Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jingiby: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:33, 28 August 2011 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits Dialogue: how about...?← Previous edit Revision as of 17:20, 28 August 2011 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits Dialogue: some pointsNext edit →
Line 176: Line 176:


: How about a friendly round of ] for the two of you, over at ]? ] ] 13:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC) : How about a friendly round of ] for the two of you, over at ]? ] ] 13:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things about your most recent revert : (1) You are just at 3RR now, and with your block history, I wouldn't rely on not getting blocked even below this if this goes to AE, if I were you. Better revert yourself. (2) My argument stands: the preceding sentence speaks of estimates "possibly 10,000 to 30,000"; your sentence quotes an estimate (not a "count" as you wrongly said in your edit summary) at approximately 10,000; that is ''within'' the range of the previous sentence, so it does not contradict it (in fact, the figure of 10,000 probably goes back to the same ultimate source, via Danforth, in both references). (3) My other argument also stands: your wording about "as per leading experts" is ridiculous peacock language. (4) Can you please ''finally'' get rid of this extremely annoying habit of inundating articles with rows of more and more footnotes for the same thing? It's this kind of behaviour that still marks you as being the inveterate POV pusher you've always been. Whenever I see a row of more than three footnotes on a single sentence, I know an article has been butchered by agenda editors. ] ] 17:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:20, 28 August 2011

POVs on the articles

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

l, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/AngBent

I asked the administrators for an intervention against the edit warring of Special:Contributions/AngBent. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Pylambert (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The decision is "declined" and "Please take this issue to WP:ANI" ( see here). So the vandal may go on with his disruptive edits. --Pylambert (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The procedure has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Keep on the good work. --Pylambert (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Third and last attempt after "tell other Greek users of this interference, so we can stop the Bulgarian POV" (sic !). Note that he edits also under IPs 46.176.88.230, 46.177.71.53, 46.176.13.209, 46.176.224.54. --Pylambert (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

-ovo

Hi Jingiby. Are you aware of any good references for the Slavic genitive ending -ovo/ -evo, eg Trnovo, Kumanovo, Kosovo. Going by the historic and toponymic distribution, these are clearly of a Bulgaro-Macedonian provenance Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Soryy, I did'nt find such source. Regards. 10:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grob.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grob.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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. Skier Dude (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The image has been used on the article Gotse Delchev for years, but yesterday it was deleted by vandal. I restored the photo back there. Regards. Jingby (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

The ancient languages of the local people had already gone extinct before the arrival of the Slavs, mostly due to Hellenization since the antiquity and to a lesser degree to Romanisation during Roman rule. Their cultural influence was highly reduced due to the repeated barbaric invasions on the Balkans during the early Middle Ages by Goths, Celts, Huns, and Sarmatians, accompanied by Byzantine influence and later slavicisation. '

I think we should change this. Frankly, I do not believe it. Personal intuition suggests that Thracian had not gone extinct. 90% of the population were simple farmers/ peasants. Why would they need to give up their own language and learn Latin ? Only soldiers, politicans and social climbers needed to do so. I came accross a reference that argues that Thracian was spoken till at least the 8th century. I'll try to remember what it was and included it, if you agree Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thracian became extinct during the second half of the 6th century, or even during the 5th century. . Jingby (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct; so it had not gone extinct before the arrival of Slavs but might have been in use still in certain areas when the Slavs arrived (Mocsy Pannonia and Upper Moesia p 358). NB The Thracian liturgical script in Asia Minor was introduced in 6th century Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. But it is not shure. If it was gone extinct during the 5-th century - that was before the arrival of Slavs. Jingby (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But we might nevertheless pose that it might have still been spoken, esp given that there is a reference (and that many of the early Slavic chieftains names like Perbundos, Musokois, etc do not sound anything SLavic, but rather Thraco-Dacian) Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Regs. Jingby (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Good articLe Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia

You allege that they are numerically strongest in Bulgaria, but can you link me to groups representing these people in Bulgaria, or other evidence that shows there is a self-identifying population of these people. In Macedonia across the entirety of the country there are groups representing these people and the child refugees/deca begalci. What evidence, apart from questionable estimates do you have that says they are such a large group, as you allege they are. And secondly, the Prilep-Bitola dialect is not bulgarian, so how could it's prohibtion be considered a banning of the Bulgarian language? Lunch for Two (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact is a fact. We do not discuss here the organizations of the diaspora, but its presence. You can check also IMRO – Bulgarian National Movement. Jingby (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a fact. You only believe it to be a fact because you fail to appreciated sources which are not to your liking. That political party is a group of Bulgarians from Bulgaria, they have no link to Greece at all. Show me evidence? Surely if they were so numerous, as you allege, it would be easy to find many examples of these people's existence. And by this I mean their existence in 2011, not several hundred years ago. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saint Naum. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there is sockpuppetry involved, you will need to file a case at WP:SPI and wait for the result. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK! Jingby (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Jingiby,

I reverted your addition to the FiG8 SPI page because your case seems to be involving a completely different person. You may want to lodge a brand new investigation. If your SPI does relate to the user FiG8, my apologies. Your Lord and Master (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jingby (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Proti, Florina

Can you please explain your revert here please? I thought that my edit mentioned both of the viewpoints that Kanchov held? By his own admission the people called themselves "Macedonian/Македонци", and the surrounding people's also called them that. My edit reflected both of the viewpoints. Please elaborate on your revert, I with some good faith think that we can arrived at a mutually acceptable way to phrase this. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As per citted source and general scientific consensus. Macedonian identiity became detectable during 1940-s and especially after 1944.Jingby (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here you have him expressly saying that these people call themselves Macedonians (they self identify as Macedonians), and other peoples of the time acknowledge this and also call them that. It is not Black and white, the source is cited. Please provide an explanation relevant to the point I made. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dimitar Dimitrov

This person has lived for the better part of their life in Skopje? How are they not from Skopje? I feel that you are following me and reverting at every possible opportunity. Please stop this behaviour. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He is currently citizen of the city of Skopje. But he is not from this place, i.e. he is not from Skopje. Jingby (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He has lived in Skopje for 30+ years. By this logic, Does Julia Gillard need the Category:People from Adelaide or does Barack Obama need the Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois? By your logic, No, however others seem to think differently (and no there is no need for discussion to add such tags, it is nothing more than commonsense). Please stop these ridiculous revert wars you keep starting with me across Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You are kidding me? Do I really have to take this to an admin now? Lunch for Two (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Balkan DNA

Interesting. So what exactly is it showing: all Balkan peoples are (1) extremely uniform (2) 67% intermediacy between European and west Asian 'genetic make up' ? Can you explain to me - they appear to have both automosal DNA (? from eye colour, muscle) and are they matchig this with mtDNA and y-DNA ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

on it's own, wiThout text, it makes little sense. I think it's just attempted to do something like Fst, Ie comparing genetic distances b/w varius Balkan people's c.f. other regions. However, it's a dubious-looking data set Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
possibly, however, according to the paper I referenced, written in the 2000s, the author included them as Dinarics. The paper you highlight was written in the 1930s, not that it matters. I think Coon argued that western Macedonians are Dinarics, those from east (ie Strumica, etc) are more the Bulgarian type Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

According to William Z. Ripley's book The races of Europe of 1910 and his ethnographic map, the situation is the same. In western Macedonia are Albanians. Jingby (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

that's not exactly true. He depicts the region around and NW of Ohrid as Albanian, much like the situation today. I don;t know what Ripley described Macedonians as, I haven;t read his actual work. As for Coon, he includes Macedonia as a province of Bulgaria, but suggests that Macedonians approach Dinaric attributes, ie their being tallest of Bulgarians and with the highest cephalic index. From what I saw when I was in Maceodnia 2 weeks ago, (true) Macedonians are a varied lot. Some look frankly dark, others (like my brother and mother) are blonde, blue-eyed. Unfortunately, I've only met 3 Bulgarians. A mate from school, one young chap in Greece and a nurse from work: kinda green -eyed and brown hair Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that;s very much what Coon wrote. SO Bulgarians are quite varied, though mostly Mediterranean, Macedonians similar, approaching more Dinaric, whislt the Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins are typically "Dinaric". Anyhow, I want to touch up the SOuth Slavs Genetics section soon, just make it more streamlined. I;m not convinced that Nordveldt's theory about I2a2 suffices as a WP:RS, tho Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. WHen does he date this split in Vistula region to ? And how did he arrive at that conclusion ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for that. So, from what I discern:

  • Hg I arrives in Europe from Near East in Upper Palaeolithic, possibly already as several different sub-clades, or possibly borke up in the Balkans, i.e: I2a1 (P 37), I1, I2c, I2a2; and they disperse throughout Europe and amplify to various extents during/ after LGM
  • P 37 (I2a1) has several offshoots

- M 26 - in SW Europe, including Sardinia (possibly constituted a minor element in the Franco-Cantabrian ice-age refuge)

- M 233 to western Europe

- M 423: which splits around Vistula to Isles and Dinaric major sub-groups

  • I1 seems to have stayed 'together' more splitting into different sub-clades rather later c.f. I2
  • I2a2 (M223) also appears to have expanded around northern/ central Europe.

However, by Ken;s admission, his theories are just 'brainstorming'. If he wants to commit to them, he needs to publish them properly. We need to get this article New Phylogenetic Relationships for Y-chromosome Haplogroup I: Reappraising its Phylogeography and Prehistory. Published in 2007 by Underhill, it has new data on Hg I. Its published in a book. One of the libraries in Sydney has it, ill try getting it in the next couple of weeks

I think that most clades which dispersed from Balkans have something to do with the Balkan Neolithic. As I read more and more archaeology, the central-eastern Balkans in Neolithic was a "flourishing; civilization. It had villages bigger than in Mesopotamia ! It was rich, cultured and densely populated. If there was ever an event which populated Europe, it was this Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Its definitely getting very interesting, not only Hg I, but R1b, R1a, E3b, J2 - all the Hgs found in Europe are getting greater clarity, thus revealing far more complex, layered demographic history. The only problem lies in the fact that age estimates continue to vary widely, and most likely, continue to do so. This makes it pin-pointing them to this or that event still very tenuous. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The major problem with that theory, however, is that diversity of Hg I appears to be greatest in Dalmatia, therefor must be oldest there. ALso , the Slavic invasions barely penetrated Dalmatia. They were more focussed on the eastern Balkans. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

нашинци. не вашинци

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6gLgcEteGk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.6 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You Tube is not a source for Misplaced Pages. Jingby (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

is a personal friendship with that man a sourse? which language they speak in bulgaria? i don't know how to prove but nevertheless they call themselves "nashinci" no matter what you think of do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.6 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal friends are not reliable source, but Univesity Professors' publications in Academic journals issued by University publishing houses. Jingby (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

so can you give me a sourse in which they say they are not "nashinci"? since you delete like you have the data of the whole world in you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.6 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

i guess this is a reliable sourse? prof. dr. Aneta Svetieva? http://www.scribd.com/doc/38609973/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0-%D0%97%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B8-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%A2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B8-%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8-%D0%B8-%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8-%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.6 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Can you please explain to me what was wrong with this? Lunch for Two (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You can explain the situation, but not delete referenced text. For example: The Great Powers were unhappy with this extension of Russian power on the Balkans, and Serbia feared the establishment of Greater Bulgaria would harm their interests in the Ottoman heritage. This prompted them to obtain a revision of the Threaty of San Stefano through the Treaty of Berlin in the same year. Jingby (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You know very well I removed it the first time. Providing a source does not make things immune from removal. Is it fine if I revert now? Lunch for Two (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
What is it that you have reverted the Kanchov reference? Thanks. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"...Whether we call ourselves Bulgarians or Macedonians, we have always maintained a separate, unified and different from the Serbs ethnicity, with Bulgarian consciousness"... Retrived from "Народността на македонците", К. П. Мисирков, в-к "20-ти Юлии", бр. 5, 11 Май 1924. Jingby (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats nice. I am talking about Kanchov not Misirkov. What is your objection? Why should this not be mentioned? Lunch for Two (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dialogue

I urge to participate in dialogur before simply conducting mass reverts on my edits. Dialogue and consensus was achieved at Ethnic Macedonians between myself and another user, you chose Not to participate despite being the reverting editor (who reverted based on no consensus, then chose not to participate when consensus was being made). I urge you to show good faith and participate in discussions rather than simply doing "hit and runs" on article. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The dialogue must to predict your mass changes (edits). Not vice versa. Jingby (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a friendly round of relationship counseling for the two of you, over at WP:AE? Fut.Perf. 13:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things about your most recent revert : (1) You are just at 3RR now, and with your block history, I wouldn't rely on not getting blocked even below this if this goes to AE, if I were you. Better revert yourself. (2) My argument stands: the preceding sentence speaks of estimates "possibly 10,000 to 30,000"; your sentence quotes an estimate (not a "count" as you wrongly said in your edit summary) at approximately 10,000; that is within the range of the previous sentence, so it does not contradict it (in fact, the figure of 10,000 probably goes back to the same ultimate source, via Danforth, in both references). (3) My other argument also stands: your wording about "as per leading experts" is ridiculous peacock language. (4) Can you please finally get rid of this extremely annoying habit of inundating articles with rows of more and more footnotes for the same thing? It's this kind of behaviour that still marks you as being the inveterate POV pusher you've always been. Whenever I see a row of more than three footnotes on a single sentence, I know an article has been butchered by agenda editors. Fut.Perf. 17:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)