Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! LizRead!Talk!20:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Volgabulgari,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! LizRead!Talk!20:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editing wikipedia
You are editing a top class 4 article with virtually no prior experience as an editor. You are ignoring standard rules.
(a) If a source by a worldclass expert states something you personally disagree with, you are not entitled to revert it out because you personally disagree
(b) You should read the source, and, if you find other expert sources that contradict what it is quoted for, make an argument on the talk page.
(c)Where there is a disagreement, that is resolved by arguing on the talk page, not by edit-warring
(d)Persist in what you are doing will lead to a report, and a suspension of your right to edit. So do the intelligent thing: lay out your argument on the talk page. Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My ancestors + reliable sources. Someone doing kangz in Khazar section.
"The subject tribes appear to have spoken varieties of Lir Turkic likely related to the Oghuric branch or Chuvash/Volga-Bulgarian."
Now as a descendant of Volga Bulgars (Chuvash), i've some questions. First what is "Volga Bulgarian", it should have been Bulgar instead of Bulgarian. 2ndly, why "or"? Chuvash and Volga Bulgar is already proven oghuric languages. This slavic bulgarian dude doing kangz and i'm banned because i removed this bs as a new user? Volgabulgari (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that whatever an editor may think of his cultural heritage, that must not interfere with what secondary sources written by experts in the field state. I am using the language given by Erdal in his long article on the Khazar language. These language are, by the way, poorly reported on Wikipedia because the technical literature is very intricate, so one either wades through the technical literature or stays silent. It is much more complex than even my edits suggest, and the passage you are meddling with still requires much work.Nishidani (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a Chuvash, you are a Kazan Tatar, your page is on Russian Wikipedia - Bolgarhistory. A well-known propagandist of the theory of Tatar Bulgarism. Your main and only goal is to spoil articles where it is said and confirmed about the Bulgarian - Ugric origin of the Chuvash people. Won Woghur (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like when I see a fringe theorist like you (unfortunately, this is typical on Bulgarians, not to be confused with ancient OguricTurks called Bulgars, or also Idel Bulgars) accuse somebody of "propagandist". You are Slav. You are most probably not a descendant of Bulgar elite but who knows, you are maybe a real Turk like Old Bulgars of Balkans, you must firstly prove what you claim. The name Ugric is controversial on the other hand. Name Ugric most probably originates from Turkic Oguric (see: Oguric Turks), Onogurs founded states like Patria Onoguria around modern-day Ukraine, you might know, the other naming for that is Old Great Bulgaria. I am a Varsak, and Oghuzified Varsak Turcomans who are descendants of Garsak or Karsak people, an old Vanandur (Onogundur) tribe (see: Hunogury, Turkia (Hungaria), Tourkia, Vanand, Nandor, Onoguris, Corsac and Kars; see also: Onogur and Onogundur) that still live around Bolkar Mountains of Turkey (as "Tapan Union" or “Tapan Yöre”, a tribal union of 9 yaylags called Tengerli, Tochmanagly, Paşalı, Kovukçınar, Akoluk, Kırıkuşağı, Kaşaltı, Uğurlubağ, we call our region Bolkar-Eli which means Bolkaria or Bolgaria, that mts range is commonly called Bolkar Dağları), and I won't let Slavist, Indo-Europeanist, probably Pan-Christianist, Pan-Europeanist, Aryanist, Eurocentrist Slavs like you to vandalise Turkic values, especially of those Onoguric or Oguric also known as Bulgar ones, which is there not to be confused with the term Bulgarian for sure.
Just like the Khazar elite who converted to Judaism and there was a Khazar Civil War just for that (you can see: Magyar tribes for further info), the Bulgar elite also converted into Christianity and made the Slavic language official after a series of pro-Byzantine actions made by Boris I and after that there was also a bloody civil war in which Boris massacred all Bulgars who were Tangraists who fought for Tangra and killed 52, yes you heard it right, fifty-two boyars, and blinded and imprisoned his own son Rasate who was a khagan for some period after Boris's reign (Boris then retook the throne back), and were fighting against his pro-Byzantine and pro-European father Boris and his actions, for the Turkic religion Tangraism. So I saw you on a lot of Oguric-related, Täŋrï-related and Ottoman-related subjects trying to manipulate things, and I know how your type typically behaves well. I am a Wikipedist since 2013 and I saw many many others like you who are from Bulgaria. I know Balkan peoples and their made-by-imperial-powers mindset very well. We won't let you propagandize the lies made in the era of anti-Turkist, Turkophobe bandit groups who made hundreds of disgusting atrocities against Muslim (Turkish) villages in the Balkans, brutally massacring tens of thousands of them, at least 600,000 Turks (in the 1880s) had to flee from Bulgaria into the vicinity of Marmara. After some series of long and strong imperialist propaganda effort by imperial, colonist powers of British, French, Russians against the weak Turkey just to divide and colonize parts of the sick man, they established and financed Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Armenian bandit groups to massacre Muslim population for projected pro-Russian, pro-British, pro-French satellite states, so-called independent countries and to attract the intervention of Ottoman State to protect Muslims and then intervene against the Ottomans like 1876-77. Since then till today, Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, Serbians are taught to kill the Turks and be against the Turks whatever the cost is (proof? the result of this ill made-by-imperials mindset was the brutal 1989 Bulgarian Revival Process, and 1975-92 Armenian ASALA, 1971-78 Greek EOKA B, and ofcourse 1992 Serbian Srebrenica, you can check each of them carefully) since the Russian- or French-financed terror years in the Balkans between 1880-1900. Turks ruled Balkans more than 500 years and as a Muslim state (Islam prohibits to massacre other peoples) touched none of the peoples' religions or languages, after 500 years none of the Balkan peoples got assimilated or speak Turkish today, on the other hand when you look at the Christian background nations, even if they did not stay more than 100 or 200 years, they massacred, assimilated, forced them to change their religion etc.
Muslim Turks could've forcefully change your religions in to Islam, change your language by force into Turkish, the colonist/imperial powers brutally did that in just a 40 or 100 year-span everywhere they go whether it's Africa, the Americas, India, the Eurasian Steppe, Turkistan or Siberia, don't you ever think that we could've done that multiple times in 500 years, but well-known and well-documented, creditable Ottoman Tolerance or Ottoman Peace was in force. Russians Christianized and Russified all of the descendants of ancient Turkic peoples around Pontic-Caspian Steppe and Ukraine. They could make us believe that Crimea was always Slavic for sure, because today the majority is Russian there (!), but no, all of Caspian Steppes and Southern Ukraine was fully Turkic until Russians came and took those regions and Slavicize and Russify by force quickly. Crimea was occupied by Russians circa 1800 AD. Crimea's heavy majority was Crimean Tatar but only in 100 years, they got assimilated, forced, massacred and in the end in 1944, they were completely deported by the satan Stalin into the various regions of Turkistan (they partially returned back to their homelandafter satanic union of Soviet Russia destroyed itself, although there were multiple bureaucratic blocks made by Ukrainians for their return). Since 1800s, after Russians invaded Crimea and started to massacre Turkic people there, Crimean Turks (Tatars) fled to Anatolia to survive, and today 3,500,000 of Crimean Tatars live in Turkey but only 500,000 live outside Anatolia, today Crimea's population is 2,000,000 but only 250,000 of them is Crimean Tatar and rest is mostly Russian, as a result of assimilation and Russification process since 1800s. You cannot imagine what Russians did to descendants of Turkic peoples such as Khazars in the Caucasus, Bulgars in the Idel-Ural steppes, indigenous Turks of Siberia and Kazakhstan etc. Modern day Kazakhstan population is 30% Russian, when we look at history we see Russians in Kazakhstan right? NO! Ofcourse. Kazakhs and Kyrgyz are Mongols who got Turkified (see: Zhuz to see who Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and some of Uzbeks descended from, mostly Mongols of Genghis era) that's why they look so Mongolian. The Turkic peoples fled from them after a series of lost wars against them, one of them were blond-looking original Cumans and Kipchaks, and ofcourse, the Oghuz people who founded later Azerbaijani and Anatolian duchies or beyliks. On the other hand, Khazars, Cumans-Kipchaks, Bulgars etc. all Western Turks including Western Turkic Khaganate were told as blonde and white. That's why it was easy to assimilate blonde Turks into Russian by force because they have nearly no difference than Russians, it was hard to decide. So today we don't know and we can't determine the number of fully-assimilated Turkic peoples who became "Russian". There are only a few people left in the anciently most populous Bulgar Turkic area called Idel-Ural, but even there, there were a lot of assimilation works. Today only 10-12 million Turkic people live there, who collectively descended from Bulgars or Ogurs and Kipchakized, like the ones who fled to Seljuk Anatolia and became Oghuz in the vicinity of Bolkar or Bolgar Mountains of Taurus Mountainous Range. There was no Slav people in the Kuban area for sure that place was full of Turks but today there is no Turkic people there, none, except Kumyks and Balkars.
Now look back to Balkans after 500 years of Muslim rule of Turks. Even those who chose Islam, don't even speak Turkish, in 500 years, 500, 5 centuries, half a millennia, half a thousand-year, half a 1000-year. Romania's population is 20 million, Greece is 10 million, Bulgaria is 7 million, Serbia is 7 million, Croatia is 4 million, Bosnia is 3.5 million, Albania is 3 million, Macedonia is 2 million, and Kosova is 1.8 million, all of them still speak their own language, still practice their own religion, no force was applied upon them, contrarily like 1463 ahdname made by Mehmed the Conqueror after Bosnian Conquest, they were made free to practice or speak whatever they like, here is the ahdname: The first human rights document which was in force 324 years before the American Constitution. This was made in the age where Muslims or non-Christians of places like Spain etc. were forcefully, brutally converted to Christianity in those ages (only an example, you can just Google “inquisition torture devices”). Even from the brutal torture by Christians in 1492, the Ottoman Turks saved Muslims and Jews from places like Spain and Portugal, see it on: how Bayezid II saved Muslims and Jews from the long-ran Christian torture. After seeing the rule was so tolerated and peaceful, comparing to pre-Ottoman harsh rule, some of Balkan peoples converted to Islam by their own will, which are only Albanians and Bosniaks. 𐰴𐰺𐰀:𐰆𐰍𐰺 · Karakylchyg05:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you refuse to listen (WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT or collaborate with another editor I have reported you here. If you have a reason to account for your behavior address your remarks there.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you edited many Hungarian related articles unreasonably removing a lot of Hungarian related contents. Or your explanation was only "not true", by you? Could you tell me why do you do this?
[1] "propaganda" what? I can show you a vast amount of old sources which states this.
[2] I restored when you unreasonably removed a huge content.
[3] You removed the Kuns, who are the settled Cumans in Hungary, why?
[4] Well many historian works talk about the connection, Ugric is just a language term. For example, I think we cannot determine the origin history of an Afro-American person in New York from the English language. According to genetic studies Hungarian conquerors were a quite diverse groups. Btw the genetic of Hungarians are very complex, I see 3 main components in the Hungarian genetic: lot of local Carpathian Basin Bronze Age samples + lot of Iron Age Scythian folk samples from the whole Eurasian steppe (Scythian, Sarmatian, Avar, Hungarian conqueror, Hun, Saka) + German and Slav. Btw my family made a personal DNA tests, and several members has genetic matches with Hun samples from Carpathian Basin, Asian Hun, Asian Scythian, Asian Scythian, Sarmatian, Avar samples.
[5] From where do you get the location? Pseudosciency by who? Any reliable source for your claim?
[1] This based on Hunor and Magor legend which is unscentific claims of medieval Hungary to link themselves with Scythians (a nation died over 2000 years before Magyars) and Huns which is no any modern scholars accept relation with Magyars and Huns.
[2] Cuman page died with history of Hungary. I simplified. I don't think anyone wants to read too long Hungarian history in Cuman page. Interestingly, there was only Hungarian history although Cumans were in closely relationships with Georgian, Seljuk and Byzantine.
[3] I was the one who cited Kuns in the first place in here. I also made huge part of Kun page. I don't think they are officially an ethnic group so i removed back.
[4] So you're claiming Magyars are Ugric-speaking Onoghurs? Nice theory but we cannot prove. Turkic origin of Hungarians is a minority theory.
[5] Hello, did you read the source? Bashkirs are a Turkic ethnic group. "Magyars speak with Bashkirs and they understand each other" what do you mean by that? Are you trying to understand why I removed. If there's any academic source behing these Turkified Hungarians or Ugranzied Turkic peoples I'd like to see. Volgabulgari (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deeply thank you for genetic proximity of MyTrueAncestry. According to this page just want to remind you as a Volga Bulgarian I am related to Scottish dukes. As much as I am Scottish, Hungarians are that much Scythian and Hun. Volgabulgari (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many today's Hungarians made personal genetic test, and they have huge Scythian+Sarmatian genomes matches, like myself and my family (I did test) (my family also have many Carpathian Basin Hun, Asian Hun, Asian Scythian, Saka, Avar, Hungarian conqueror sample matches) you can see the average result of MyTrueAncestry site and the closest samples to the Hungarin king DNA which is science. Ancient Mongolia was multiethnic.
Hunor and Magor legend was much later recorded when Byzantine, German, Italian, etc sources, claimed the Hungarians are Huns, Avars and Scythians, but it does not matter if is ture or not (seems true according genetics), it is fact that the Scythian-Hungarian relationship was claimed in medieval sources, so you removed this fact. Why?
The Hungarian state founder ruling Hungarian royal family claimed that they are the descendant of Attila, King of the Huns. Old sources also claimed Attila and the Huns were Scythians and recent genetis studies confirmed the Scythians played a key role to form the Asian Hun empire. According to the genetic studies, Asian Hun haplotypes matched with medieval Hungarian kings, which indicate the persistence of some Asian Hun paternal lineages in the gene pool of early Hungarian conquerors. The genetic studies suggest that some modern subclades, those related to Avars or Hungarian conquerors became first integrated among Scythians. The Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian conqueror elite and belonged to the branch that was observed in Asian Hun samples.
The Scythian tribes moved east, archeologists found a lot of blonde mummies in the Tarim Basin in Western China. The Asian Scythians played a key role in the formation of the Asian Hun Empire. The predominantly European-looking Asian Scythians merged with the local population in East Asia and southern Siberia, followed by other European Sarmatians during the Asian Hun (Xiongnu) period, later Alan elements. The Asian Hun Empire had a civil war and the losing Xiongnu tribes belonged largely to the Europid anthropological type who were displaced to Central Asia in the first century. Expanding to the west they integrated the related Sarmatian tribes and mixed with Sakas, and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnu and European Huns.
According to the recent genetic studies (and many international, non Hungarian genetic studies) the Arpad dynasty had Hun connections. And genetic is science. Those are very prestigous international science journals. Helyion for example Heliyon is a very prestigious Q1 ranked journal, a top ranked journal where only 17% of the articles are accepted.
Genetic evidence suggests a sense of family, parity and conquest in the Xiongnu Iron Age nomads of Mongolia: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4“East Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since.”
Xiongnu Y-DNA connects Huns & Avars to Scytho-Siberians: https://indo-european.eu/2020/08/xiongnu-ancestry-connects-huns-avars-to-scytho-siberians/ The study is confirming the presence of Andronovo or Scytho-Siberian ancestry in the Asian Huns. Moreover, these haplotypes also matched those of ancient Hungarian rulers, which indicate the persistence of some Asian Hun paternal lineages in the gene pool of early Hungarian conquerors. The database search also revealed a shared haplotype between a Hun person in the cemetry and King Béla III of Hungary (1172–1196) as well as a matching haplotype between an another Asian Hun person in the cemetry and another male individual found in the Royal Basilica in Hungary where King Béla III was buried. More Asian Hun individuals also carried haplotypes similar to those carried by the 10th century Hungarian conquerors and by 7–8th century Avar individuals. The genetic study suggests that some modern subclades, those related to Avars or Hungarian Conquerors became first integrated among Scythians. The Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian conqueror elite and belonged to the branch that was observed in Asian Hun samples. Moreover, similar haplogroups were also major components of these groups, reinforcing the view that Huns, Avars and Hungarian conquerors derive from the Asian Huns as was proposed until the 18th century and declared in medieval documents.
2.
Cumans and Hungarians had a lot of history together, battles, events, settlements etc, Hungarian king also had the King of Cumania title, I think this is not your duty to decide what the readers wants to read. In Wiki we show knowledge and information.
3. Kuns were Cumans, so they are clearly related. So it is nonsene that you remove from the related section. They were a separate ethnic in Hungary, many regions named after him. But later they assimilated. Even in the 18th century Cuman language text was recorded in Hungary.
4. Hungarian genetic is complex, many tribes became "Hungarians" in the Carpathian Basin. Onogurs could be part of it as many historians suggests. People did not evaporate: By 568 the Avars, under Khagan Bayan I established an empire in the Carpathian Basin that lasted for 250 years. Related peoples from the east arrived in the Avar Kaganate several times: around 595 the Kutrigurs, and then around 670 the Onogurs.[1] Avars also assimilated, like my family has many local Avar genomes according to mytrueancestry. Just in today's Hungary it excavated more than 80 000 Avar graves and in the late graves the later family members were buried in Hungarian style clothes.
5. We are talking about the location. You rewrote the location, any source for that? You just rewrote contents whitout sources. Wikipedia need reliable academic sources to strengthen claims.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kuns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, I value your opinion on this move request. The move request is about the title changing of Göktürks to its original form Türks. There are people who oppose and who support as their opinion, replying to the section, I would like to have your opinion there on the talk page of Göktürks. The title of the section on its talk page is Requested move 19 April 2023 (Göktürks). 𐰴𐰺𐰀:𐰆𐰍𐰺 · Karakylchyg19:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for request. Here are my opinions and some factors to consider:
Term "Gokturk" was first used in the 19th century by Western scholars (Russian and German) such as Hermann von Prittwitz in "Die Skythen und Türken in Zentralasien" (The Scythians and Turks in Central Asia) they were studying the history of Central Asia and the Turkic peoples. The problem is these people want to divide Turkish and Gokturk because they don't want to confuse readers who many associate Gokturks with modern Turkish population or think they are directly related.
But a century later, in 19th century a German scholar named Julius von Klaproth invented the term "Turkic" and the term started widely use in 20th century, especially during USSR. Today, we don't need to divide ancient Turks as Gokturks because term Turkish already meaning Anatolian Turk and we have a daily used word Turkic.
Today we know that no one will confuse them with Anatolian Turks, worth noting that while the term "Gokturk" was not used by the Gokturks themselves, it has become a widely accepted and commonly used term in academic circles to describe this historical period and the people and culture associated with it. So, we can historically inaccurate. They called themselves Turks or Turuks in Orkhon inscriptions.
I don't think it should be a problem since Iranic peoples of Iran also using simple term Iranian despite having different Iranic nationalities (Baloch, Lur, Kurd, Pashtun etc ). In Wikipedia, there are count as Iranian peoples not Iranic peoples. Volgabulgari (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Oghuric languages, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Scythians, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
Discussed and asked help. You violated the page by reverting the source. All things were mentioned. You are no different than people who banned Kara Oghur. Volgabulgari (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't mention such thing"
The distinct character of Chuvash and its relation with the Finnic languages formerly led some scholars to think that Chuvash is a TurkifiedFinno-Ugric(Uralic) language while modern scholars generally believe it's an Oghuric language*
"27.2 Historical connections: genealogy and contact Early scholarship from the 18th century associated Chuvash with the Uralic languages, being unable to disentangle complicated areal phenomena in the Volga-Kama region (see, e.g., language groupings in Pallas 1787–1789). The Turkic origin of Chuvash was proposed no later than by Klaproth in 1828 and convincingly proved by Schott in 1841. In 1863, Feizkhanov managed to read three grave epitaphs in the Volga Bulghar language based on his knowledge of the contemporary Chuvash. Strong arguments relating Chuvash to Volga Bulghar were summarized by Ašmarin in 1902; since then, the Volga Bulghar → Chuvash linguistic continuity has gained general acceptance in the field."
Sure. Not reliable, Beshoghur. That's why you blocked my and my friend's account and revert literally everything we did even in other Wikipedia pages which were irrelevant. Thanks for being a Wikipedia knight. Karak1l1c was right. Funny that I thought you were a friendly editor. Get out my page please, and do not add no more topic. I can't edit anymore, so it wouldn't be neccesary. Have fun in LA.
"This is a draft version of a chapter that appears in Rabbeets, M. and A, Savelyes (nd). The Oxford Guide to the Troian Languages (OUP, 2020),"Volgabulgari (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: Why is Savelyev's chapter in the OUP volume obsolete? It's a gem! Or maybe you meant something else... Anyway, I'm all for adding some more details about the areal contact phenomena in the Volga-Kama region, but @Volgabulgari, please be faithful to the source. Let's cite things like "Contrary to a commonly cited misconception, the number of loanwords of substratum Uralic origin in Proto-Chuvash as revealed so far is not large at all" (Savelyev 2020:463).
That's why you blocked my and my friend's account. Listen, @Volgabulgari: @Beshogur is not an admin, and not in the position to block anyone. They can only file reports to the admin's noticeboard, and it is up to the admins' (usually guided by wider community input) to decide. Also, there is no block in the log of your account[7]. So what account are you referring to? –Austronesier (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about Karak1l1c and Kamista. I was editing first Bulgarian empire and mailed Karak1l1c if he can help me to do some revision in First Bulgarian empire. He got into edit war because he added "initially Bulgarian Khanate." with dozens of sources. Bulgarians didn't like it and argued with him. Then he got banned because of swears. There is a video of him explaining everything in his own language. I believe that's also first language of user @Beshogur.
https://youtu.be/iZb9kKqGguk
What I'm asking is unban Kamista if possible and please undo unlid reverts in Crimean Tatars. It was for no reason. Edit was done months ago. Someone just got mad and reverted everything for no reason. He is acting like moderator of Wikipedia. That's why I thought he is a mod or smth.
I said something like "Former scholars used to believe that however modern scholars generally agree it's an Oghuric language" it's perfectly true and many enyclopedia, including Britannica and few scholars repated the same information. It goes against his own agenda.
I can understand why everyone is so suspicious to Turkish users. So many of them acting like dictators like politically motivated instead of you. Volgabulgari (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for help is against wiki policies. Kamista is banned for ban evasion. I will check those things again and restore if possible. Beshogur (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Oghuric languages, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically, your disruptive editing at Tatar confederation. Erminwin (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)