User talk:Skradumdum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Skradumdum, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Skradumdum, good luck, and have fun. ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 05:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonism[edit]

One of the points of Macedonian propaganda directives is based on the racist ideology that the Bulgarians are Turks/Tatars because of the Bulgars, therefore Macedonians are completely different nation. It is used by modern politicians in Macedonia as (only) thing that makes them diferent from bulgarians. For me it's okay that Macedonians are different nation, but why attacking this page? Why falsificating history here? This is a history page and objective view is needed, not one that serves to "The Macedonian Propaganda channel". It's true that the bulgars are possible to be turkcik origin. And I support this theory. But it's not true they for sure are. It's likely as possible for the Bulgars of being Mongolian, Hunnic or Indo-European origin. In fact the turkic one is the less proven and believed to be outdated theory since recent year's findings, like the Chronicle of 358. Anyway the turkic theory is still a possibllity. Why are you pushing it as an only theory, Jingiby? Ohh and by the way I checked your edits. You have been active on the Bulgars page for many years I see. You had enought time to falshificate everything you wanted to I guess. And I also checked your profile. Guess where is Jingiby from. Yup Maedonia. No wonder he expresses opnely anti-Bulgarian chouvinism by ignoring most of the nowadays bulgarian authors. He I guess serves well to the Macedonian propaganda, not that well to history... Just look at the article itself. In the header: "The Bulgars were turks" In the actual article: "the origin of the Bulgars is unknown and disputed so here are all the proves they are turks" *completely ignoring huge parts of history about the Indo-European and the Hunnic origin ideas*, *constantly reporting and blocking users who try to have conversation with him* Well done mr. Jingiby. Objectiveness at it's finest! You serve well to Macedonia I guess. But this is wikipedia and unbaised oppinion is more important that the political screams "Bulgars Tatars" in Macedonia. Than you and if any administrator read this, pelease finally check this man's activity on the Bulgars page. He doesn't like discussions, but he loves acting, reverting edits, editing only the way he likes history, reporting everyone who disagree with him, staying on the Bulgars page everyday.

My question for the editors is why would a Macedonian account be so active on he Bulgars page? He is the most active user in the last years actually. Also why is he allowed to edit while clearly expressing anti-blgarian sentiment, as stating stop pushing Bulgarian historians (and the european one who agree with them). Also stating "all Bulgars are turko-phobes". Excuse me, but what is a Macedonian doing with the dealing of the Bulgarian history problems in first place. Second we are not asking for removing the Turcik proves, we are asking you to give the second part of the history the same attention as that is what wikipedia is about. This is what objectivness is about. And you act precisely as a propaganda spreader, that acts more than he discusses, because he knows he is wrong.

I can't ignore this Macedonian user called jinjiby if he continues report me, revert edits, be active on the Bulgars page and xpressin pro-macedonian and anti-Bulgarian ideas, lack of co-operation with the clear intention to keep his point of view only.

Talk:Bulgars[edit]

Skradumdum, I would invite you to read the welcome message above and its links. The Core Content Policies are also something you should read. There are so many problems with your argumentative edit request on the Talk:Bulgars page that I picked only one to address the request. Other issues are that you didn't follow the "Please change X to Y" format and that you didn't provide any sources. The content of Wikipedia articles isn't updated via debate or arguing but through the principal of reflecting what reliable, secondary sources state on the subject. Haranguing other editors is rarely effective in changing anything. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


You are basically saying: "Haranguing other editors is rarely effective in changing anything." - First of you mean arguing. Second arguing with editors who fail at point 1 of the Core Content Policies (will remind you: Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.) is sometimes inevitable, as you can see. The article you are editor of is neither neutral point of view, neither representing views fairly (since is not representing any other views at all), neither is proportionately and without bias. I believe you are smart enough to realize it. Now I will be so glad to post several sources pointing to alternative origin theories, also sources that state the orgin is still debated among historians and you will be so good to do what wikipedia's rules say and be objective and without a bias will help you realize there are more than one point of view. Skradumdum (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Skradumdum:, first of all, I'm not "basically" saying that, that's a direct quote. I'm directly saying that. Second of all, I really do mean haranguing, as in: A tirade, harsh scolding or rant. Use of all caps and bold to insist on compliance with your wishes has long been considered ranting on the Internet, at least since the 1980's. Third of all, I am not "the" editor of the article. In point of fact, I've never directly edited the article at all. Fourthly, since you have read the NPOV policy, I invite you to read further into that policy, particularly the WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SUBSTANTIATE sections. So far, you've expended almost 1,000 words insisting on your view of historical accuracy, yet provided not one single citation to a reliable, secondary source. The section you object to has 27 separate sources for various claims. Until you can demonstrate even one source, your request will not be accepted. I hope this helps explain. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is my wrong, I agree. I really didn't have the patience to find the sources in English. Most likely I will have to translate them from Bulgarian and Russian to you, before writing them in English, which I will do in the following days. I feel like this article went by sudden change from objective view to a fanatic one in no time. Again I am sorry for blaming you, but someone in your position really messed it up. Skradumdum (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Skradumdum:, if by "someone in [my] position" you merely mean "someone with the autoconfirmed user right", then you are entirely correct. But guess what? You can easily be in the same position yourself and then help make the article better. In fact, you will be autoconfirmed with a mere six more edits. I encourage you to find articles you can assist that are not currently locked. One easy way to find articles that may be of interest to you is to go to the Bulgars article and find the "What links here" link on the left side of the page. You'll find many articles that are related in some way. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: thank you for the advice! I will definitely do it. You seem like a cool and helpful guy. I feel a little bad I started harguing you (yes harguing), seeing you have nothing to do with the problem itself and you're simply trying to solve it, just like me. I am sorry again. Thanks for the patience and all best! Skradumdum (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Skradumdum:, I am always pleased when I can help a new user such as yourself understand a little more about how this place works. Everyone here, even the guy with over 2 million edits, was once a newbie. Thank you for your apology and you're more than welcome to ask me further questions either here or at my talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am not using multiple accounts. I am sure wiki's technicals can confirm it. I am currently believed to be using multiple accounts along with another user called Pavel. This is madness. I read some of the posts of Pavel and he apparently is trying to fight the lack of objectiveness of this wikipedia page just like me. Both of us provided sources, both of us are fighting for the objectiveness of the page, both of us are asking for some more objective view on the page to be edited and both of us are blocked for that. This is sad. When you get several requests from different users that give you stable sources and you don't want to accept their edits so you report them for "multiple accounts user"... This is just sad. I mean. You cannot possibly believe this dear editors. Please check both mine and the user Pavel's account, I am sure that technical perspective will prove we are different users, who both spotted the abuse with wikipedia's content and tried to fix it. I am ready to contact whoever I have to to prove I am different user from Pavel. Now some talk on the problem, and how it started. The problem with the 'Bulgars' wikipedia page content is a long topic for Balkan historians. There are 2 main theories about that topic and large discussions among the historians appear everywhere. The supporters of the 2 theories are fighting something like historical war. We have to say that there are some political reasons behind it also. For example the main history of a whole country called Macedonia is largely dependent on those facts. So this is a topic much more serious than any ordinary historical topic. The 2 main theory existed about the origin of the Bulgars is the Turco-Altaic and Indo-Aryan. There are also Hunnic and Mixed theories but they are far less defended. Apparently this wikipedia page instead being objective and stating both of the main theories, is stating only one of them (the Turkic) and refusing to write anything about the other theory, EVEN THO MULTIPLE USERS HAVE PROVIDED MULTIPLE SOURCES FOR IT (and ended up being blocked as a "single user"). Instead of having a talk about the content the editors supporting one theory simply blocked all the editors that requested for adding the other theory to the page as "multiple accounts user". This is ignorance, unfair game and lacking the core idea for objectiveness on wikipedia and the fact that the article is definitely not written from unbiased perspective. And this is proven by the number of edit requests, it's proven by the number of sources given and all the different users. This is the last move they can make since we (me and Pavel apparently as I can see) provided many sources information about the topic, so those editor had nothing else to do except report us for multi user. I am sure this will be fixed in future as I am willing to do anything to provide that I am a different user and I am sure Wiki's administrators will see it. I can't believe this is possible. The editors are obviously destroying any objective view on the article and are doing it on purpose. Please check the whole subject. In my opinion when there is a clash of hypothesis in the scientific and historical world and none of the hypothesis have been proven it's best to create an objective page that states all the possible hypothesis and the arguments for every of them. This is objectiveness. What the users are doing right now with he Bulgars page is stating one hypothesis only, throwing it as completely proven statement, blocking all requests for any other hypothesizes and eventually banning all users who disagree with their point of view and ask for objective article. This is madness. I am ready to prove my account is different than the account of the other guy. By all means I can prove it for sure. And I will fight for wikipedia's objectiveness since articles like this are currently used as a propaganda statements in some political and historical materials. What I ask is to unblock me and review my last edit request. I have the information the sources and everything to prove it. Also if possible check the editor who reported me I am sure you will find tons of interesting information there.

Decline reason:

Even if there wasn't a confirmation of this account being the sock of a prolific puppeteer, the responses below and in the unblock request do not should a willingness to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment: @RickinBaltimore: I am sorry. I couldn't hold my frustration. Since I really tried my best over collaboration, and good will working in polite and rational way over the subject and this ban was crucial for breaking up my patience. I am really willing to try to collaborate with Jingiby in an open discussion, where I know that we will both have our point over the subject and especially I will respect his point of view. Discussion and communication is the key towards solving problems like this. The thing is before the ban I believe Jingiby really tried to avoid such discussion and that was the main reason of the report itself. Again this is just my thought, maybe he really believed I am using several accounts with other people who disagree with his opinion openly. Whatever the case is it is there and got me a little of the rails, but I am still willing to return to the polite, respectful and rational tone and the good will towards having a meaningful dispute with him over the content. The problem is I really cannot do anything if I continue being banned by him after every polite edit I try to add, and every rational open discussion I try to start which is somehow slowing the whole process of a meaningful and rational discussion.

I promise that I WILL do my best and I really deserve a ban if I am not keeping the good will of the page. Give me a chance to make wiki better. Will not disappoint you and I hope more people follow the discussion I will have with Jingiby over the historical matter if I get unbanned (also in case he try to report me again). What I can promise is that I will keep the good tone in the conversation and will not attack him or anyone personally.

What I cannot promise is that he will not report me again, because it's not something I can control, so I hope you understand my situation and the whole frustration. Even if he report me, knowing I am having someone who is listening my situation will change the things drastically. Even if he report me again I promise not to loose the good tone. I am really willing to solve a problem in civilized, polite, rational, source-proven way.

Most importantly Wiki means a lot for me. History too. Skradumdum (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user's account was recently blocked indefinitely by a bot on Bulgarian Wikipedia because of vandalism. Check here, please. Jingiby (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jingiby: That's true. Reported by the same user (Jingiby) again for another thing. If the multi-account user report doesn't work, let's try to block him for vandalism. :D God bless wikipedia! God bless you man. What else can you report me for? It's clear you don't want me here, simply because I have different point of view than yours (and so does most of historians nowadays). It's clear your lack of tolerance and objectiveness is leading you to desperate move to report me in every possible manner in order to shut me down. How noble and tolerant of you! Well, let me tell you something I respect your point of view on every question so far, but there is also a different view on the historical matter that you try to mask and cover in every possible way. You can see this by checking the difference between the English version of wikipedia's Bulgars article and any other version of the page (use translate and check for possible hipothesis). In all other versions we see several theories stated from unbiased, objective point of view and only in in English version we see the single point of view Jingiby likes. Maybe he reported everyone who asked him to add information for the alternative sources? Well Mr. Jingiby better read the the 5 pillars of wikipedia my friend, the second of which you violate in every possible way: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". The English version of wikipedia's "Bulgars" article is everything but neutral. Any attempt to add the other possible points of view on the Bulgars are met with aggressive reporting, illogical return of edits and so on, only by this man. I am just the next in line that tried to add some objectiveness to this page. You can chek it yourself, everything is in the history. Have a good day fellow editors! :) Skradumdum (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:I did not report you. You was blocked by a bot, because of your offensive comment on an administrator's talk page. Jingiby (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jingiby:And this my friend is a pure lie. I am blocked due to multi-account user suggestion and according to my wikipedia page, it's a user called Jingiby who posted that report. Are we living in a century where different human beings can experience different point of reality? Is that an illusion? Maybe a glitch in the Matrix? Maybe there is another Jingiby user from another universe that reported me and we see the consequences of it? We will never know for sure, but I think it's just an ordinary lie. :)
Reply: On Bulgarian Wikipedia you are blocked because of: (Bot: AI identified vandalism. Disagree? Write to: admin-requests@wikimedia.bg). Jingiby (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jingiby: Ohh I see you already know more about my accounts than I do myself. Can you tell what else am I or am I going to be banned for? And thank you for the e-mail but I already sent them one, I am sure we will clear the thing there since I never posted anything at any Bulgarian administrator's page :). I did a simple edit that you did not accept there and that's how I got banned there. Just a single edit. I never did any other edits there so that whole ban thing is even funnier. Anyway this is not Bulgarian Wikipedia and here you are the guy who reported me too. So good luck when people see how you act :) Skradumdum (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Final reply: Do not feed the troll. Jingiby (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jingiby: That's right, better feed State-sponsored Internet propaganda that reports everyone who don't agree with him! All hail Macedonia!

Non-admin comment: Please stop attacking other users, otherwise your current block may be extended indefinitely, and your talk page access may be revoked. Thank you. Also, DENY applies at this point. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 12:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

NOTE: If a different administrator is reviewing this, please read my previous unblock request, that explains half of the situation. With that said, straight to the point: I am sorry. I feel like I own that. I couldn't hold my frustration. Since I really tried my best over collaboration, and good will working in polite and rational way over the subject and this ban was crucial for breaking up my patience. I am really willing to try to collaborate with Jingiby in an open discussion, where I know that we will both have our point over the subject and especially I will respect his point of view. Discussion and communication is the key towards solving problems like this. The thing is before the ban I believe Jingiby really tried to avoid such discussion and that was the main reason of the report itself. Again this is just my thought, maybe he really believed I am using several accounts with other people who disagree with his opinion openly. Whatever the case is it is there and got me a little of the rails, but I am still willing to return to the polite, respectful and rational tone and the good will towards having a meaningful dispute with him over the content. The problem is I really cannot do anything if I continue being banned by him after every polite edit I try to add, and every rational open discussion I try to start which is somehow slowing the whole process of a meaningful and rational discussion. I promise that I WILL do my best and I really deserve a ban if I am not keeping the good will of the page. Give me a chance to make wiki better. Will not disappoint you and I hope more people follow the discussion I will have with Jingiby over the historical matter if I get unbanned (also in case he try to report me again). What I can promise is that I will keep the good tone in the conversation and will not attack him or anyone personally or in any other way. Will not attack him with sarcasm either and will keep a respectful conversation. What I cannot promise is that he will not report me again, because it's not something I can control, so I hope you understand my situation and the whole frustration. Even if he report me, knowing I am having someone who is listening my situation will change the things drastically. Even if he report me again I promise not to loose the good tone. I am really willing to solve a problem in civilized, polite, rational, source-proven way. Most importantly Wiki means a lot for me. History too.Skradumdum (talk) 12:57 pm, 5 April 2018, Thursday (21 days ago) (UTC+2)

Accept reason:

Following this discussion. Favonian (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser needed: Can this account be compared to HuiZaJingito? (And also to Turski Manaf? That account is stale, but was already confirmed, so maybe there is some CU data?) Vanjagenije (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skradumdum is Red X Unrelated to PavelStaykov.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this user may be related to TishoYanchev (talk · contribs) 17:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Hello, I am the blocked user. First, I am not related to anyone. Second, about the comment above with no user signature: "I suppose this user may be related to TishoYanchev (talk · contribs) 17:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)". Quick history check showed that the user who wrote this is called Jinjiby - it's the same user who supposed I am related to PavelStoykov (another wiki account), which of course has proven to be wrong! Now I am supposedly related to another user? Excuse me, but isn't this abuse with the wikipedia's report system? This is his second time he say I am related to another user. My account is stale because of it, even tho it's proven to be a false accusation. Now the same user made a new accusation with a new account (TishoYanchev). Isn't this high level abuse with wikipedia's report system? Isn't the user Jingiby constantly giving wrong signals, so he can intentionally keep me, and other editors aways? Isn't this abuse with wikipedia, as he is constantly false-reporting and keeping wikipedia administrators busy? I believe he is reporting me on purpose to keep my account stale. Dear administrators, you can check my account-related reports a 100 times and you will not find any fault in my actions. Or you can check the user Jingiby's actions in wikipedia and understand this person is abusing the report system and NOT letting other users edit, as of this moment, false Internet content. (I believe used for propaganda purposes in Russia, Serbia and Macedonia). Thank you and keep wikipedia safe and unbiased and away from trolls. All I wanted is fixing this information. Also i have a question. What does stale account means? Is that mean it's not possible to unblock me? If so can you then give me some sort of permission to create a new account? Skradumdum (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: In view of the CheckUser findings, I must concluded that the behavioral evidence is insufficient for a sock-puppet block. I'll therefore unblock Skradumdum, but they should back off from confrontation with Jingiby – and vice versa. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS Notification[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OhKayeSierra: Hello! I read what you posted to me and I have to say that I really agree with the committee's decision. We have to keep objectiveness of the wikipedia's page, mainly because of "The Macedonian Problem". Anyway I believe the problem persists as a whole wikipedia article is written indirectly in favor of I believe what is a Macedonian propaganda. I will explain more. Reading the whole article called "Bulgars" the reader gets the idea of the Bulgars being absolutely proven a Turkic tribes. This is wrong to be concluded historically, since genetic, linguistic and all other studies have thrown the known history into a different direction. The point is, all the information about those facts, all the other theories about the origin of Bulgars that have the same weight over the history and are equally possible are ignored completely as only one side of the "truth" about the origin is written and over that single view perspective a conclusion is made in the Article. Which of course is biased toward a certain hypothesis over the others, equally possible ones. I believe this is done by Macedonian or Serbian editors, who are using the possible Turkic origin of the Bulgars as the main political move to declare Macedonia as different nation from Bulgaria today. I don't mind that if it wasn't incorrect historically. And of course, because "possible" is not enough of a reason for them, they are trying to push this theory as "the one and only" on wikipedia. This way I believe they use wikipedia as a propaganda tool. But this is unobjective and unbiased opinion. There is a huge dispute over the origin of the Bulgars, as many scientists have proven today Indo-Iranian origin, which is just slightly mentioned if mentioned at all. I tried speaking with some of the editors about the dispute, providing facts only to end up being attacked as "anti-turkist" (even tho the literature I provide was from scientists all around the world). At some point I was even banned from those editors for being a proxy which was proven wrong. Anyway. Today those editors continue to remove my edits, that I provide in favour to make the article just an idea more biased and objective. Most of the times the reasons are extremely weak, sometimes reasons for removing edits are completely ignored, as they just remove my edits "because they don't agree with this theory as well". You have to understand I am not fighting for removing information or removing the Turco-Altaic hypothesis of the page. I am fighting for adding another point of view over the page, as such exists and is largely popular. As stated in the Second Pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is written from objective point of view. Well I don't see the objective point in the Bulgarian article that adds information only about one hypothesis and concludes it to be the only one. This is unprofessional and historically wrong. Disputes should exists and facts supporting all sides should be presented in and Objective article. But every time I try to add such facts the editors keep returning my edits, reporting me and calling me "anti-turcist". This same hypothesis they insist to be the only one in the article also happens to be the one that favors the Macedonian propaganda quote "Bulgars are turks and you should hate them". I am okay with writing that this is possible but It's not proven and the editors are trying to make it look as such. What should I do? Should I just leave this problem as all the other editors who ended up being banned by Jinjiby? I am said to ignore this user, but he is constantly reverting my edits with no explanation.

Also two times I tried to have a civilized dispute over the subject with the other editors. Two times I ended up being ignored, little or no answers were given to my questions, no will of cooperation over the problem was shown and two times I was reported by them. All I ask is an advice? What am I supposed to do? How to have a meaningful dispute if they don't want one? They only edit pages the way they like them, without any explanation and without any objectiveness. Their actions remind me of propaganda spreaders who very well know they are wrong. But maybe it's just me. Anyway, is there any way I can get a dispute with them over the subject? Is there any possibility after they are proven wrong they stop reverting edits. (By them I mean mostly Jinjiby, because he seems to be the most active user over the page and the one I hold responsible for the nonobjective propaganda driven idea of the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skradumdum (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

eye I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of keeping a cohesive discussion, I chose to reply at Talk:Bulgars#Bulgars origin - were they part of the Hunnic or Turkic migrarions?. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jingiby. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jingiby:Hey Jingiby. As I understand your frustration you should expect being attacked on the Internet, especially after you single handedly offend other people and whole nations before that. Remember calling ALL Bulgarians unreliable anti-Turkics? Being attacked is a natural reaction when expressing statements like this, and act in disrespectful manner towards other people's work and whole nations.
What is more your statements are expressed on predominantly Bulgarian editor's page called Bulgars. As I understand you are not Bulgarian, but Macedonian, yet you are the editor with most actions towards IP's from Bulgaria according to the history of the page. I suggest people should really take a look in your actions more than they do in your words. Good atmosphere is something that both sides should work upon. And neither neither your actions are showing enough respect toward other editors, nor to wikipedia, nor to many historian's work. I will be glad if you understand how complicated the subject is. I am always agreed to work on a good will but I, as a normal Bulgarian will not tolerate disrespectful statements towards Bulgarians and Bulgarian people and historians. Also as a wikipedia fan will not tolerate biased way of writing literature and citating sources. Don't forget when you hit first, acting the victim is a really hard thing to play.
Anyway. As I said I am agreed to work with you, as long as you keep your anti-Bulgarian and in the same time pro-Turkish statements for yourself. Also I will be glad if you accept edits that have reliable and proven sources, no matter if you like them or you don't. And when you return my edits, place find a better excuse than "I don't like this professor, because he said this and I disagree with him" or "I don't like this and that" Wikipedia again is a place for objective view on the subject, not your own personal interpretation on the history :) All best Skradumdum (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jingiby: I understand your way of building a supportive environment includes methods like trying to remove or block most of the editors you disagree with, rarely ever communicating with them. Also trying to revert their edits with little or no information that includes personal criticism towards the author or illogical statements. I believe the history of your profile speaks enough for itself. Many users like me were probably blocked as sock proxies by you, as the whole process is a bit clumsy and used by the right mind is a powerful tool from keeping away users you disagree with to edit. I was reported tree times along with tree different users for being a sock-proxy... In a month. I find this disrespectful and abusive by itself and towards the community. I had to wait a month and have a long discussion to remove the ban for which you reported me, as it turned out I was not a proxy, but I believe many other users simply didn't try to fight for the cause and left wikipedia because of you. If you are harassed by your own profile history, I can't help you with that. If you are harassed by my words, then I understand you can have a strange idea of judgment: For you, if you harass other people it's okay, if they reply to you with the same attitude that you showed, you feel offended. Very interesting.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skradumdum&oldid=1048385997"