Jump to content

User talk:Jingiby/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

ANI

Hi - there's an ANI thread concerning some reverts you've been making - see WP:ANI#User:Jingiby. Best GirthSummit (blether) 17:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That newly like editor is in fact WP:SPA, obviously WP:NOTHERE and most probably WP:SOCK. In the haste of removing its one-sided edits, I made two mistakes that I eliminated. Greetings! Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parabellus

Please provide your evidences on the said link. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha

The Ottoman Empire consisted of different nations, that is, different nationalities constituted and formed an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. Ahmed Pasa was born in the Kingdom of Bosnia and was by birth and ethnicity Bosniak "de genere et nactione Bossinensium" It is only right for Ahmed Pasa nationality to place as Bosniak. It is not right his nationality marked as "Ottoman" In all documents from the period of the Ottoman Empire for Bosniak members, Bosniaks are referred to as Bosniaks.

Therefore, it is only right to correct the current status of Ahmed Pasha

What is your reason to mark Ahmed Pasa as Ottoman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisa55 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

article Niš, section Ottoman history

Hello Jingiby, I think the section on Ottoman history in the article on Niš really needs to be edited. Especially the last paragraph has a rather inappropriate Bulgarian nationalist tendency. I made a proposal to render it more neutral and factually correct. In any event, maybe the whole discussion should have a separate sub-entry anyway, something like historical demography. Best, Florian 94.135.159.101 (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Russel Sudzilovsky" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Russel Sudzilovsky. Since you had some involvement with the Russel Sudzilovsky redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible Vandal on a mission

Hello, I got awareness of fringe edits by Hunan201p (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hunan201p) promotion racist ideas of “blonde haired and blue eyed” warriors in East Asia. His used references do not support these claims and only mention unknown origin in the case of the Xianbei. More fringe are his edits on blonde (hair) or Genghis Khan (also see talkpage). I think many edits of Hunan violate WP:SCIRS and WP:WEIGHT. Additionally some things about him remember me on the long term vandal Tirgil34 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34). I mean blonde or red haired turks are his main target, as seemingly Hunan. Anyway, someone should watch this user carefully. Best regards.38.121.43.208 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Relicense of photos

Hi! You have uploaded a few photos with {{GFDL}} only. That license is not good for images. Would you be willing to add {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} also? I'm thinking of:

--MGA73 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jingiby (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I recieved your messages Jingiby

I recieved your messages Jingiby
I understand but I am not trying to make a point, you mentioned : ( intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point ), all I am trying to write is an article about the Macedonian Hussar Regiment. This article really needs citations from a Macedonian source, we dont need to mention Bulgarian, Serbian or any other volunteers from other countries. You mentioned Montenegrins this article is about Macedonian Hussar Regiments for god sake, please use bibliography that will reflect the matter of interest and not Bulgarian or Serbian or any other information. Thank you for helping. Regards Kajmakcalan. Kajmakcalan (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bulgarian Holocaust: personal attacks and canvassing where your actions are discussed.--Eostrix (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a note

Hello Jingiby. It would be useful when using templates to also specify the article's name parameter. I was trying to learn more about a user when I noticed User talk:GPinkerton#March 2020. However, I also had to look at the editor's history to discover what article they were editing. I did not check if you've already done it elsewhere, but specifying the related article is as simple as placing it as the first parameter of uw- templates, for instance {{subst:uw-pov2|Bulgaria during World War II}}, in case you did not know. Happy editing, —PaleoNeonate – 16:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That case was very strange and I was really lost there. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Turkification

Beat Jingiby, I've notice that you are very active in the Turkification article, but not really in the political one but in the genetival one. I was wondering if we might be able to split this article and have a little reference to the other article. In a genetical/scienceful one, and a political one. What do you think? I don't know, b ut if we would like to expand the article on the political level as we would like to in genetical level, the article might be rather long. But we could do this too of course. I am wondering what your opinion is to his approach.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paradise Chronicle, this is possible, but I am not sure whether we have already such an example here on English Wikipedia to justify these actions, and whether the rest of the Wikipedia community will accept such a split. Regards! Jingiby (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jingiby, well since I see you actively involved in the article, I thought I first ask you for your opinion. No hurry though, as you might can tell from the time lapse of my answer. But I must say, in no other -ification article I see a section about genetics, nor do genetics figure in a -ification article. Check Uzbekisation, Ukranisation, Russification, Germanization, Hellenization just to name a few.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Paradise Chronicle, but we have a separate article about the genetic studies on Turkish people. Jingiby (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, for my part, I see no reason why genetics has anything to do with any cultural assimilation. Turkification is about acculturation, culture, and language families, just like Russification or Slavicization, none of which have anything to do with genetics. GPinkerton (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

demographic histor of kosovo

edit: I see now you're a Bulgarian / South Slav nationalist, no wonder you removed it. Do not remove my sources again or what I added, next time add a counter argument if you have with another source, all the sources I add are mainly from non-Albanian whereas there are part of the section used cited with Serbian sources. It's not anymore biased. I provided historical sources for everything I write there, some of these are even Ancient and some are from Historians with an expertise in Balkan history.

The source is a French historians opinion and there is no reason to remove it, as it's not any less biased then the rest of the section that seems rather Anti-Albanian as if Serbs were there first and that Albanians do not belong there whereas there are arguments that actually seem to counter this with actual historical evidence that suggests Albanians are Illyrians who lived there first whereas Serbs came there later with the expansion of their empire in the 12th century. This is also claimed by British historian Noel Malcolm who claimed Albanians and Vlachs were it's original people, This can be seen by the fact that Albanians and Vlachs were mentioned living there and were most likely it's original population, since they are non-Slavic, that after Slavs settled became a minority, this also given that many of it's pre Slavic toponyms seem to have a connection with the Albanian language and that there is no mention of Albanians settling the Balkans. Also genetics that back this up. I could add more sources. If you have any counter arguements or sources that counter such arguements then why not add them instead of removing the ones I added ? If you read the source it is challenging that view of the Serbs. There are Serbian source that have been added which shouldn't even be taken serious considering such sources aren't even neutral because they are Serbian sources and biased, such as claiming those Albanians that were mentioned had supposedly migrated there whereas it is rather possible Albanians lived there during Bulgarian rule too, this is also evident by the fact that there were also found some Albanian villages in Bulgaria possibly dating back to the Bulgarian Empire and who possibly settled there, whereas you remove mine which aren't even from Albanian sources but a from a French historian ? You might as well remove many parts of the section. You also removed my source that says the region was invaded and many of it's native people killed by Slavic invaders, by a Roman/Byzantium source of those times who ruled the region. It can't get any more accurate then that. The truth can't always be neutral for you.

Also some of those sources that have been added isn't even what some of those sources say, such as De Administrando Imperio from 10th century says the White Serbs settled in the Balkans in a region named Rashka corresponding to a part of modern Montenegro, north of Kosovo rather than Kosovo itself. Whereas the person who has put this information is claiming the Serbs settled the Kosovo region in year 600 which is inaccurate historically. The region did not fall under Serb rule until the 12th to 13th century nor is there even any evidence that Serbs ever made it's majority up until the 13th century. It mentions the region as Bulgarian land under Bulgarian rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xz1333 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with non-scientific propaganda warriors

Recently the work of Jingiby was discussed in an online webinar of United Macedonian Diaspora, called Wikipedia warriors: The new frontline of the battle for Macedonia. The webinar's introduction claimed that Wikipedia reflects "Bulgarian and Greek view points". The webinar presenter provided the participants with instructions how to change the historical information, or at least how to interpret it in order to serve to the contemporary Macedonist propaganda. This webinar was an example of how some people misunderstand the purpose and the standards of Wikipedia as a community-driven and facts-based project, and want to use it as a tool for misinformation, misinterpretation and ideological propaganda. Therefore I would like to inform Jingiby that there is a high possibility of edits and trol-like attacks on some articles, related to the history of Macedonia and the Macedonian Bulgarians.Georgi stankov (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, mate. Jingiby (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On the other side, the Bulgarian propaganda that you continue to do is not going to help at all. You may write whatever you want, but the truth is out there. The "neutral" (read Bulgarian) point of view continues to serve to spread lies.

But if that helps you to sleep at night, let it be. A.ilijevski (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Such an issue won't be resolved in a day. It might take months, perhaps even years. 2601:883:4280:28B0:CE6:4173:2473:7FDC (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with GPinkerton

Hi, I seem to be having an issue with GPinkerton regarding my recent edit to the page regarding the Book of Esther. I used the text found at The Chabad Online Bible and added more information from the story. However, GPinkerton keeps undoing the edits without discussion. As a novice editor, I am more than willing to back off; but I am asking for a third party considering that I am merely adding information from an already written story. Thanks, --Sorinam (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, keep to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) and try to resolve the issue on talk. Jingiby (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Aleksandar Protogerov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ruse

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Pliska Rosette

You have several inconsistencies on your edits on the Pliska Rosette page. First of all you have linked "Proto-Bulgar signs" to the Old Turkic script. This is wrong because as I already stated in my edits they are not the same thing. The Turkic script contains less symbols than the runes that are considered to be Bulgar (they are found in Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, partially Hungary, Greece and Ukraine). There are in fact several symbols which have parallels in the Turkic script but they are so few in numbers that calling the entirety of the Proto-Bulgar signs to be of turkic origins is simply untrue. If you think I'm mistaken, please feel free and decipher the runes on the Pliska rosette using the Orkhon script. Secondly you state that the Bulgars spoke a Turkic language. I understand that there are many sources claiming this, however we cannot forget that the Bulgars have travelled far during their history and founded several countries with the name Bulgaria. This is important because they have lived in regions that are colorful in terms of ethnicities and cultures. It's understandable there are loanwords from other languages such as Turkic languages, Iranian, Slavic, even Greek and Latin. Titles such as bagatur, tarkan and others are undoubtedly of Turkic origin. However many names such as Asparuh, Presian, Avitohol are not.

Hi User:Колобър.Firstly I never linked "Proto-Bulgar signs" to the Old Turkic script. You can check the history of the redirect here. Secondly, there is another redirect linking Bulgar script to the Turkic script. I also do not have any relation to the second redirect and that can be seen here. Check the history of Kuban alphabet. This is simply the prevealing view among the leading researchers of that issue and it is backed by reliable sources. Two of them are cited in the disputed article as you know. Your opinion is simply fringe theory. If you know reliable sources supporting your opinion, that written by non-Bulgarian researchers in English, and are published by academic publishers, please provide them here to discuss the issue. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

- I apologize. I assumed that you were responsible for these links. Upon further inquiry I discovered that the culprits of these edits are bots. Concerning my "fringe theory" - the Bulgar runes are not in their entirety Turkic. That is a fact, not a theory and I don't think one needs world famous historians to see and compare the two scripts, which have little, almost no similarities. My other statement however, regarding the language of the Bulgars is a more difficult matter as the language itself is dead. My opinion that I stated above is that Turkic elements in a language or a script do not make the language or script exclusively Turkic. I think this is common sense. Thank you for your time and I will write to the bot owner if I have the patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Колобър (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't have a problem with Serbs, or CarRadovan... You have problem with wikipedia! CarRadovan (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I opened discussions on the appropriate talk-pages. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Šar dog

Hello Jingiby. Why did you add "Ottoman times", a term not used in the source, which actually gives an example from 1977? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ktrimi991. I doubt that during the Cold War, these dogs crossed the Yugoslav-Greek border systematically and freely with the herds and shepherds without any problems. Rather, that event from 1977 is an exception, reminiscent of the times of the Ottoman Empire. Then it certainly happened freely and annually. There were any borders in that area until 1912. Jingiby (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I see your point, and you must be right. While during the Cold Era what the author says could have been a rare thing, changes might have happened after 1990. I am not finding any other source that mentions the dog breed in Thessaly, though our source is the only one we have published by a reliable University that elaborates on the dog breed. Would "According to some sources, dogs of the breed spend the summer in the area of the Šar Mountains and the winter in Thessaly, depending on the needs of the sheep they are used to protect." be the best wording? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe simply: Once, dogs of the breed spend the summer... Jingiby (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thing is we have a source published by a University and no source opposing that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Ktrimi991, please check: Petko Hristov, The Balkan Gurbet: Traditional Patterns and New Trends. Migration in the Southern Balkans. Especially 2.2 Past Tradition I: Agrarian and Pastoral Labour Mobility: Historical patterns of labour mobility that preceded the classic gurbet are represented by transhumant shepherding. Seasonal shepherding and sheep breeding, along with various combinations of agrarian labour, was common place throughout the centuries of the Ottoman Empire and its rule in the Balkans. Enormous flocks of sheep were moved from high mountain pastures to warm southern valleys in winter and back again in early spring...These agrarian migrations were ended by the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913 and the new political boundaries that divided and separated the territory of the former Ottoman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs)
Nice find, Jingiby. The source actually does not mention the Sarplaninac breed, but anyway it makes sense, as today's borders have changed much from the economy and culture of the Ottoman past. The source could be used on other articles too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This barnstar is for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
A well-balanced resolution has been reached by an uninvolved admin here: [1], which resolved the dispute at the article Macedonia Naming Dispute fairly. I was about to apply the resolution to the article Macedonia now, but it just came to my notice you had solved it already and in a genuine way: [2] without breaking WP:NCMAC, even before the uninvolved admin reached their resolution! Remarkable. I rarely see such cases in Wikipedia where text removal is the most effective way in resolving disputes! Thank you. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, ❖ SilentResident ❖ Jingiby (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nationalism in the Middle Ages

Thanks for the corrections in the article Nationalism in the Middle Ages. Could you possibly translate it in Bulgarian or other Slavic language?--Skylax30 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok!Jingiby (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Question re: your revert.

Regarding this revert, I provided a well-explained edit summary. Your edit summary: creating goodwill/making people feel better, is not a valid policy based reason to revert me. Do you have a policy based reason to revert me? I was tempted to re-revert you, but I figure it's possible that I'm missing something e.g there could be a policy that I'm unaware of. Thanks. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Apples&Manzanas. The reason is that the governments of Bulgaria and N. Macedonia signed a friendship treaty to bolster the complicated relations between these countries in August 2017. On its ground a joint commission on historical and educational issues was formed in 2018. This intergovernmental commission is a forum where controversial historical issues will be raised and discussed. It aim is to resolve the problematic readings of history. One of the proposed common issues for joint historical commemorations is that with the IMRO revolutionaries. For now we have no result from the work of this, but who knows. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
But that still isn't a Wikipedia-based policy reason to revert me... Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This is usual practice on all the articles on IMRO- and SMAC-revolutionaries since years. Jingiby (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I for one share the reasoning of Apples&Manzanas, and find Jingiby's explanation unconvincing and the mentioned commission quite irrelevant to the present matter. Apcbg (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
OK then. Jingiby (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It's worth updating this section just to say that a discussion is now on the talk page at Talk:Gotse_Delchev#Delchev's_name_in_Macedonian, so future discussions should be had there. Thanks. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask for your advice?

I'm really confused by some edit warring I've run into. I'm not an expert on Balkans politics so I'm hoping you can explain it to me. I see you're always active on Balkans pages so I'm hoping you can give me some advice as to how best to handle this. My question is simply this: why does the Macedonist redirect page redirect to Macedonian studies rather than Macedonian_nationalism#Macedonism. Shouldn't it redirect to Macedonism? There's countless reliable sources which say that 'Macedonist' means 'Macedonism' and no reliable sources which say that 'Macedonist' means 'Macedonian studies' in English. The word "Macedonist" is used 18 times on the Macedonian nationalism page, so it seemed like an appropriate redirect. I got edit warred with when i tried to change it, and i got no answers...You can look at the article history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonist&action=history. I tried to settle this on the related user's talk page but I only got hostility and some stuff about Bulgarian nationalism which I don't understand. I'm not Bulgarian let alone a Bulgarian nationalist...So I find it bewildering. Can I ask for your opinion? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the Macedonian issue is quite sensitive. Moreover, some administrators are at some degree biased on the subject, which is strange. Otherwise, years ago I had created an disambiguation page that referred to the two meanings of this term. Yes, unfortunately, it was also deleted by an administrator as unnecessary. What I could advise you is the following. Try to contact this administrator and ask him to restore the deleted disambiguation page for objective reasons. You can find out more on this here. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for editing your aspect. I mistook 'Tapans' revert for yours. If you think that Macedonians cluster closest to Bulgarians & Romanians, then add it. But it should be based on full-genome analyses (e.g. Novembre, etc) Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No problems. Jingiby (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jingiby

Hello Jingiby
Some Macedonian historians consider the Karposh Rebellion as a Macedonian rebellion, I agree with this hypothesis I understand that your Bulgarian but I think you should read up a little, especially on Macedonian history written by Macedonian historians nevertheless thank you for helping with that article. Kajmakcalan (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, but here is English Wikipedia. I used English language sources, not Bulgarian. I know that Macedonian historians often support fringe theories, but that is undue weight. I search for NPOV. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey Jingiby, if Kajmakcalan makes another battleground comment concerning your ethnicity/nationality, just notify an Admin. No need to dirty your hands with nonsense. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Kansas Bear everything is alright. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Just a note, Kajmakcalan veers suspiciously close to reminding one of a certain prolific sockmaster... Constantine ✍ 23:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Ja, ja, das ist klar. Jingiby (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternative names in lead

You placed alternative names of settlements (Agkistro, Paramythia) in first line, although those specific names are already mentioned in the appropriate sections. I'm ok in case there is a special reason for those lead additions, however English literature tends to ignore those historic forms.Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This might be helpful (from wn:NC): If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. Alexikoua (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Jingiby (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bitolska-ploca.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bitolska-ploca.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dedokire (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Jingiby (talk)


@Jingiby

It may be worth checking out the latest edits by Macedonia1913, I tried to remove them since he is an alleged member of the United Macedonian Diaspora and therefore is likely pushing an agenda through the type of edits that I am making. A lot of the information added by him is not sourced and also uses a lot of adjectives which is a sign of an opinionated edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Bulgaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Dzhambazki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Simeonov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasimir_Karakachanov

--James Richards (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That is possibly his agenda.Jingiby (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Kumanovo

I don't know what it is about the Battle of Kumanovo article that leads us into content disputes. We seem to have gone through something similar before . Ratković, Đurišić & Skoko categorically do not state that Bulgaria took part in this battle, but rather outline the Royal Serbian Army's battle plans for the campaign as a whole, not the Battle of Kumanovo in particular. These included the Serbian 2nd Army's close collaboration with the Bulgarian Army against the Ottomans dozens of kilometers east of Kumanovo, eventually culminating in the Siege of Adrianople. Only the 1st Army took part in the Battle of Kumanovo, not the 2nd or 3rd armies. Please read Edward J. Erickson's Defeat in Detail and Richard Hall's The Balkan Wars, 1912–1913. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amanuensis Balkanicus. I have checked The battle of Kumanovo on pp. 171- 181; in Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913 by Edward J. Erickson and he supports the Bulgarian participation. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Ops it was my mistake. That was the Battle of Kochani. Jingiby (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Likewise

Actually bother reading the edits. I make mine with actual facts an citations. Wikipedia is a place of accuracy and neutrality, not a Russian POV propaganda for Kremlin stooges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:101:2F90:C47D:6B35:2C1C:2364 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencha_Karnicheva

Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Panko Brashnarov

Hello, hope you are alright mate, do you have any sources from Panko Brashnarov where he self-identifies his ethnicity/nationality? --James Richards (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Volkanovski

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Alexander Volkanovski shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. User:Cassiopeia, in fact I have reverted myself. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about Mečkin Kamen date

Hello there, I am currently editing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Me%C4%8Dkin_Kamen page. In the info box it says it took place on the 12 of August while in the intro it says it took place on the 2nd/3rd. Which one is correct and do you have any sources about the date of the battle?

--Lukanka (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit I just read that the 12th was when the battle ended, so it is correct for me to change the date in the infobox to the 2nd and 3rd of August? --Lukanka (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Pulevski Mijak?

An editor added that Pulevski was a Mijak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Pulevski is that true? --Lukanka (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Jingiby (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Lukanka (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues on Delchev

There are a few more issue tags further down below in the Delchev article, does that mean that there are multiple issues?

Regards,

James --James Richards (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi James Richards. Per WP:RESPTAG: Tags should be placed at the top of the section to which they apply. Tags that apply to an entire article may be placed at either the top or the bottom of the article. So I think the multiple issues tag can be applied to the issues reflecting different problems regarding a whole article, or respectively a single section with different problems either at the top of the article or at the top of the problematic section respectively. Jingiby (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok makes sense. Is there a rule to removing the tags if the other participants are not engaging in the discussion?--James Richards (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:CLEANUPTAG best practices in heavily monitored articles are not to add or remove template messages of this sort without using the talk page. Jingiby (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Tag bombing --James Richards (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The article was under tag bombing, but its current tag personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay redirects to WP:NOTFORUM. The section WP:NOTFORUM explains that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, but this article has ca. 200 sources and there are no original thoughts. Jingiby (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)]

You should also take a look at this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dafino_vino_crveno the language tag was recently changed from Cyrillic to Macedonian. Not sure where this song originates from but from looking at the edit history it seems to be another point of contention between Macedonians and Bulgarians. --James Richards (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilinden.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ivan Snegarov

Hello, Jingiby,

Thank you for creating Ivan Snegarov.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

A brief search finds sources for this fellow. Please consider further sources, and if in Bulgarian, supply translations. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Independence Day in Macedonia

Hello, I'm writing you to please remove the last paragraph in the article Independence Day (North Macedonia) that I previously removed (but you added it again with a reference from an article in a Macedonian newspaper). I don't want to get into an edit-after-edit situation. This argument is a unpopular opinion and lacks more references (that are influential) and also it isn't that important to be in this stub article. --Идеологист (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jingiby (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Pitu Guli Millet mistake

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitu_Guli

I noticed that 'millet' in the sentence 'as a separate millet with the decree' is linked to an article about plants. Letting you know as I am not sure what to link it to so it is correct. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have linked it to Millet (Ottoman Empire).Jingiby (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiril Yanchulev

Zdrasti, this article needs some source if you are interested in doing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiril_Yanchulev

All the best, --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jingiby (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haliacmon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bistrica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Input on discussion on Tsar Samuel article

Zradsti, if you want to and have time can you please provide your input on the discussion that I have started on the Tsar Samuil talk page.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samuel_of_Bulgaria#Old_Bulgarian_more_accurate_than_OCS

Thanks --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am not convinced whether it makes sense. Jingiby (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok that is fine, would you be able to copy and paste that into the discussion, I am not too hang up on the idea so it is okay. Thanks for the input --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Just asking for my personal knowledge, why doesn't it make sense? --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

During 9-10 century, was the last phase of the Common Slavic period (c. 500–1000). Despite the first dialectal differences appeared then, the entire Slavic-speaking area continued to function as a single language, with sound changes tending to spread throughout the entire area. In the second half of the 9th century, the Slavic dialect spoken north of Thessaloniki, became the basis for the first written Slavic language - Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic was still reasonably close, and the mutual intelligibility between Old Church Slavonic and other Slavic dialects of those days. At this time this language was not called neither Bulgarian nor Macedonian, but simply Slavic. In Great Moravia and Pannonia the early South Slavic dialect used for the Bible translations was clearly understandable to the local population which spoke an early West Slavic dialect. By around 1000, the Common Slavic area had broken up into separate East Slavic, West Slavic and South Slavic languages. The Bulgarian language was first mentioned as separate by the Greek clergy in the Ohrid Archbishopric during the 11th century in today North Macedonia.Jingiby (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, have a nice day. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Rouran Khaganate

Your revert is nothing more than a childish act there. Please put your concerns, or add some sources about the Avar hypothesis. WP:Fringe. Beshogur (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, my explanation is on its talk-page. Jingiby (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct Bulgarian name for an article

Hello, Jingiby. I've written the article Union of Bulgaria and Romania, and I wanted to add a translation of the title in both Romanian and Bulgarian. However, I don't know anything about the latter language and I would like to ask a native speaker to know if the translation that I added and its romanization are accurate, so I was wondering if you could check it. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Super, I think Съюз на България и Румъния is correct. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your help. Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hiya mate, some citation tags were added on a Bulgarian related topic, thought you would be interested. --James Richards (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratero Sorry forgot to include the link --James Richards (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this issue is related mostly to the Slavophone Greeks' ideas. Jingiby (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Byzantine Change's 2020

Thanks! yes indeed i was trying to put this citation but i'm still learning how to do that so in a few minutes i will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo1355 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gotse Delchev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bosnian Kingdom

My edits are not meant to illustrate a point, I am trying to improve the page. As such, is it not more accurate to label the native name of the Bosnian kingdom in Bosnian? The actual language spoken at the time of the Kingdom of Bosnia was in fact Bosnian was it not? It is surely more accurate to say that the language is Bosnian, and not a term coined long after the kingdom was gone. Furthermore, when discussing the topic of a former state which is based on the territory of today's Bosnia and Herzegovina, would it not be more appropriate to use Bosnian to translate the name of the kingdom? I understand that an argument could be made that Bosnian is mutually intelligble with Serbian and Croatian, and that Bosnian is a "standarzised variety" of Serbo-Croatian, which could be confusing to readers. I however, would argue that because of the fact that the former Kingdom was based in the territory of the Bosnia of today, it is not only more appropriate, but more accurate and less confusing to use "Bosnian". Moreover, Bosnian is one the primary languages of the current B&H, with the term "Serbo-Croatian" not present. If anything, this labeling is very provocative I feel and not very neutral, for example the article of the Serbian kingdom states that the native name is in Serbian-

I would once again like to point out that my edits are not to be taken as vandalism or anything of the sort, I'm simply trying to improve the page by using what I think is a more accurate label. If the points above are not sufficent please do correct me, I would love your input on the matter. Virgil Mastercardd (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources for these changes, please. Jingiby (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources on Macedonian Question

Hello. I saw your message to use Hristo Batandzhiev talk page. But I do not see how to write there about my opinion. So, probably it is better to write here. On the Doxato page you say that my source does not state that Carnegie endowment Report was openly probulgarian. But there is stated that:

"From the beginning, Miliukov, recommended by “our friend”Kovaleski, and Brailsford recommended by “his friend” Hirst, never concealed their openly pro-Bulgarian positions"

https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/2365

Mention, that this people - Miliukov, Brailsford - are the same who mainly wrote the most critical chapters of the Report. They were part of the International Carnegie Commission.

Also you state, that this Commission is trying to be objective and not taking the part of any of the countries. Have you read this source? Hardly... It openly states that almost all accusations made during the Balkan wars by the neutral sources (such as publications in the European press) on the Bulgaria are fabricated, and tries to proof (using almost exclusively Bulgarian witnesses) that it was not Bulgarians who set fire on Serres, not Bulgarians who were responsible for the Nigrita, Doxato, Demir-Hissar, Doirani massacres. At the same time, it accuses only Serbia and Greece for the committed massacres. Can you call this Report objective? Hardly. Also, this Report repeatedly states that Bucharest treaty was not good - the stable position of Bulgarian nationalism. For example, the Report states:

"the treaty of Bucharest has created a condition of things that is far from being durable".

"One can not say as much, unfortunately, of the work of the treaty of Bucharest. The lines of demarcation therein laid down are far from being natural or consonant with the national tendencies of the peoples. The third treaty of Bucharest has sown a new seed of discord in its violation of the senti- ment of nationality: it divides the Balkan territories on the principle on which the treaty of Vienna divided the national regions of Europe in 1815. This historical example suggests that here, too, national reaction will follow on the work of diplomatic and political reaction."

Such statements made Bulgaria feel that she were offended by the Bucharest treaty, and made here need for a revenge.

Also, the Report praises the San-Stephano treaty (which is one of the most great dreams of the Bulgarian nationalism), and the pro-Bulgarian panslavistic idea of "целокупна" Bulgaria. All this statements are panslavistic and are in Bulgarian nationalism interests. Not true, but onlyy looking for Bulgarian interests. But at Balkans there were not only one Bulgarian nation. There lived other people too.

But the most striking lie of the Report was that it told that the Greek director of the Orient Bank at Serres, of whom it was known from a long time that he was dead, was alive:

"We find, on the other hand, in the semiofficial Greek pamphlet Atrocites Bulgares, the statement (p. 25) that the bodies of four Greek notables were found outside the town killed by bayonet thrusts ; among them was the corpse of the director of the Orient bank. For this assertion the authority of the Ital- ian and Austrian consuls general of Salonica is claimed. (See Appendix B, No. 17.) The member of our Commission who visited Serres had the pleasure of meeting this gentleman, Mr. Ghine, alive, well, and unharmed, and enjoyed his hospitality. Such discoveries as this are a warning that even official statements regarding these events must be subjected to careful scrutiny.".

http://www.pollitecon.com/html/ebooks/Carnegie-Report-on-the-Balkan-Wars.pdf

It is a lie. Because you can see the director of the Orient Bank of Serres found, amongst others, at Livounovo. La Figaro and Illustration of Paris wrote on this incident. See the photo:

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BF:Helene_Leune_Georges_Bourdon.jpg

His name was Stamoulis. Mr Ghine, about whom wrote Carnegie endowment Report, is the next director of the Orient Bank. There were many lies like that, but less obvious, in this same Report.

As for the Batandzhiev article in English Wikipedia, I already wrote what I know on this incident. There were 2 versions about the way he died. The one - is that he was killed during the battle in Thessaloniki (on the night 17/18 of June 1913). The other - that he, and some other Bulgarians were thrown in the sea and shot in the waters. The most phantasmagorical version, true, is that he was killed by drowning him in the sea. Carnegie endowment Report was the first to bless this version among non-Bulgarian sources:

"The Archimandrite Eulogius lived his last on June 18/July 1. During the night attack he escaped by hiding under the staircase; in the morning he was taken and put on board the steamer Mariette Ralli, where Commander Lazarov and Dr. Lazarov, a doctor at the hospital, joined him and conversed with him. Their two depositions have now been published,1 and it is important to compare them with the assertion of the agency at Athens, that "It appears from the public inquiry that Eulogius was at the head of Bulgarian comitadjis at Salonica, who fired on the Greek troops which were trying to reestablish order. Eulogius was killed at the moment he fired on the Greeks." Unfortunately it is not true that Eulogius died in defending himself against the Greek soldiers who were "reestablishing order" by sacking the Bulgarian Episcopal palace."

You can see even from the tone of the Report, that it is not objective, but pro-Bulgarian. Bulgaria started the war with Greece at 16th of June, and the Bulgarian army (about 1.500 men) still stayed on this day at Thessaloniki. This is why this army was attacked on 17th of June.

As for how many Bulgarians were finally war prisoners in Greece during the 2nd Balkan War - the number is known to be totally at about 5.300 men. Part of them were at Old Trikkeri island, but others were elsewhere (for example, not less that 1.000 men were on Itaka island).

This is what I know about this matters. Thank you for reading.

Andy4675a (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Andy4675a I have found a Greek source about this issue: The Treatment of Prisoners of War Captured by the Greek Army during the Balkan Wars of 1912–13, Journal of Military History, Vol. 82, No 4, October 2018, pp. 1123-1147. Jingiby (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

Thank you for this source. I think I have read this author (mr Dellis) and this publication before. He - and also some other Greek historians and generally authors (if you need some names, I can give them) - uses together with some completely valid and accepted by all sides sources, also some sources which were not accepted by some parties. Such as the so called "Letters from the Front" (you can see that mr Dellis repeatedly uses this source in his writings). Along with some documents which accuses Serbians, this letters were accused by the Greek and Serbian side that it was fabricated by Bulgarian propaganda, and was used by Carnegie endowment Report. When the Greek army took Serres, the city was burning, but there was found many documents of the Bulgarian army, which was left behind. Between them there was some official orders to act illegally to the peasants and the bishops of Greeks. Some of this documents were published those days and later. Boulgaria called this documents a falsification. It could be, that it made the Bulgarian authorities make their own documents, and publish them in the same manner (saying that the Bulgarian army caught Greek Army's postal service).

Anyhow, this how it is. This letters is not completely a valid source, since it was presented by Bulgarian and pro-Bulgarian sources of the days, and it was not accepted by the official Athens as true Greek soldiers letters. Some historians of the Balkan Wars uses this letters without even mentioning of this fact, many does not use them and do not even mention them.

As for examples of the more widely accepted sources like eyewitness and volunteer Kallimaxos (whom Dellis also uses as a source) - he does write about the Greek Army's hatred for Bulgarians, but he does not mention massacres (like the one mentioned in the "letters", which according to them happened in Nigrita, which is far better known for the massacre of the local peasants, which was made there at 19th of June 1913 by the Bulgarian Army).

Also there is more to be said about that all the sides participated in the Balkan Wars committed some kinds of crimes. Some less, and some far more. But compared with what happened a year after, during the First World War (1914 - 1918), you can say that the crimes of the Balkan Wars was much less important and much less extant. The Second Balkan War lasted only one month. Of course, many crimes started before the start of the Second Balkan War. But for example Thessaloniki was taken by Greek forces in 18th of June - less than a month before the end of War.

I hope it is not boring, what I write. I know that some Greek scholars use Carnegie endowment Report as it is. But I also know where it has it's weak points.

Andy4675a (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Also I found "New York Times" interview of mr A. Vouros (a Greek representative at Washington) of 13 July of 1914, which writes many strikingly strong things on the Report of Carnegie Comission. From which a little underestimated argument goes:

"The report holds the Greeks responsible for atrocities committed by Turks because they, the Greeks, allowed the Turks to arm themselves. The same action when done by the Bulgarians is placed to the Bulgarians' credit, for when Bulgarian crimes are under consideration, the commission seeks to lighten their responsibility, limiting it to the fact that the Bulgarians have allowed the Turks to arm themselves. All the charges against the Greeks are either the statements of individuals necessarily hostile to the Greeks or of the Bulgarian authorities, all of which the commission seemed to consider ample evidence. Testimony given against the Bulgarians by absolutely disinterested war correspondents and foreign consular officials is either discredited outright or cleverly minimized by the commission."

There were books about so called "Bulgarian atrocities" in Greece and Serbia, with many testimonies by international personalities (among whom many war reporters eyewitnesses from European press, such as French "La Figaro" and "L'Illustation", English "Daily Telegraph", Italian "Corierre della Serra" etc, and also testimonies of consuls and vice consuls of European countries in Macedonia, also eyewitnesses). Just one of such publications - and one of the most incomplete of them:

https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?rec=/metadata/3/b/a/metadata-50e2bbec04c5f1cb18102a853f342a5b_1242388253.tkl&do=344412_w.pdf&lang=en&pageno=1&pagestart=1&width=1031&height=728&maxpage=25

I mean, there were more than one opinion on these matters. But the Carnegie Comission presents to the world just one such opinion - the Bulgarian one.

Andy4675a (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of Croatian–Bulgarian wars articles

Yet again, we have (clearly) the same person vandalizing an article related to the medieval Croatian–Bulgarian wars. [3] Wouldn't you agree these articles need semi-protection? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential source for Marko Tsepenkov/Gotse Delchev page

Zdrasti,

http://www.strumski.com/books/Blaze-Ristevski-DOSIE_Cepenkov_Delchev.pdf http://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=2609 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoyanStoyanov80 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Another Bulgarian translation

Hello Jingiby, I am sorry to bother you again. I asked you if the Bulgarian title of the article Union of Bulgaria and Romania was correct about a month ago, and I need help again for another translation in the same article. It is a newspaper title, this one, which is called "В Северозапада организират подписка за обявяване на независимост". I have tried to translate the title myself but I feel like it is not accurate. Can you help me with this? What would be the accurate translation? Super Ψ Dro 23:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the article is a bit sensational and speculative. Describes a person's desire to fight corruption in Bulgaria in a strange way. To organize a referendum in the North-Western part of the country for its accession to Romania with a view to more efficient administration of justice there. Jingiby (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Would then "Northwest organizes a referendum to declare independence" serve as a correct translation of the title? Super Ψ Dro 09:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
If a single man represents the Northwest. Jingiby (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jingiby/Archive_23&oldid=1048416846"