Jump to content

Talk:Delyan Peevski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Media attention

[edit]

I am just leaving a note about the upcoming increased activity on this page that might come in the next couple of days or weeks. A couple of Mr Peevski's media outlets and their like have attacked Wikipedia in articles published today (see this, this, and this). The accusations are that his opponents are using the encyclopedia to slander him and so on. I fully expect some increased activity which might even result in edit wars. --Laveol T 12:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and unsourced information, aiming to libel the person

[edit]

Hello everybody, This article contains both unsourced, not reliable and incorrect information, thus violating the Biography of Living Persons policy as well as the Neutral Point of View rules. I am furthermore giving here the paragraphs that should be removed, because of violating those Wikipedia policies. 1. "According to Radio Bulgaria in March 2016, Peevski is "the undisputed media mogul of Bulgaria." He owns more than 20 newspapers, TV channels, radio stations and magazines.[8] However, the official owner of such is his mother Irena Krasteva, who is also co-owner of the largest printing company in Bulgaria - IPK "Rodina".[9]".

According to the official commercial register of Bulgaria - Commercial Register and Register of NPLE (www.brra.bg) this information is incorrect and its mentioning here is undoubtedly manipulative. The access to the register is free so anyone can check the information and see the facts. 2. The whole section "Privatization controversies" "Between 2010 and 2013, Peevski worked in tandem with Tsvetan Vasilev, then the owner of Corporate Commercial Bank, to privatize many of the remaining state assets. The director of the Bulgarian Privatization Agency Emil Karanikolov was a close protege of the two. Under his administration, the assets of state companies Bulgartabac, Technoexportstroi, IPK Rodina, Putno Stroitelstvo Holding and a dozen other smaller factories ended up in Peevski's hands.[citation needed] For these deals, Emil Karanikolov was rewarded with a ministerial post in the third Boyko Borisov government".

This information is based not on sources but rather on rumors, which undoubtedly aim to libel the person.

3. "As of 2013, Peevski's media empire controlled six of the 12 largest circulating newspapers. It also had a monopoly on newspaper distribution and digital TV channels.[28] By 2016, according to Radio Bulgaria, the number of newspapers he owned increased to more than 20.[29]"

As you can see in the official Commercial register this is not and has not been truth. Neither is based on reliable sources 4. "The run on CorpBank coincided with a run on another bank, First Investment Bank ("FI Bank"). Media reports and social media messages helped cause the run on both banks.[citation needed] However, the Bulgaria National Bank shut down CorpBank while keeping Fi Bank open with emergency liquidity. According to Nikolay Staykov of the Bulgarian Protest Network, CorpBank was brought down by the government in order to remove Vassilev, while the government protected FI Bank—the bank that Peevski moved his money into".

This information is both unsourced and based on false data. It moreover spreads fake news about a bank, thus violating the Bulgarian laws.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-ann-25 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*@Lee-ann-25: I have some questions for you.
  1. Do you have any relationship with Peevski or his medias? How you are so well informed about him? You seem suspicious.
  2. I'm pretty sure you're gonna answer no to the first question, but please explain why following your ban for sockpuppetary, bunch of gossipy and defamatory articles about Wikipedia, where I'm personally mentioned appeared in his media outlets? See: 1,2, 3, 4
  3. This leads me to question number 3: The articles linked above talk against Ivo Prokopiev, Tsvetan Vasilev. Why did you inserted negative information about them in their articles earlier this month? Diffs: 1 2

I'm strongly advising you to answer honestly and reveal your true interest. Quickfingers (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*@Quickfingers:

Hello Quickfingers, Please tell me first if you have any substantive objections against my statement that those quotations are unsourced or false (or both) and therefore should be erased. I don't see any argument against it. So as there are no other objections nor participants in the discussion besides you I am erasing them. As to your questions - I am not in a conflict of interest situation. Unlike you [[REDACTED - Oshwah]]. I hereby inform you that I have started a Conflict of interest procedure against you [1] because of your connections to the publishers of Capital weekly. One of its publishers is Ivo Prokopiev, whom you call an "arch rival" of Delyan Peevski. That means that you should not contribute to any article, related to Peevski or Prokopiev. Yet you still do so, violating at least 3 basic Wikipedia principles - Biography of Living Persons, Neutral Point of View and Conflict of Interests Editing. Unlike you, I add only real facts and the objective truth and erase only unsourced or false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-ann-25 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really dunno. Could a brand new account, created around a new set of media allegations against wikipedia made by Mr Peevski's outlets, be a single-purpose account? I was really surprised to see my nickname in those articles (that there is no way you have any connection to), since I have made two whole edits (and small ones at that) to the article. So, please explain, why should this definitely non-Single-purpose account not immediately be considered a sock-puppet of all the previous freshly-made single-purpose accounts? Laveol T 21:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I also notice other worrying parts of the story. I hope that the Europost (which has no connection to Mr Peevski's media and is not promoting the same books that Mr Peevski's media promote) article is simply misleading its readership. However, if they have somehow got the IP data of a registered user, this is a really serious breach of wiki rules. In fact, I am starting to think that this issue needs to be escalated even further, as this might be something that threatens the safety and well-being of Bulgaria-based editors. --Laveol T 21:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peevski is regarded an emblematic oligarch in Bulgaria. The sources are more then enough and all are reliable. I can provide a lot of another in support of that view as The Forbes, The Economist, The Guardian, Financial Times, The NY Times, etc. Stop removing sourced content, pls. Jingiby (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby Sources you give are editorials who give biased information, based on Bulgarian sources, owned or financed by the opponents of Delyan Peevski. They do not give his point of view so stop putting this disputable and not verified definition as a main characteristic of the person. Stop violating NPOV and BLP rules. Anachronist, please explore the case and state your opinion. I would really like to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.173.49 (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What about The European Handbook of Media Accountability by Routledge International with Tobias Eberwein - Senior Scientist and Research Group Leader “Media Accountability & Media Change” in Institute for Comparative Media and Communication Studies by Austrian Academy of Sciences, Susanne Fengler a professor of international journalism at the University of Dortmund and director of the Erich Brost Institute for International Journalism and Matthias Karmasin - Director of the Institute for Comparative Media and Communication Studies of the Austrian Academy of Sciences as editors. Routledge is a British multinational publisher specialized in providing academic books. It has published this book in 2017 with ISBN 1317033272. This academic edition clearly states Peevski is an oligarch. Check here, please. Jingiby (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby Nice try. If you scroll up to the beginning of the book (though I am pretty sure that you know this), you will find out that the Bulgarian chpater is written by the Bulgarian Bissera Zankova. Just a quick look at the registers will show you that she is an NGO activist and a partner of another NGO activist and main opponent of Peevski - Nely Ognyanova, who by the way is one of the main sources, quoted in the Bulgarian chapter. So come on- please stop manipulating. Question is why are you so persistent in putting a contradictory, biased and disputable definition in this biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.145.15 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't change the rulеs of Wikipedia about reliable sources. Jingiby (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby Anachronist nobody here definitely do not want to change WP rules except you Jingiby and a roup of profiles which suspiciously act unanimously with you and raise ,uestions about SPI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.173.49 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and, as such, values peer-reviewed academic works and considers them proper sources. The opinion on said academic work of an anonymous contributor, most probably directly or indirectly connected to the article subject, is irrelevant. --Laveol T 09:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: 5 total votes. 3 support. 2 oppose. 0 neutral. Quickfingers (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow editors. In my opinion, this page should be perma pending changes protected after the extended confirmed protection expire, due to constant abuse and conflict of interest since the beginning of the year. Just look at the edit history to see what I mean. I don't think the situation will improve anytime soon. Please vote and tell your opinions below until next week (26th July, 00:00 GMT). If the majority agress, I will pass it to WP:RFP. Thanks. Quickfingers (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support for the reasons above. Quickfingers (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for the same. Jingiby (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose PCP, and Support extended-confirmed protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Permanent changes protection. I really think that the disputed definition should be reviewed and put somewhere else but not at the beginning of the text, because it abuses the NPOV and BLP rule. If it is not reviewed I will have to start a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard. ~Antihatred —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support for the reasons above.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

I just noticed a testimonial by someone who is seemingly the subject of this article at wikimanagementinc.com. People at Wiki Management Inc. not only provide excellent assistance but also listen to your idea. 5 stars for your amazing work and attitude. I can't see any disclosures. SmartSE (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the picture is not of this article's subject, which does not mean he has not asked for their services. Recently, a new editor appeared who seemed somewhat knowledgeable of Wiki and whose sole purpose was to clear any negative information about Peevski. It might be someone from that agency trying to "fix" stuff for him. --Laveol T 11:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should team up and clean the article together, because it's in terrible condition. Quickfingers (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's another one at wikiprofessionalsinc (dot) com (it appears the website is blacklisted). This time we do have a confirmation this is the politician. Is there anything we could do about those companies (which are more than likely the same company)? --Laveol T 08:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a problem with paid editing, the extended-confirmed protection level might help. It allows edits only by editors who have a reasonable contribution history. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It must be Peevsky, not Peevski.

[edit]

Like it's Dostoevsky, not Dostoevski. 212.233.211.152 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the transliteration rules of Bulgarian - see Romanization_of_Bulgarian.--Laveol T 09:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delyan_Peevski&oldid=1214965632"