need to see a commitment to do so from you. Kevin (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I must to be really very careful if I wont to be an editor here. Jingby (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What I want to see is a statement from you that you will commit to abiding by your editing restrictions, whether it is an extension of your current parole, or Fut.Perf's alternative. If you can commit to one of these then you can go on, but if you are not willing to make that commitment then I will be forced to prevent you from editing these articles altogether. Kevin (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, just for clarification, that waiting time rule was in fact part of the existing revert parole already, so this isn't necessarily meant as an either-or. The wording in the ARBMAC log was: "1r/48h, for 6 months, required to precede all reverts by talk page explanation + 3 hours waiting time to allow for discussion". If you decide to reimpose something, you're of course welcome to tweak as you see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is heavy to me, but I promise to respect strictly all my restrictions. I have said all. Jingby (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Малка версия на герба

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

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

Chart Костурско

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

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

Slavic/Greece

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

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

Reverts...

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

Blocked

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

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

Grecomans

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

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

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

Your move of Macedonian Bulgarians

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

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

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

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

What is the problem?

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

Award

	The Bulgaria Barnstar of National Merit
	I award you this Bulgaria Barnstar of National Merit for your tireless contributions on Bulgaria-related topics in Wikipedia and for your work defending the memory of our ancestors. --Gligan (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
	this WikiAward was given to Jingiby by --Gligan (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

G.H.o. S.S

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

Bulgarian connection?

It's all very interesting. Do you know what the origin is for the name Bogdan?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Pjetër Bogdani's father was Bishop of Skopje. --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

From the Old Church Slavonic word for God - Бог (Bog) and "dan" maybe from "dar" (present) - present from God.--Laveol ^T 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby

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

Jingy

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

Прашање

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

JINGIBY

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

Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article

As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting my coments, Wiki is not the regime are used to

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia&diff=300768704&oldid=300768101 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia&diff=300765619&oldid=300764551 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.169.57 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub Saharan DNA

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

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

Reminder of WP:ARBMAC

I've noticed that you've been edit-warring on Bulgarians; you are already aware that all Balkans-related articles are subject to the Arbitration committee ruling at WP:ARBMAC, which states:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

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

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

Blocked

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

Genetic History of Europe#Central and East Asian admixture in Bulgarians and Turks

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

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

Thrace

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

Macedonians or Bulgarians

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