User talk:Jingiby/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Replied

See my reply to your comments at User talk:EdJohnston#National Liberation War of Macedonia, continued from above. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jingby (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Could you quickly point me to what you changed here? For some reason, the diff only shows me one huge big paragraph without actually highlighting the modified bits, and short of parsing every single word of it I'm just not finding your modification. By the way, this edit is heavily ungrammatical and I'm not sure how to correct it. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

By the first edit I have changed Macedonians to Macedonian Slavs. By the second, the idea is that after the attacks of the Gemidzhii it was launched mass mobilization of Ottoman soldiers and that led to the tracking of Delchev's cheta and later to his killing. Jingby (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please report at WP:AN3

Hello Jingiby, regarding User talk:EdJohnston#User:Romanski1996 reported by User:Jingiby. I am not planning to follow up on this complaint myself. If you want to have admins look into the matter, please use WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jingby (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yo!

I continued the discussion on the Bulgar talkpage. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Regards. See the talk-page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis

To be honest, placing the ethnogenesis at the end of the subsection makes no sense. There is no connection whatsoever between the paragraphs before and after this text. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This process developed since 7 till 11 century. Jingiby (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but it still looks awkward and disconnected. I suggest we trim the ethnogenesis part to a minimum, it creates a lot of ground for speculation. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Jingiby (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. I have noticed you have reversed my editing. I would like to discuss this with you if that is ok. My objection is with regard to the Republic of Macedonia. As you might know it is provisionally listed with the name FYROM. I'm not saying this state does not exist or that it shouldn't. I'm not disrespecting its people or their right to an idenity. I'm not even saying that these people are not Macedonians in one way or other. What I am saying, is that the map identifying FYROM as the Republic of Macedonia is not current or correct. I would personally like to see it as a republic of some sort of Macedonia, but history isnt' that black or white. As you know there are other Macedonias and that is why there is a dipute currently underway. Let's talk about it. Perhaps I will better udnerstand your perspective and you mine. Kind Regards, Veluhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veluhi (talk • contribs) 09:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Here, you are: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Jingiby (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Paeonian language, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Agis and Ariston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Bulgaria

We both know the history of Bulgaria's long transition to independence. You were right to add Principality of Bulgaria to Vlado Chernozemski but on principle, the practice is still to provide sovereign nations. A latter day instance of a similar scenario involves Kosovo for its 1999-2008 period. During that time it was nominally within Serbia (including the union with Montenegro until 2006) but in February 2008, it declared independence. These days with more countries than there were then and slightly different circumstances, Kosovo's road to full recognition is not as smooth as Bulgaria's was in 1908 but that's another story. How would you feel about the old Kosovo solution to this situation: Principality of Bulgaria (nominally within Ottoman Empire)? Better? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Evlekis. You are wrong. Principality of Bulgaria was a suzerain state. I suppose, you think about Eastern Rumelia, which was autonomous province within the Ottoman Empire. However, it was de facto annexed by the Principality of Bulgaria in 1885 and this fact was de jure reconized by the Empire in 1886 with the Tophane Agreement. Regards! Jingiby (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Very similarly, Serbia defined itself independent from 1869 within its constitution but it took until 1878 for this to be recognised. Bulgaria also achieved the status it desired at the same treaty and this gave the country its full outline including Macedonia and the area of West Thrace (Greece) up to the sea. Then came the turn of events because of western interest and Bulgaria had its wings clipped, we both know the story from that point. I admit I am not one for comprehending the full facts on self-governing entities; I know suzerain existed in contrast to sovereign but am I not right in thinking that suzerain status deemed the region was still subject to another's sovereignty? Or did the term sovereign not apply where suzerain was the case? And if not, what was special about being suzerain? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Principality of Bulgaria was not part of the Ottoman Empire. It was neither vilajet, nor autonomous province, but suzerain constitutional Monarchy. Jingiby (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying is at odds with the article which states that POR was a vassal of the OE. In other words, it was de facto independent. To that end, it s still required that we present the sovereign body. Serbia's principality was proclaimed with the first uprising in 1804, became internally recognised in 1830, funtioned independently from 1867 with the expulsion of Ottomans, defined itself independent in 1869 with the new constitution, gained internationally recognised status in 1878 at the Treaty of Berlin and finally elevated itself to kingdom in 1882. So as you can see, Principality of Serbia as an entity went through various stages of promotion so simply listing POS per se doesn't say very much unless the individual knew the condition of the entity in the given year. Although BG raised its status to kingdom immediately from 1908, it still remains that the pre-1908 entity had no de jure independence. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria was then not a sovereign state. Bulgaria is also today not fully sovereign state, as part from the EU. However, then and now it has been an separate mostly self-governing entity, i.e. state. Jingiby (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria is a sovereign nation. 27 sovereign states compose the EU: the EU in turn is an intergovernmental trade bloc. Prior to the EU, Bulgaria was a member of CEFTA. I think we've concluded this Jingiby. The principality was a suzerain body which was internationally recognised as having been an entity of the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria divorced itself from its former overlord in 1908 even if there was no Ottoman influence after 1878. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

EU-member states have not full sovereignty. Jingiby (talk)

Sovereign state=independent nation. There is no condition for a member state to leave a trade bloc except that it is no longer signatury to the affairs and can therefore no longer have a say in matters. Before 1908, all of Bulgaria was internationally recognised as having been Ottoman territory and that takes precedence on infoboxes where country of birth applies. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm alertSorry to interfere in what looks like a really interesting debate, which might as well end with having possibly the lamest infobox text wiki-wide. Is this detail really that important that it should be in the infobox? I mean, shouldn't we add, for example, that Bulgaria also also a bit anti-Russia inclined at the time or that it was deemed the Germany of the Balkans? I think the infobox can take it. And while I am at it, I might as well add the same text to every single article of a Romanian, Serbian, and Montenegrin people (born pre-1878) and every Bulgarian (born pre-1908). I am not yet sure how this newborn rule would apply to US citizens and Canadians, but I will definitely be looking into the matter. --Laveol ^T 20:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, I really think this info is quite unnecessary in this case. As the text stood, one could simply click on the link to Principality of Bulgaria and read it. Infoboxes are supposed to have as little text as possible. Particularly if the text has no direct relation to the subject of the article. It is not that important if he was born in an independent or a puppet-state as long as he was born there. I hope this could help resolve the dispute. --Laveol ^T 20:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It should be city and country of birth only with no intermediary entities (ie. Ottoman Empire only). Suzerain states are a bit of a pain however, the host nation is not a functioning authority. Nevertheless, I have amended it in a more compromising way, see what you think. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

? Volga

Hi. Have you heard of any works or scholars who have attempted to link the name "Bulgar" with the river "Volga" ? Happy NY Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This idea was popular during the 18-th and 19-th century. For example Blasius Kleiner in his History of Bulgaria from 1761 wrote that the Bulgarian name came from the name of the river Volga. For the first time this hypothesis was mentioned by the Byzantine historian Nicephorus Gregoras. Check here under line remark # 11. Regards! Jingiby (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian Greek Catholic Church Exarches' name

I have begun a discussion at Talk:Macedonian Greek Catholic Church over the Exarches' spelling of their names.Spshu (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Epiphany Shanov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy Father (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

:File:Bezhanci3.jpg

Привет. би ли прехвърлил тази картина в общомедия? --Vammpi (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Не към наясно как точно става. Ако знаеш - прехвърли я. Тя е с изтекли авторски права. С поздрав! Jingiby (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)-

Ето го файла --Vammpi (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)--Vammpi (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Всичко с времето си, пък и учениците не са били сами, или как достига динамита от Бургас в Солун?. По-добре, да не привличаш много внимание, за да нямаме дискусия за изтриване на българите от мак.. . В момента нямам време, а ще съм пак сам срещу доста--Vammpi (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Все пак организация с името БМОРК към 1903 не съществува. Атентатите са организирани в Солун от ученически кръжок под влиянието на анархистите от Женевската група. Парите и динамита им са от ВМОК на Сарафов. Гарванов ги плаши с ликвидация, понеже застрашават организацията на въстанието, а Делчев се пазари с тях да ги отложат. Учениците обещали, а сетне се отметнали. Jingiby (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Динамитът е произведен във фабрика в Бургас, създадена от Гоце Делчев през 1900 година (по това време предлага и Михаил Герджиков да оглави организацията в Одринско), и е пренесен от фелдшера Кръсто Халчов Стоянов в Цариград, който го препраща до брат си Димитър в Солун.(Иван Карайотов, Стоян Райчевски, Митко Иванов: История на Бургас. От древността до средата на ХХ век, Печат Тафпринт ООД, Пловдив, 2011, ISBN 978-954-92689-1-1, стр. 192-193).--Vammpi (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

...След разкритията в Цариград и конфискацията на динамита там, солунските атентатори решават първо да осигурят нов динамит, а после да продължат. Това обаче се оказва трудно. Във Върховния македонски комитет в София за председател вместо Борис Сарафов, който ги е снабдявал до момента, е избран Иван Цончев. Той отказва помощ на гемиджиите, защото атентатите ще навредят на България. Орце Попйорданов отива чак в Женева, за да намери Сарафов, който дотогава ги е подпомагал финансово. Получава от него обещание да му прати динамит през Марсилия и Дедеагач и 10 000 лева. Първата пратка минава успешно през турската митница като лекарство за филоксера, но е прибрана от Иван Гарванов – председател на ЦК на ВМОРО. Това изостря крайно отношенията на гемиджиите с организацията и те престават да я държат в течение на своята работа. Атентаторите успяват да се снабдят със 160 кг. динамит от България, пренесен в чували с ориз или тенекии със зехтин, и решават да се справят само с него (вероятно този е бургаския). Заради недостатъчния експлозив се отказват да взривят и одринската поща. За сметка на това решават с наличния динамит да извършат още няколко атентата, които да всеят ужас в Солун... 50-те най-големи атентата в българската история, № 2. Солунските атентати, Крум Благов. Jingiby (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Macedonian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Vlado Chernozemski

Thx for the fixes there. --Wustenfuchs 11:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jingiby (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Macedonian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hunza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

DNA dating

I am beginning to think that Nordvedt is correct about I2a2. Basically, he uses the 'germline mutation' rate rather than "effective evolutionary". The latter blows out age estimates by a factor of 3 (ie 8ky rather than 2.5 kYA for I2a2; or "Palaeolithic" vs "Neolithic" for R1b). Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And what about the place of origin of this mutation - Poland/Ukraine/Belarus or Croatia/Bosnia/Slovenia? Jingiby (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

could be anywhere in Danubo-Balkan region, but probably, if anything, not Bosnia. Bosnia has until recently been demographically sparse and culturally isolated, so the idea of a demographic expansion from there is not probable. Rather, the high frequency of I2a2 there is due to a recent founding event (lie the high R1b in Basques, or high E1b1b in Kosovo Albanians). Certainly not the middle Dnieper region or Vistula where Ken suggests (ad hoc), because this region, too, was hardly if at all inhabited in the 6 - 7 th centuries. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, if you observe all the haplogroups R1a, R1b, E3b, I2a and even J2 of Europe - what do you notice about their distribution ? They are all present at significant freqeuncies in Macedonians, Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians and northern Greeks. Croats and Bosnians are dominated so much by I2, Slovenians have little E3b if at all; southern Greeks have mostly E3b and J2, northern Slavs mostly R1a, and western Europeans almost exclusively R1b. I am writing a paper which I hope to get published which explains the significance of this fact Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on Greater Yugoslavia did not include pre-Tito proposals of a Greater Yugoslavia

The discussion on Greater Yugoslavia is no longer valid because I have found evidence of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia seeking to create a Greater Yugoslavia. This was not the Balkan Federation proposed by Tito and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia sought to annex Bulgaria into a centralized Yugoslav state.--R-41 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason why it is inappropriate is because I have found sources demonstrating that a Greater Yugoslavia was advocated during the period of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - and not Tito's Balkan Federation pursued by the government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Balkan Federation furthermore was a federation of states that included a Greater Yugoslavia within it, but Romania and Greece that was included in the Federation was not going to be wholly annexed into Yugoslavia. It was a federation promoted by Tito and the SFRY. Greater Yugoslavia was supported by both the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Tito, as well as the British government in 1941 - again prior to the SFRY. Here is what I added when, it clearly states that a Greater Yugoslavia was pursued before the SFRY:

Greater Yugoslavia refers to a Yugoslavia comprising its historically united territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia including the disputed territory of Kosovo, Slovenia, and Vardar Macedonia; merged with territories claimed by Yugoslavists, including Bulgaria and Aegean Macedonia and in some proposals other territories. The government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia sought the union of Bulgaria into Yugoslavia. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito sought to create a Greater Yugoslavia that would incorporate within Yugoslavia's borders: Aegean Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, at least a portion of Austrian Carinthia, and for a time beginning in November 1943 had claimed the entire territory of Venezia Giula.

After the outbreak of World War II, the British government supported the creation of a Greater Yugoslavia after the war due to opposition to the Bulgarian government's accession to the Axis Powers, in May 1941 endorsing Dr. Malcom Burr's paper in favour of the incorporation of Bulgaria into Yugoslavia after the war.

As you can see it is distinct from the Balkan Federation - Greater Yugoslavia existed prior to the SFRY's support of such a federation, and proponents of a Greater Yugoslavia including both the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the SFRY never sought to annex the whole of Greece and Romania into a Greater Yugoslavia.--R-41 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Then include it in the article (Greater Yugoslavia). Jingiby (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Kingdom's goal of a Greater Yugoslavia nor the British support in 1941 of Yugoslav annexation of Bulgaria is not related to the Balkan Federation.--R-41 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The article says that the Balkan Federation was a left-wing revolutionary socialist idea and says "The central aim was to establish a new political unity: a common federal republic unifying the Balkan Peninsula on the basis of internationalism, socialism, social solidarity, and economic equality.". This has nothing to do with the general idea of a Greater Yugoslavia as promoted by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - a conservative royalist dictatorship since 1929.--R-41 (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Makedonski Laf od Smilevo like your picture though, thankyou for helping me with the articles whoever you are ? A Bulgarian Historian ? Anyway goodluck Mkd07 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mkd07. Jingiby (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have demonstrated Greater Yugoslavia doesn't = Balkan Federaion

Please respond to the statement I made here and at Talk:Balkan Federation that demonstrates that Greater Yugoslavia is not completely connected to the Balkan Federation supported by Tito and the SFRY. The article says that the Balkan Federation was a left-wing revolutionary socialist idea and says "The central aim was to establish a new political unity: a common federal republic unifying the Balkan Peninsula on the basis of internationalism, socialism, social solidarity, and economic equality.". This has nothing to do with the general idea of a Greater Yugoslavia as promoted by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - a conservative royalist dictatorship since 1929. This nullifies the previous discussion that was not aware of the examples outside the Balkan Federation.--R-41 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Macedonian American, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Makedonci

You removed my template of pictures of ethnic Macedonians saying the edit was not constructive. This is completely, utterly and absolutely untrue. All of people represented on the template are recognized as ethnic Macedonians by both the Macedonians and the Republic of Macedonia. The only POV that is blatant, is your Bulgarian POV, which I understand you recognize some of my people as Bulgarian or non-Macedonian. It's fine with me but it's not fine when you are going so far to alter the page because of your biased opinion, not because they are non-Macedonians.

Please do not edit Ethnic Macedonians wiki any further, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiisunbiased (talk • contribs) 09:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sokolovic

Had you checked the background of Stanislav Krakov, the main source of Gligor Sokolovic([1]).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Pomaks speaking Macedonian

When there are seven different sources that state that the Pomaks speak Bulgarian and the only contradictory sources are a tertiary source that doesn't actually say anything like that and a source that mentions in passing that Macedonian speaking Muslims are sometimes referred as Pomaks, that is nearly not enough for Macedonian to be included as a native language of the Pomaks. In fact, a note should be added that the Torbesh and Goranis are rarely referred as Pomaks today. Kostja (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I added several sources that part of the Pomaks are speaking Macedonian. Do not delete them. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Of your sources two didn't mention Pomaks at all, one mentioned them without saying what language they spoke and the fourth specifically explained that they speak Bulgarian. So they are not adequate. Kostja (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All sources mention the Torbeshi, some Torbeshi and Gorani as part of the wider Pomak comunity. Their language is described as Macedonian or transitional between Macedonian, Serbian and Bulgarian, i.e. Torlakian. Jingiby (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed a compromise on the article talk page. Kostja (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Gligor Sokolović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

revert

You didnt participated in draft. This version is neutrality, as it was created with participation of all. As you can see here. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jingiby. You have new messages at Talk:Vojsava_Tripalda#Draft_implementation.
Message added 09:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 09:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Dimitar Blagoev

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --101.112.160.6 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Look also on the talk-page of the article. Jingiby (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Turkish people

Hi Jingiby, I've been trying to find the citations that you have placed in the Turkish people article regarding their genetics; however, I have not been able to find them anywhere. Do you by any chance have copies of these articles which you can send me? Furthermore, are the studies within these article based on all people from Anatolia or just people who consider themselves to be ethnic Turks? Also, you have not placed any page numbers for your citation, it would help if you include those within the article.Turco85 (Talk) 12:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Turco85. I do not know which reference exactly you doubt of, but here on the American Center for Khazar Studies's site is a summary of the most important DNA studies of the Turkish population with direct links to the Abstracts. Also, there are not page's numbers on abstract publications. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply Jingiby. Yes I found a few summaries from random websites as well but I wondered if you actually had these articles, or have at some point had access to them. I've tried finding them on specialised searches such as JSTOR but can't find them anywhere. I've asked for page numbers because you have cited the actual publications rather than citing abstracts. I would appreciate it if you could help me find these articles. I do not find the current form of citation a reliable means of referencing. It's not the sources I have a problem with, just the way it has been cited, all other sources in the article have the relevant page numbers for verificiation. Turco85 (Talk) 14:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you are:

1. Turkish Population Structure and Genetic Ancestry Reveal Relatedness among Eurasian Populations, Uğur Hodoğlugil1, Robert W. Mahley, The Authors Annals of Human Genetics © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/University College London, Issue: Annals of Human Genetics, Volume 76, Issue 2, pages 128–141, March 2012.

2. Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, Issue: Volume 50, Number 1 / Summer 2011, Pages: 6 - 42, Who Are the Anatolian Turks? A Reappraisal of the Anthropological Genetic Evidence, Aram Yardumian and Theodore G. Schurr.

3. Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans. Berkman CC, Dinc H, Sekeryapan C, Togan I. Department of Biological Sciences, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136:1 (May 2008): pages 11-18. Jingiby (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if this is annoying you, but I'm not asking for the page numbers of the whole article from a journal, only the page number in which you are specifically citing. It doesn't matter, I'll try find access to these articles some place else. Thanks anyway.Turco85 (Talk) 14:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am citing the single Abstract (summary), which in academic literature is used to communicate succinctly concerning the complex research. Jingiby (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cyril Zhivkovich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zograf

Mile Pop Yordanov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bulgarian

Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ottoman Macedonia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyril Zhivkovich

Ow, a Serbian-Bulgarian kerfuffle :) Sorry, I'm not clued in automatically. Please feel free to apply WP:ARBMAC yourself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

AN3 report

I've mentioned you in a report of AngBent (talk · contribs) at WP:AN3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgars and Borysthenes

Dear Jingiby, you are right about 14th c., but in the 7th c. that area was called Atil-kiji in Bulgarian, and I do not want to enter into pissing contest with POV people. Atil-kiji is the first historical name for the area that we know, from 9th c. or some earlier. Next one was Bessarabia. In addition, even Greeks did not know exactly where Borysthenes was, the name was applied to few rivers. Barefact (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Barefact, I have changed the name of the river from Borysthenes to Danapris immediately after your comment with an edit on July 2. Just take a look on the article. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgars#Bulgars_and_Borysthenes Barefact (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Delchev's regionalism

Hi! Do you think that this quotation is a reason for this text in the article: "Also, by Delchev the term Macedonian was beginning to acquire the significance of a certain political loyalty, that progressively constructed a particular spirit of regional identity."? I can not see there (The Bulgarian loyalties of IMRO's leadership, however, coexisted with the desire for multi-ethnic Macedonia to enjoy administrative autonomy. When Delčev was elected to IMRO's Central Committee in 1896, he opened membership in IMRO to all inhabitants of European Turkey since the goal was to assemble all dissatisfyed elements in Macedonia and Adrianople regions regardless of ethnicity or religion in order to win through revolution full autonomy for both regions) some evidences for Macedonian "regional identity". Regards, --91.216.253.1 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just read the title. Jingiby (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Which title? We have an assertion in the text and probably inadequate (to the assertion) source.--91.216.253.1 (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your agenda. Delchev was supporter of the motto "Macedonia to the Macedonians". He fought for autonomy of the area, not for unification with Bulgaria. He allowed the inclusion of the non-Bulgarians in the anti-Ottoman struggle. Neither Greeks, nor the Serbians supported such strange ideas. He supported this unusual regionalism, and Delchev developed strong his local patriotism. Jingiby (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all your sentences and I want to make a clarification only to the latter. In fact, the clarification should be made to the text in the article. There are a claim in the article that Delchev "... progressively constructed a particular spirit of regional identity". The source do not asserts that. The idea for autonomy, the admission of other nationalities do not confirmed the assertion that Delchev constructed a particular spirit of regional identity. This is not the same. Even faithful things can not be proved by sources that do not say that.

P.S. If on the base of his political views, we accept the construction of some regional identity, should we talk about Macedonian-Adrianopole identity?--91.216.253.1 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read 24. Идването на Гоце Делчев в Тракия и някои уточнения по този повод. Идеологическите спорове между Гоце Делчев и Стоян Лазов. Непубликувани спомени на очевидци? Jingiby (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this source. It is interesting, but it does not surprise me with something fundamentally. I red about Macedonian-Adrianopole state (NB!), but I couldn't find evidences for Macedonian (regional) identity. Maybe I have not red carefully. Can you help me, please?--91.216.253.1 (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Chek then "Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996, Chris Kostov, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 112: ...The Bulgarian historians, such as Veselin Angelov, Nikola Achkov and Kosta Tzarnushanov continue to publish their research backed with many primary sources to prove that the term 'Macedonian' when applied to Slavs has always meant only a regional identity of the Bulgarians... Jingiby (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this is clear. However I have to remind that we are talking about Gotse Delchev and the assertion that he (maybe?!) "...progressively constructed a particular spirit of regional identity". Please, note that we are not talking about regional identity in this region in general, but about the assertion in the article. Do you have any evidences for it?--91.216.253.1 (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to specify again - Delchev's Macedonian "regional identity" - progressively constructed, particular etc. :)--91.216.253.1 (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not delete reliable sources, please. If you don't understand their meaning and their interconnection, I kan't help you. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, explain what do you want to say with these sources, how they are related to the alleged Delchev's Macedonian regional indentity etc. I waited several days for this, but you didn't answer. In this situation, the return of the sources should go through further dialogue. I hope you will respect my desire to clarify the situation according the rules and you will not continue with the attempt to impose your POV without explanations. Thank you.--91.216.253.1 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I still have doubts about the adequacy of one or two sources to the question (specifically for Delchev), but the argument for Young Macedonian Literary Society is excellent. I will not read literally the sources anymore. You can go back sometime and reflect on some of them. Regards, --91.216.253.1 (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OK! Jingiby (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgaria". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 09:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Friendly warning

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:

..16:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

NP - I see someone else is now involved - hopefully we can get the IP to the talk page if it is reverted again.Moxy (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK! Jingiby (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jingiby

I'm going to remove the two genetic-related paragraphs in the origin section of Turkish people because there is already a page called Genetic history of the Turkish people which is about the genetic studies of Turkish related people, and there is no need to mention the same or similar contributions repetitively in both of the articles. You can go on genetic-related contributions on the genetic related page. Thanks. BozokluAdam (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Bulgaria, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Source coverage

How much of the preceding text does this source cover? If it doesn't cover all the formerly uncited text, it'd be great if you could add a citation needed tag before the sources sections. Cheers, CMD (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Grand Voivodeship of Macedonia

Maybe you're right, but this is not the procedure to delete a page. Please, follow the instructions, submit a proposal for deletion togheter with your reasons, and wait for the community vote.--Enok (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gotse Delchev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Macedonia

Taga za Jug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ottoman Macedonia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillyc script "unconstructive" edits

Hello! I did not delete reliable information from Cyrillic script like you write on my page. My edits are not "unconstructive". I changed "Old Macedonian" to "Old Bulgarian". And from "Macedonian brothers" i deleted the word "Macedonian". And my edits are not reverted or removed like you say. At this time they are still there in the article.The only difference is the words "Byzantine Greek" is added in front of "brothers". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonina78 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop your propaganda POV

Stop your propaganda POV on the Cyrillic page. This is not Skopie pedia! If you continue you will be banned for vandalism. Ximhua (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Before changing the content of the pages drastically as you did there discuss it on the talk-page and provide a lot of reliable sources in support of your opinion. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Gligor Zisov

Perhaps you are interest on this article which I nominated for deletion, so I'm welcoming you to particite. Thank you.Vagrand (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian language

"Similarly to Macedonian" is clumsy English in this case; here "similarly" means "in the same way". It's a common conjunctive in formal English. The ref does not source the widely in "Torlakian was also widely regarded". "Together with Bulgarian and Torlakian" is an overstatement: Bugarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Torlakian are all included in the Balkan sprachbund. This is an article about Macedonian, so the Balkan sprachbund itself isn't being defined, only Macedonian as a constituent of it. If you insist on such a formulation, then it would be more to the point to say "Macedonian and the other South Slavic languages...", avoiding those long-winded opening sentences. "Language contact between Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian during Yugoslav times, influenced the Macedonian so much, that even today the colloquial speech of the city" is unacceptable English. --101.112.166.177 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

revert

Are you actually following the related discussion at Talk:Turkey or are you just blindly reverting? Because Lumialover makes a very valid point at that discussion. Athenean (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you honesty. Athenean (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I was really wrong. Excuse me. Jingiby (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Stuff happens. No worries :) Athenean (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian language... again

After the forced serbianisation implemented during the interbellum,[38][39] the subsequent intensive language contact between Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian reached its height during Yugoslav times, so much so that the colloquial speech of the city of Skopje has been described as a "creolized form of Serbian"[40] (cf. also Surzhyk in Ukraine, Trasianka in Belarus).

You cannot splice two sources together to arrive at your conclusion. From the second source ("creolized form of Serbian") is isn't explicit if it arose from a forced serbianisation or otherwise. Given that the source speaks of "language contact", it is unlikely that it is referencing force of any type (linguists invariably consider language contact as it occurs naturally). The first source speaks of cultural assimilation in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (i.e. before the implementation of the standard) and does not explicitly mention language. The second source similarly speaks of cultural assimilation and discrimination in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --101.112.130.179 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The cultural assimilation included also forced linguistic serbianisation. The local dialects were regarded Serbian. More, the locals were regarded Serbs. The Serbian was the only language teached in the schools. I am going to modify my statement and to support it with reliable sources which point espesially the linguistic assimilation. Jingiby (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide excerpts from sources 20-26. Where do they state "Macedonian dialects were described by most linguists as being dialects of Bulgarian"? Or are *you* deciding who "most linguists" were based on the number of sources *you* find on Google Books? --101.112.153.165 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, all of this old books are describing Macedonian as part of Bulgarian. But more interesting is this citation: The south-Slavic linguistic area is generally regarded as as one of the most interesting in Europe... The number of languages into which this continuum is officially segmented has been subject to change, however. Up until World War II there were three: Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. Since 1944, when Macedonia was set up as a Yugoslav Republic and Macedonian was proclaimed as its literary language, the Macedonian dialects...has been subsumed under this new linguistic standard, which raised them to four... Although there is no clear dividing line between these two languages (Bulgarian and Macedonian) on level of dialect, the Macedonian literary standard was delimited from Bulgarian in a typical Ausbau move, by being based on western Macedonian dielects-those furthest from Bulgaria. Language, discourse and borders in the Yugoslav successor states - Current issues in language and society monographs, Birgitta Busch, Helen Kelly-Holmes, Multilingual Matters, 2004, ISBN 1853597325, pp. 24-25. [2]. That means in simple words: In the South - Slavic dialect continuum, the Macedonian language was delimited from Bulgarian after the Second World war. Jingiby (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Your addition to Macedonian language has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

More specifically: Jingiby, you need to re-examine your whole method of editing. You keep copying text all over the place, all the time. I've realized for a long while that you never, ever write any article content of your own. Your English is far too poor for that. If you tried, your text would be riddled with grammatical errors. When you add substantial amounts of text somewhere, it appears it is almost always copied from somewhere else.

• Literally copying from external sources, as you did here [3], is copyright violation plain and simple. Never do that again; the next time I catch you doing it I will ask for an indefinite ban.
• Internally copying text from other Wikipedia articles, as you very often do, is also bad. Don't do that either. First, it leads to unnecessary duplication of material, often with a WP:COATRACK side to it. Keep stuff in one place. Second, it makes it impossible to track where material originally comes from and who is responsible for it. Third, it actually is a copyright violation too. Even if the text is a freely licensed Wikipedia text, you must not copy it without attribution. The very least you must do is acknowledge the copying in your edit summaries (e.g. "... copying material from article so-and-so").

If your English is too poor to contribute constructively with your own text, you should reconsider whether this project is really the right place for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her: Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more... John 8.

...Aber Jesus bückte sich nieder und schrieb mit dem Finger auf die Erde. Als sie nun anhielten, ihn zu fragen, richtete er sich auf und sprach zu ihnen: Wer unter euch ohne Sünde ist, der werfe den ersten Stein auf sie. Und bückte sich wieder nieder und schrieb auf die Erde. Da sie aber das hörten, gingen sie hinaus, einer nach dem andern, von den Ältesten bis zu den Geringsten; und Jesus ward gelassen allein und das Weib in der Mitte stehend. Jesus aber richtete sich auf; und da er niemand sah denn das Weib, sprach er zu ihr: Weib, wo sind sie, deine Verkläger? Hat dich niemand verdammt? Sie aber sprach: Herr, niemand. Jesus aber sprach: So verdamme ich dich auch nicht; gehe hin und sündige hinfort nicht mehr!... Johannes - Kapitel 8.

... Но Иисус, наклонившись низко, писал перстом на земле, не обращая на них внимания. Когда же продолжали спрашивать Его, Он, восклонившись, сказал им: Kто из вас без греха, первый брось на нее камень. И опять, наклонившись низко, писал на земле. Они же, услышав [то] и будучи обличаемы совестью, стали уходить один за другим, начиная от старших до последних; и остался один Иисус и женщина, стоящая посреди. Иисус, восклонившись и не видя никого, кроме женщины, сказал ей: Женщина! где твои обвинители? Hикто не осудил тебя? Она отвечала: никто, Господи. Иисус сказал ей: и Я не осуждаю тебя; иди и впредь не греши... Иоанн, глава 8."

I hoffe, du hast etwas verstanden! Jingiby (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean you are refusing to change your editing habits? I need a clear, unambiguous promise from you that you are going to edit differently in future; without that, I'll have to take you straight to either WP:AE or Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. (Oh, and don't you Jesus me; I for one will have no compuctions throwing stones at you if needed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Future, Ich kenne dich gut and du mich, also. Die Future wird zeigen, ob jeder von uns wird sich ändern. Das ist alles. Jingiby (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Jingiby, I'm afraid I may be wasting my time here, but I've got to ask: Do you not understand the severity of this situation? Copyright violations are dealt with more strictly than any other offence on Wikipedia except plain old vandalism. People who violate copyright here get banned. That's a fact. Saying "whoops, I messed up!" tends to get better results than posting flippant messages to the person calling you on your behaviour in a language other than English (obwohl ich selber Deutsch verstehen kann, können viele hier in der englischen Wikipedia es nicht verstehen [translation for any passers-by: "although I myself can understand German, many here at the English Wikipedia cannot understand it"]). So you're wasting bytes casting aspersions on FutPerf when you should be thinking about what you're going to do with your behaviour.

Oh, and scripture? Really? You think that's going to solve your problem? Maybe you should read the one about "let him who stole steal no longer", since copyright violation is essentially stealing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Heimstern, I am not an Idiot. Certainly, also I do not think I'm infallible. One learns his lifetime. My desire is what was done by me wrong until now, must not to be repeated again in the Future. Jingiby (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nil Izvorov, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ruse and Porte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illés Spitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ohrid Literary School

You have been warned a number of times about misrepresenting sources. Poulton (2000) does not mention a "distinct Bulgarian ethnic consciousness" arising from the development of Old Church Slavonic literary. He says the effect of it prevented the assimilation of the Slavs and the legacy of which bolstered bolstered a national identity "far from that associated with modern nationalism". --101.112.170.166 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What the source says is: ...The development of a Slav literacy was crucial in preventing assimilation of the Slavs, either by cultures of the north, or by the Greek culure to the south... Thus as Crampton notes, the legacy helped the Bulgarians develop a national consciousness which, though far from that associated with modern nationalism, was strong to preserve the concept of Bulgaria and the Bulgarians as a distinct entity... This sence was cemented by the conquests of Simeon the Great (i.e. during the 9th and 10th centuries...). Hugh Poulton, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1-85065-534-0, pp. 19-20. Jingiby (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Association of Serbo-Macedonians, Jingiby!

Wikipedia editor Torreslfchero just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Well done!

To reply, leave a comment on Torreslfchero's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thank you, Torreslfchero. Jingiby (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Association of Serbo-Macedonians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Serbian

Ostrov, Constanţa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ostrov

Saint Sava society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Serbian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marko Cepenkov". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. EarwigBot operator / talk 11:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)