Jump to content

User talk:Jingiby/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kumanovo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Kumanovo''' ({{lang-mk|Куманово}} {{IPA-mk|kuˈmanɔvɔ||Mk-Kumanovo.ogg}} is a city in the [[Republic of Macedonia]
  • пространу област иеточно од Скопске Црне Горе. Она је обухватала старе жупе Прешево и Жеглигово (данас кумановски крај са Средореком, Козјачијом}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Jakov

Hello,

I noticed this edit of yours (diff). Have you noticed the following text: "In some sources he is misidentified with Jakov Krajkov (or Trajkov) from Sofia, who was contemporary printer in Venice"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but they are one and the same person. Check here, please:[1]. Jingiby (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It says: "рят за българската народностна принадлежност на Яков. На въпроса, идентични ли са Яков от Камена река и Яков от София, продължават да се дават противоречиви отговори." Your edit does not follow this position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The position of the author is that these persons are identical: Следователно идентификационният въпрос на практика се свежда до прибавянето на Ч към останалите три книги, чийто издател безспорно е Яков от София, нарекъл себе си Крайков син. Check also Abstract: A review by Elka Mircheva on Mariyana Tsibranska-Kostova's book Yakov Kraykov's Book for Different Occasions between Venice and the Balkans in the 16th century: С посветените на този въпрос страници от изследването и с аргументираната критика на досегашни публикации, ми се струва, че напълно и категорично е разрешен въпросът, че Яков от Камена река е идентичен с Яков от София, а патронимът Крайков произхожда от топонима Краище (Коласия). And here: Марияна Цибранска-Костова. „Сборникът „Различни потреби” на Яков Крайков между Венеция и Балканите през XVI век. Издателство „Валентин Траянов”, С., 2013, Култура - Брой 43 (2749), 20 декември 2013. Ако в средата на XVI в. бяхте попаднали във Венеция, вероятно щяхте да се запознаете с печатаря Яков – и щяхте да научите отговора на спорния въпрос дали е родом от Камена река или от София. By the way Bulgarian researchers maintain if they are two different Jakovs, one from Kamena Reka and one from Sofia, this from Kamena Reka was born in Osogovo, near Kyustendil in the village Каменичка Скакавица and is the first Bulgarian printer. Check: The European Library. and also Българска книга: Eнциклопедия, Ани Гергова, Pensoft Publishers, 2004, ISBN 954642210X, стр. 257. Jingiby (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. The same author honestly admitted there are still contradictory opinions if these persons are identical (На въпроса, идентични ли са Яков от Камена река и Яков от София, продължават да се дават противоречиви отговори.).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the author explains that scholars in RoM try to prove there were two persons. She even puts forth quite convincing evidence pretty much refuting every claim by the single foreign author she names. Are you having trouble understanding the entire text? --Laveol T 20:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No. The same author honestly admitted there are still contradictory opinions if these persons are identical (На въпроса, идентични ли са Яков от Камена река и Яков от София, продължават да се дават противоречиви отговори.). Are you having trouble understanding the entire text?
  • I noticed you are not very active on wikipedia. Has anybody invited you to this discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but trolling me will hardly get you anywhere. I do not need an invitation to comment. If the user whose talkpage I edit has anything against my comments, he is free to remove them. I am active mostly when single-purpose accounts get loose.
And now back to the topic of the discussion you seem so reluctant to actually discuss. Did you read the entire text provided? I guess the answer is no, or otherwise you would not resort to just repeating the same. The author in question goes on to refute pretty much every single pseudo-scientific argument that there were two persons. She goes on to name just one author (who happens to from RoM) who holds that view. On the other hand, she presents extensive evidence for the opposite. They are based on the works of various scholars.
I repeat my well-intentioned question if you are actually having trouble to understand the entire text. This is really the only explanation I can find for your comments (besides a pretty obvious troll-attempt, of course).--Laveol T 21:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jingiby, will you please be so kind to explain why did you choose to present only "the position of the author...that these persons are identical" without presenting information that there are still contradictory opinions if these persons are identical (На въпроса, идентични ли са Яков от Камена река и Яков от София, продължават да се дават противоречиви отговори.)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Already done. Jingiby (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian Millet

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bulgarian Millet, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Phill24th (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have additional questions or problems direct them at the page's talk page. Thank you.Phill24th (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You must explain on talk, while provided there 18 references and sources are insufficient to prove claimed in that articles facts. Jingiby (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Then you should put more sufficient inline citations. And probably rewrite the entire article looks like OR to me, ex. "All Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire were subordinated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was dominated by Greek Phanariotes.", no indication of year, date, no reference, where did you got this information? Until you correct the article, the tag will remain please stop your disruptive editing and fix the page. Phill24th (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Discuss on talk page of the article and gain a consensus. Jingiby (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Bulgarian Millet. Phill24th (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to all users to create an art. on Igor Janev on English Wikipedia / Name issue

Invitation to all users to create an art. on Igor Janev. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=603995897 Invitation to all users to create an art. on Igor Janev. please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=603995897 http://www.makemigration.com/ [2] http://www.answers.com/topic/igor-janev http://www.abebooks.co.uk/9788674192610/Diplomatija-8674192610/plp http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2 http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C http://www.mia.mk/en/Inside/RenderSingleNews/289/105947751 or at MINA : http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/21668/45/ or http://www.makemigration.com/iselenistvoweb/index.php?page=iselenici&id=247&tip_iselenici=7 http://s241910817.onlinehome.us/html/articles/janev/janev.html http://www.mkd.mk/makedonija/politika/nekoj-go-brishe-igor-janev-od-vikipedija http://dobarglas.info/naslovna_v6.htm http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2008/sonce748.pdf/12_15_janev.pdf http://www.time.mk/c/61e6ad16de/janev-postoi-praven-lek-za-imeto.html http://www.makdenes.org/content/article/1956873.html http://www.mkd.mk/54357/makedonija/se-ceka-na-potpisot-na-ivanov-rezolucija-janev-on [3] LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF A PROVISIONAL NAME FOR MACEDONIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM [4] citation:[5] http://books.google.rs/books?id=JkgVV0AKW4oC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Igor+Janev&source=bl&ots=Oj3a_969Z_&sig=0RtIFcc3x2YFym3qoPU-JyhJ9dE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dNikUoqzKaaIzAP1hYCIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Igor%20Janev&f=false https://www.google.com/search?q=Igor+Janev&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 http://macedonianhr.org.au/wip/images/stories/pdf/1252648063581.pdf see cit.http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2009/bajalski_borko.pdf http://sam.gov.tr/on-the-uns-legal-responsibility-for-the-irregular-admission-of-macedonia-to-un/ http://www.sar.org.ro/polsci/?p=264 http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2008/sonce713.pdf/16_17_janev.pdf http://www.crpm.org.mk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Policy-Brief-NatoMak.pdf http://denesen.mk/web/2013/08/31/janev-postoi-praven-lek-za-imeto/ https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553374/pop-AngelovMarijan.pdf?sequence=1 , p.77-78 http://www.mkd.mk/makedonija/politika/nekoj-go-brishe-igor-janev-od-vikipedija http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf , When we say US, p. 845, note 28. 178.222.22.90 G. Ivanov, "Recalling that the International Court of Justice 1948 advisory opinion had determined that placing additional criteria on United Nations membership contravened the United Nations Charter", http://gadebate.un.org/67/former-yugoslav-republic-macedonia Thomas D. Grant, Admission to the United Nations, Martinus pub. , pp. 203-212 http://books.google.rs/books?id=5Uuv0NLNdZQC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=Igor+Janev+Admission+to+the&source=bl&ots=6DgOwcDxtS&sig=4DlZpp7DCtAOeeMqhjvN0QviEl0&hl=sr&sa=X&ei=GERKU9ivOsXOtQaD9oGIDA&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Igor%20Janev%20Admission%20to%20the&f=false http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=sr&q=igor+janev&btnG= https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.news.macedonia/Gh9l8yZjA-Q http://books.google.rs/books?id=0k-9--x9EY4C&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=Igor+Janev&source=bl&ots=bLD1RW0O6x&sig=SV0Ts24V87pzMIjAJwh1tQDzk-E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sdakUtvhMaqVyAOGuoGYDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Igor%20Janev&f=false http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Igor_Janev

Regards and respect to all. --79.101.146.2 (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian Millet

Thank you for sending me an email with your concerns regarding the page "Bulgarian Millet". I'm sad to see such an experienced editor blocked from editing. From what I can see there was an edit-war "to the death" concerning the spamming of tags on the page. I believe that the issue has now been put to rest, hopefully a compromise has been reached.

Unfortunately I do not check my email frequently, so please leave me a message on my talk page instead. Looking forward to having you reinstated and hearing from you in the future. -- Kndimov (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Prilep1944.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Prilep1944.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jingiby, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Dschslava (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Frick. Sorry. I don't know how my eyes didn't read the right lines, but anyways, sorry. Dschslava (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Metodi Shatorov.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Metodi Shatorov.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Unblock appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jingiby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi everybody! Three years ago, on April 13, 2014, I was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Now I hope that indefinite does not mean infinite, and I as an indefinitely blocked user may be unblocked in current circumstances. I think also, now my block is in fact not necessary more to prevent damages and/or disruption, because I understand what I was blocked for. In my opinion, I will not do disruptions again, and I will make productive contributions instead, in the future. Thank you in advance. Sincerely yours! Jingiby (talk) 10:09 am, Today (UTC+2)

Accept reason:

I don't mind giving editors a second chance. I see this was the result of some disruptive editing with edit warring - which would not normally always lend itself into a long block, but given the previous block record of about 15+ blocks, it was appropriate. I see the last sock allegation went nowhere, so that is to be ignored. Do note that once you start editing, there will be plenty of old editors who will see you and check what you are doing, always ensure you are logged (no more IP socks). It's well known that religion, nationality, and politics tends to bring out the passion in editors, so if you are editing in those areas again, do take a step back and carefully think before reverting anyone's edits. Also note that some of the areas you are most interested in may be subject to a reduce number of reverts allowed - note any banner that appears when you edit a page.Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everybody and happy Holydays. Jingiby (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macedonian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dardanians. 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) 09:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anastasia Karakasidou

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Anastasia Karakasidou requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.wellesley.edu/anthropology/faculty/karakasidou/node/1803#A8ZPkJZhyCtI6KK2.97. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

OK.I am going to rewrite this biography only with my own words. Jingiby (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
She seems to be notable, so, as soon as sources have been provided, I do not see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Vezenkov

Yes, I know he is ethnic Bulgarian, but is Cyprus first in nationality. The typical article states the first nationality, then after that if you are of some other descent. So it really should say Cypriot player of Bulgarian descent, and not Bulgarian player. That's how at least most other articles in the site usually are.Bluesangrel (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because he was born there. However on a ground of his ethnicity, he became Bulgarian citizen and played as a member of the Bulgarian junior national teams and currently is a member of Bulgarian men's national team. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Anastasia Karakasidou

Hello, I'm SilentResident. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edits on Anastasia Karakasidou seemed less than neutral to me, so I edited it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, let me know. Thank you. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of my position

With this edit (diff) you blatantly misinterpreted my position as According to Antidiscriminator, Serbian sources must be accepted as undisputable in this case. No doubt you know that I have never said that. No doubt you know that in my comment I emphasized that I am against your racist attempts to judge the reliability of sources based on the nationality of their authors, without presenting a single source which refutes reliability or neutrality of sources used in the article. No doubt that you deliberately misinterpreted my comment in order to create a false narrative about me and my editing, in order to use it against me. Next time you do that I will report you. Please understand this comment as a warning. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If so, please, accept my excuse. Regards! Jingiby (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Map

Will you please be so kind to explain what is the source of the file you uploaded to wikipedia?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have described the source on the map: Dimitar Rizov, “The Bulgarians in their Historical, Ethnographical, and Political Frontiers. Atlas with 40 Maps. I have used to upload it, a link <http://www.promacedonia.org/en/dr/dr_30-40_en.htm> as cited by Cameron Ean Alfred Whitehead, University of Vctoria, on p. 330, note 994 under line, on his dissertation "The Bulgarian horrors: culture and the international history of the Great Eastern Crisis", 1876-1878, submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of History. Jingiby (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
More info about this map on: "Ethnic Mapping on the Balkans (1840–1925): a Brief Comparative Summary of Concepts and Methods of Visualization", p. 73 and on Andrew Light, Jonathan M. Smith, Philosophy and Geography II: The Production of Public Space, Rowman & Littlefield, 1998, ISBN 0847688100, p. 240. and here you can see a detail from it on p. 93. in Българeте в Македония: издирвания и документи за техното потекло, език и народност, с етнографска карта и статистика, проф. Йордан Иванов, Изд. на Българската академия на наукитѣ от фонда "Напрѣдък", 1915. Jingiby (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I checked all links you presented here but none of them contained file with image of the map. Will you please present link where you really found this file?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Here you are: The Ethnological Map by Dawidowitsch № 17, pp. 27-28. Jingiby (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The text in the link says: "The map is reprinted in fac-simile. Some colouring, however, having appeared indispensable because of the small-dotted line that bounds the districts inhabited by Servians beeing too thin on the original and not prominent enough on the reprint, we had to make more prominent by red colour the line of the southeast-boundary, of course accurately with the original and with the exactness of scientific map-drawing.The map is reprinted in fac-simile. Some colouring, however, having appeared indispensable because of the small-dotted line that bounds the districts inhabited by Servians beeing too thin on the original and not prominent enough on the reprint, we had to make more prominent by red colour the line of the southeast-boundary, of course accurately with the original and with the exactness of scientific map-drawing.". In this edit (diff) you wrote This map has originally appeared in Vienna in 1828, where it was published at the cost of the Serbian State. It shows the ethnological boundaries of the Serbian people. They are marked in southeast with a red frontier. According to this map present-day Kosovo, Southern and Eastern Serbia and Sandžak were not populated by Serbs. No mention about facsimile, reprint in Austria 1917 (during the war with Serbia), no mention about the addition of red line.... I think it is source misinterpretation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I will make some additions on the map uploaded on Wikimedia Commons in accordance with your remarks. I have compared this red border-line with the exept from the map of Davidovic, published by prof.Jordan Ivanov and Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 1915 and here you can see a detail from it on p. 93. On both maps the border-line is aproximately the same. I read also the description of that border-line made by the Hungarian authors in their research "Ethnic Mapping on the Balkans (1840–1925): a Brief Comparative Summary of Concepts and Methods of Visualization", and it fits too. It reads as follows: "In the map of Davidović nor the Sanjak of Novipazar neither Kosovo was described as Serb. The fact that his work has been published at the expense of the Servian State and that it was translated in French means, that his work was bearing the full approval of the Servian Government of that time. Macedonia, but also the towns Niš, Leskovac, Vranja, Pirot were also situated outside the boundaries of the Serbian race". Check here on 240. Neverthless I will search for the original map to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. If you got it I am going to replace that on Wikimedia. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I caught you red handed again. You did not mention promacedonia.org website when you uploaded the image and you mispresented map published during WWI in Austria Hungary (who was allied with Bulgaria against Serbia) as 1828 map of Davidovic. If you don't have original map, don't mispresent falsifications as original. Davidovic did not draw red line, nor his intention was to emphasize non-Serbian character of Sandzak, Kosovo and Eastern Serbia although according to some sources at one period of his life he accepted Safarik's ridiculous position that Slavic population (Serbs and/or Bosniaks or/and Muslims) who lived south of borders of Princedom of Serbia were in fact all Bulgarians. That information can be added to the article without unnecessary misinterpetation of sources.
Now when I see that you returned to modus operandi which got you indeff blocked three years ago, I am sorry because I supported your unblock. If I catch you again in source misinterpretations, I will report you. Please understand this as warning. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion I was honest in my work, but it is possible, I made some unintentional misinterpretation. Who knows, it is posible, you have got some wrong prejudices to me. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have got the version from 1846 and I am going to upload it. Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Stop to promotion your Bulgarian nationalism. --212.200.247.175 (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fake references

I just reverted your post on Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising article. Your reference is fake. The prime minister of Republic of Macedonia Zoran Zaev is in Podgorica, co-chairing a summit. http://www.mia.mk/EN/Inside/RenderSingleNews/210/133801561

Please keep neutral and verifiable. Toci (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I also forgot to say. Long time no hear. Happy 114th anniversary of the Ilinden Uprising (the Preobrazhenie Uprising is in few weeks) and happy 73rd anniversary of ASNOM where the sons of the participants of the Ilinden Uprising won over Bulgarian fascists among others. Toci (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Stop trolling other users, please. Also, try explaining the video attached to this article. It never seizes to amaze me how some entirely-not-politically-motivated accounts get activate anytime two countries make a historic step for the better. --Laveol T 20:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Toci, but try to learn some history. Also, to be informed today is not imposible. Do notforget that Communist Yugoslavia is dead since 1990. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Bulgar turks

Stop hiding recognition of turkic bulgars from Bulgar related articles. Your nationalist behaviour ruinslegacy of great bulgars. You can't run away from truth. You even have not proposed proper explanation of deletion of Turkic word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner555 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already have mentioned by my revision, this article is not about the Bulgars' origins. There is also a section in it, called Bulgars and their Turkic origins is explained there. Nobody hids anything. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

One can mention bulgar turks in description of First Bulgar State. Founders of this state were only bulgars, no slavs at all. Slavs entered Danube during 1.Boris. Slavs participated in creation of Second Bulgar State. You are just being jealous of terms "turkic'. Gunner555

Maybe you need to learn the rules of Wikipedia and a lot of history, before editing here? Jingiby (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am little new here. So what? What rule are you referring to? You disrespect bulgar turks. Gunner555 (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Slavs moved into this area circa 550-600 A.D. That's what he meant by learning history - however, he's very guilty of this himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.4 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

You have enough edit history to know better. There are admins about with an itchy block finger about. See wp:3RR if you need to. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW: The IP's edits do not constitute vandalism. See wp:vandalism Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.Jingiby (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Check here, please: IP:62.12.114.214 is confirmed sockpuppet of User:PavelStaykov. Jingiby (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sock

I blocked, but could you please create an SPI as I have no time. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Jingiby (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
However I have found out, that a new SPI was already created - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PavelStaykov. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

they make it easier

to hear the quacking when they insult you in their native tongue. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The name of the new sock Кур За Джингиби is a swear-sentence. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
blocked. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Fanula Papazoglou

Hi. It seems you were correct in adding that Fanula Papazoglou was of Aromanian descent. After Googling her name, I found this (it's in Greek, saying that indeed she was of Aromanian - Vlach descent) from Miltiadis Chatzopoulos, who was a Professor at EIE (the Greek National Research Foundation). So I apologize for reverting your edit. However, please do provide sources (and, if possible, in English, so that they can be checked and verified) when making changes to such sensitive issues -there will be many people, even administrators, who won't bother to check the validity of your claims, or even to Google about the person you are referring to. Best. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ανδρέας. The controversy surrounding a Greek minority within the Republic of Macedonia stems from the statistical treatment of Aromanian population there, which in its majority has historically identified as Greek, as part of the Rum millet. Nearly the whole Greek comunity in Bitola during Ottoman times was of Aromanian descent. After the Balkan Wars and WWI, most of it moved to Greece. During Yugoslav times and afterwards the rest changed its identification in Aromanian, Yugoslav or even in Macedonian. The most recent census in RoM (2002) recorded 422 individuals declaring their ethnicity as Greek in the country, but most of them were descendants of the Greek Communist, who migrated to Yugoslavia after the Civil war. The Vlachs in the Republic of Macedonia, are officially recognised as minority, and number today some 10,000 people according to the last census. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Bulgarian ethnogenetics misconception

Hi, i just received your message that you have reverted my yesterday's contribution citing the reason being not constructive. Excuse me but, how exactly is my correction of a factual error not constructive? The introduction text of Bulgarian wikipage states that Bulgarians are a South Slavic ethic group. This statement is factually incorrect, as i have provided more than 4 sources of evidence consisting of recent DNA studies and tests that say that Slavic genes make up a very tiny part of the DNA of present Bulgarians, and that present-day Bulgarians carry genes of predominantly Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian people, and not Slavic people. Why are you reversing my correction? Bulgarians are not South Slavic ethnic group as 4 sources clearly prove. Just because a small portion of the population carry Slavic genes, does not mean it's accurate to say Bulgarians are Slavic ethnic group, no more than it is to say English people are French, just because a small portion of the population carries French genes. Please reverse your correction of my correction. This is an extremely long persistent myth that has been perpetuated despite scientific evidence disproving it time and time again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The fact that today Bulgarians are a South Slavic people was discussed many times and seems undisputable. There are a lot of reliable scientific sources confirming that. It is also fact that most of the South Slavs today are carriyng predominantly the DNA of the pre-Slavic Balkan populations. But that does not mean the South Slavic people today are not known for the world science as South Slavs at all. The genetic structure of these people is specific and that is mentioned in the article, but this is still debatable and its place is not in the lead. And on a third place, there are several Bulgarian studies claiming modern Bulgarians are in significant degree genetic ancestors of the Bulgars. However these studies are not confirmed by independent researchers. They contradicts to several internationsl DNA studies rejecting de facto such input in modern Bulgaria and some studies estimate that up to 40% of the genes of the Bulgarians can be associated with the historical Balto-Slavic donor group. The Bulgar issue is extremely controversial and can not be accepted as fact, in this way to be included into the lead. More, sоme authors claim only about 2% of today Bulgarian DNA may correspond to medieval Bulgars. The same position to keep the balance is supported also at the corresponding articles on Bulgarian Wikipedia. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but what you just said makes no sense. May i ask for your credentials on this subject? How can you possibly say that Bulgarians being of South Slavic ethnicity is indisputable given that i just provided you with evidence that prove otherwise. DNA and Gene studies of several independent from each other research groups from Bulgaria and else where all conclude that the majority of present-day Bulgarians carry the DNA of Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian ancestry, and Slavic being the minority. Present-day Bulgarians are an ethnic comprised of several other ethnic groups, the two dominant ones being Thracian people and Proto-Bulgarian people. Literally all research i was able to read on this subject say the same thing, some say that Slavic genes make up as much as 30% of the DNA of present-day Bulgarians, other say it make up less than 30%, but all conclude that majority of present-day Bulgarians carry Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian genes. Thracian people and Proto-Bulgarian people are not Slavic people, these are 2 different Indo-European ethnic groups. How can you possibly deny the evidence that i gave you? In fact, i will go as far as to say that, there is no evidence that say that majority of present-day Bulgarians carry Slavic genes, i would like to see such evidence. All evidence and research show that Slavic genes are part of the mix, but they represent the minority of the DNA, and not the majority. Of course there might always be people disputing everything, but the most recent research and DNA findings clearly show that present-day Bulgarians carry predominantly Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian DNA, and less Slavic. Given the overwhelming evidence, it is absolutely factually incorrect and extremely misleading to have the Bulgarian wiki page introduce Bulgarians as Slavic, given that Slavic genes are only the minority. Like i said, this is akin to saying English people are French, or Americans are Italian just because 15% of White Americans are of Italian ancestry. It is wrong statement,and misleading. I do not understand why do you refuse to correct this obvious misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The article Bulgarians is not dedicated on the DNA impact in modern Bulgarian people. International studies claimes Bulgar impact in today Bulgarians is negligible. There is no study confirming the exact ancient Balkanian DNA impact in today Bulgarians: Dacian, Illyrian, Thracian, Macedonian, Hellenic, Celtic, Roman etc. By the way, you did not read the article Genetic studies on Bulgarians, nor the attached references. By the way, keep in mind that blogs and private sites are not reliable sources here, and you have to stop using them as references. Please, read all carefully several times. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you show me these studies? And most importantly can you show me ANY study, even one, that claims that the majority of the DNA of present-day Bulgarians is of Slavic ancestry? Even inside the page Genetic studies on Bulgarians it says that Slavic donor group constitute only 40% of the Bulgarian DNA. I gave you 3 recent studies, that are not blogs, that say the same thing, that the Slavic genes constitute the minority of Bulgarian DNA, the majority being Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian people. If Slavic genes constitute less than 40% of the DNA, then why are Bulgarian people introduced as South Slavic ethnic group?? Can you not see how false and inaccurate this introduction is? Can you at least add to the introduction page that Bulgarian is an ethnic group made of predominantly 3 ancestral groups - Thracian, Proto-Bulgarians and Slavic? How can you possible think it's ok to introduce Bulgarians are Slavic people, given that every source say that Slavic genes make up the minority of the DNA? It is unacceptably false introduction of Bulgarian people. It is an outright lie. You cannot possible say that Bulgarians are Slavic if Slavic genes constitute less than 40%. Sorry, but this is ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a forum. Of course genetic impact in modern Bulgarians is much more complicated then your claims about only 3 donor groups. As to the sources, one of them is: Garrett Hellenthal at al. Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, ans it claims: "This ancestry stems from groups with ancestry related to Northeast Asians (e.g.,the Oroqen, Mongola, and Yakut). The Bulgarians received their Asiatic ancestry from 2,3% around the year 858, according to its admixture analysis. Fig. 3. Multiway admixture in Eastern Europe. Mixing percentages (pie graphs) and dates (white text) inferred by using the strongest admixture “direction” for six eastern European groups—Belarus (BE), Bulgaria (BU), Hungary (HU), Lithuania (LI), Poland (PO), Romania (RO), analyzed when disallowing copying from nearby groups...CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE." Jingiby (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, it is much complicated, because it involves multiple genetic ancestral groups, one of which is Slavic, then WHY is the introduction page for Bulgarians introduce Bulgarians are Slavic, if you just now admitted that that is not the case? Again, WHY is this the introduction? Where do you have that information from? Who and when and how claims that Bulgarians are Slavic people? That text has no sources! Where are the sources? Like i repeatedly asked you, show me even ONE source that says that Bulgarians are predominantly Slavic people? I have given you 4 research papers that examine in detail the DNA composition of modern Bulgarian, and all of them independently conclude that Slavic ancestral group constitute THE MINORITY of the DNA of present-day Bulgarian. Are you rejecting this conclusion? If yes, why? What other evidence or sources do you have? And if not, then why do you refuse to correct the page to include this information? It seems that you are holding to this perpetuated claim without even a grain of evidence to back it up! I have repeatedly said to you that there is NO source or any research paper that states that Slavic ancestral group makes up the majority of the DNA, you have not disproved this statement. Why do you insist of perpetuating a LIE? Is it not a lie to say that Bulgarians are Slavic ethnic group if THE MAJORITY OF THE ANCESTRAL ETHNIC GROUPS ARE NOT SLAVIC?? You are perpetuating a LIE, a claim that is not sources, nor backed by anything! Please remove or edit the text to at least include the correct information, which is that Slavic genes are only ONE part of the admixture of present-Bulgarians. Why do you insist of lying i can't understand. It's like saying Americans are Italians because 30% of their admixture is of Italian origin, or English people are French because one part of their admixture is of French origin. Or Japanese people are Chinese because one part of their admixture is of Chinese origin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Not a forum. I suggest you because we can not reach a consensus, to bring the discussion on the talk page of the article Bulgarians per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. What do you mind? Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have read the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing your opinion no matter how popular it may be, it is an online encyclopedia for the purpose of providing well sourced and fact-based information, and not to conform to a widely held views. The information shown in the Wiki page of 'Bulgarians' conforms to a widely held view, but it is not sourced, and not fact-based. I have provided 4, and i can provide even more valid sources that back my correction of that information. You, on the other hand have provided no valid sources or any fact-based argument as to why you continue to refuse to allow my correction. Your arguments are based on popular opinion, and not facts. Wikipedia is not a popular opinion based forum, it is encyclopedia for factual information. Corrections are made all the time when new facts emerge that render currently hold information incorrect. Bulgarians being ethnically Slavic people is a widely held opinion, but it does not conform to facts. Like i said multiple times already, if you believe this is a factually accurate statement, then i demand you provide valid evidence to source it. I am yet to see even a single source that verify this statement. All the evidence that i was able to see verify the statement that Slavic people make up only a small part of the overall admixture, the other two ancestral ethnic groups being Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians. This is fact-based information. Describing Bulgarians by a minority ancestral group is misleading. For that reason, the introduction page of 'Bulgarians' should state that Bulgarians are an ethnic group(accurate) that is predominantly comprised of 3 ancestral groups(accurate) - Thracian, Proto-Bulgarian and Slavic people(accurate). This would be a fact-based accurate description of Bulgarian people. The sentence could be phrased differently, but the meaning should remain the same. There is no valid reason to describe Bulgarians as Slavic, but not Thracian or Proto-Bulgarians. Either the 3 ancestral groups must be included, or non of them, otherwise the information becomes misleading and/or inaccurate. Other ethnic groups such as English people, French people and others are described in a similar fashion, despite English people being predominantly Germanic people, as well as several other minority ancestral groups, they are not described as such, they are described as English, and then below specified that multiple other ancestral groups compose their admixture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I am going to transfer the discussion to Bulgarians's talk page. Jingiby (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing closed SPI's

Hello Jingiby,

Please don't add sockpuppets to already closed SPI's like you did here. If you come across more socks after the SPI is closed, you'll have to open a brand new case. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to be more careful. Sorry. Jingiby (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jingiby. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback Bulgarians

Hello, Jingiby. You have new messages at Talk:Bulgarians#Bulgarian ethnogenetics misconception.
Message added 15:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TishoYanchev (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tisho, I said all I had to say. If I see, all other editors also had expressed their visions. There is no agreement with your proposal to change the introduction, except several socks of blocked User. Jingiby (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, if you have any objections against my proposed changes, please come to discuss them with me.

Also, about your change, i have reversed it, there is no consensus on your changes. Please discuss them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TishoYanchev topic ban proposal. !dave 09:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonian Slavic mythology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bulgarian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dardania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Orpheus introduction

Hi Jingiby. I'm well aware of the talk-page discussions regarding the claims in the introduction, as I participated in some of them - as did you. I have to say that reverting to a so-called "stable version" from ten years ago can work against the notions of change and ongoing improvement that underpin Wikipedia. Obviously, in this case you don't agree with my edits; but my purpose (per sources) was to clarify a point that was needlessly, imo, sidelined into a footnote. Haploidavey (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There is not a problem with your second variant. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts

I noticed that the article First Bulgarian Empire has this source:

  • "Atlas of Europe in the Middle Ages, Ostrovski, Rome, 1998

Do you have any information regarding this source? Is it a real book? Subsequent searches on books.google.com and amazon.com produced no results. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Jingiby (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

ok i corrected the eastern europeans to people but please leave the abraham from ur part

please leave the Abraham rom ur part! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyakeem (talk • contribs) 17:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Elyakeem you need to stop re-adding this. Using biblical verses as a source does not comply with the basics standards of Wikipedia.--Calthinus (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jingiby, i noticed your message about my edit. It is not vandalism (please be more constructive), it's just another story with strong evidences. You can't blame me for vandalism, as you can be treated just the same for one side story and your nationalist wishes which discretize another existence of people. I will come in a few days with more powerful evidences and you will not be able to change it. I'd like to be objective in this, not subjective or even worst nationally burdened. All the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.71.88.110 (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, IP. You was warned 3 times. Once, you have removed sourced content without adequately explaining why. The second time you have significantly changed a content, but withot citing verifiable and reliable sources. The third time by me, for disruptive editing. I.e. for pushing a single point of view, persistently editing a set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources, and insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andon Kyoseto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Name in Other languages & violation of neutral point of view?

Hi Jingby, I'm user:Berberu & relatively new in editing in Wikipedia. I do not see the point of objecting against adding language Esperanto in the EN Page for Kruševo

I'm planning to extend the 1st draft of Esperanto version of the same page & it is about International NEUTRAL Language of the World. I don't think you can find many with wider diversity of opinion.

Please do not remove that without REAL explanation why (other than your personal opinion). I have objections about the bias on the page, but I will not change anything other than obvious until I collect & analyse proper info from the source. I doubt outsiders will know more than the people living there.

Please collaborate & do not oppose my analysis & actions. I mean the best for the whole area & wider. A street in Kruševo is named by me (well, my predecessor).

PS: 1910s:Esperanto is taught in state schools in Republic of China, Samos, & Macedonia. (Today it is part of curriculum of China, Hungary, & Bulgaria) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Esperanto You can suggest me ways to get productive quicker in Wiki edits. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berberu (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Berberu. The problem is that there is not a place to write the name of the town in all the languages from the world in this article. Because of that there are rules on Wikipedia in which languages is possible to do it. Relevant foreign language names are that used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. Esperanto Wikipedia has an article about Ohrid and that is fine, but the language itself is not relevant in this case, because it has any direct relation to the town, its inhabitants and its history. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jingiby/Archive_20&oldid=1182211498"