User talk:93.152.143.113

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Huns. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without an account, your IP address (93.152.143.113) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Dustin (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

It is not a requirement that you do so, but if you can, with book sources, it is helpful to try to find Internet links where the information can also be found. You can also use templates such as {{Cite book}}. If you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dustin (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. Indeed, I do not have much experience in editing and probably my edits are not perfect. I will learn though. Thanks again. 93.152.143.113 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Oghur languages‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Example:

  • "Also the Turk Crovata.."
  • "..because it is written by the turk Crovata (who is probably from Croatia)."
  • "Everyone knows that wikipedia is not a reliable source, due to wooden heads as you."

Someone's ethnicity is of no concern, comment on content not the contributor(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with you on this particular case. Usually ethnicity is of no concern, but not in this case. This user is constantly abusing articles concerning proto-Bulgarians, imposing his personal opinion that they were Turkish tribes. This is pure vandalism from account registered long ago, probably exactly for this purpose. How will you explain deleting a whole section from article Huns, supported by 15-20 authors, without giving any real explanation, as this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huns&oldid=683505893 ?????

The warning is simply a courtesy. Once warned if you continue to mention someone's believed ethnicity in a negative context, you can be blocked. I am not here to answer for anyone's edits, besides my own. There are venues for disagreements over sources, issues, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: The IP '93.152.143.113' was blocked for 3 months in August 2015 (see Talk:Huns#What is the subject of the article? for other IP socks and case) when was also all blocked his user account User:PavelStaykov (and other account socks). IPs are from Bulgaria and do disruptive edits on articles related to Bulgars and Huns. Today on 11 November, this and IP '84.238.240.171' targeted Dulo clan, Sandilch, Zabergan, and even my talk page).--Crovata (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Again the same IP sock activity, please protect articles Oghur languages, Onogurs, Zabergan, Sandilch.--Crovata (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Typically from you, when someone explains you the situation on the matter and sources (and don't act like it didn't happen, it was several times since March 2015, yet there's none advance in your case and editing) was it on Bulgars or Huns, or Zabergan and Sandilch, your only way to continue the discussion is to wander off in a circle of calling everything and everyone else who is against your personal belief (original research) with false accusations, and do personal attack. So childish. Ignorance of mainstream and modern scholarship, ignorance most of the parts of sources you personally pick, the racist view on the Turks and term Turkic and Turkish, simple denial of reality. How many times I said I am not a Turk, neither have a Turkish ancestry. But you don't listen, you are looking at the world through binoculars of personal illusion. You show a symptomatic behavior. Your edits are harmful and disruptive. Just stop editing Wikipedia, and save us from your personal problems of accepting reality and history. History is not chemistry or physics, it cannot be rewritten, how much you wish and want it.--Crovata (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Peter Golden and Osman Karatay are not "mainstream scholars", mainstream scholars are the 31 books that you deleted from WP. If you search google books you will find even more such books. I do not deny that such hypothesis exist - that Bulgars entered Europe in 460 but most scholars do not accept it ( see Encyclopedia Britanica). It is only speculation - what we know from the sources is that in 460 Avars attacked Sabirs. We even don't know if these Avars are the same from century later. You say that some books are old - it is because the identification Bulgar->Utigur->Hun was made in 1775 by German Historians. There is nothing we can do more even after 2 centuries have passed. Only to speculate. Exactly what is doing Golden. That's why actually your edits are harmful and disruptive - they present minority point of view. To be honest with you - I will tell you my personal opinion. It partially coincide with what Golden thinks. In my opininion in 460 Volga Bulgars entered Europe, while Danube Bulgars were moving with the Huns, they were Huns themself. What happened in the second half of 5th century is that north of Black Sea Volga Bulgars met with Danube Bulgars, not that Huns met Bulgars. But all this is conjectural and must remain so. We cannot distinguish which tribes were present in Europe in 460 and if new entered - this is a speculation.
No one cares what we personally think. Most of those 31 books are outdated, books from 18th century are not mainstream and reliable. Unreliable sources are not cited! There were considerations which were seen as somekind of traditional theory, but mostly those traditional theories were modified or removed from mid-20th century. All scholars who died in 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, even 1980s must be critically approached. Scholarship since then became more neutral and critical, and less nationalistic and traditional. Golden, and scholars like him, are not speculating, they neutrally cite historical source, analyze the source and circumstances, and take as reference research by multiple other scholars. Scholars like Kim don't cite the historical source neither multiple other scholars, only those which align to his theory. He makes speculations and from speculation writes conclusion, which is wrong. The same thing you wrote - you speculate that Volga Bulgars entered Europe, while Danube Bulgars were actually Huns, and as such Black Sea Volga Bulgars met with Danube Bulgars. That's pure fabrication of history, a total nonsense, without any evidence in historical sources. Just how and where it partially coincide with Golden ie. historical sources?! Do you get it? Pontic-Caspian steppe Bulgars were defeated by the Khazars, first were conquered by the Khazars, second got separated and moved to the Volga river, third traveled to the Danube river, fourth down south to Macedonia, and fifth to Italy. That's the only thing historical sources prove. And what 460 AD has anything to do now with Zabergan, Sandilch, Kutrigurs, Utigurs...?! In which article is said that Bulgars entered Europe in 460?! The identification between Huns and Bulgars, Onogurs, Utigurs and Kutrigurs, none historical source directly proves. None historical source proves Huns and Bulgars were the same people, or even that they lived in the same geographical region in the same time. It's useless to write all again when since March 2015 this whole case was already discussed. Stop wasting other editors time.--Crovata (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

obviously these articles will remain locked. When I said Volga Bulgars i meant people that 2 centuries later will become known as Volga Bulgars. There are a lot of differences between Volga and Danube Bulgars, actually Danube Bulgars are much more close to Avars than to Volga Bulgars. If you were reading the sources to investigate, not to find some clues to support your speculations, you would have known this. Saying "None historical source proves Huns and Bulgars were the same people" is idiotic statement since 2 centuries these people were called Huns by Romans and Greeks and Byzantines. What do you expect - to find a skull with "Attila the Hun" carved on it ?

Do you understand that original research and personal speculations are not cited on Wikipedia?! I don't cite my personal speculations, I cite what renowned and competenet scholars write, but you again without any evidence concluded how Danube Bulgars were similar with Pannonian Avars, but different with Volga Bulgars, who in 460 entered Europe, but in 600s went to Volga river... just, what a nonsense. Can you understand the difference? The term of the Huns was nothing but a lifestyle attribute like Scythians, Goths etc. used by historians and people of the time. The name of the Huns was much more known than of the Bulgars, and as such that term was more understandable of the Bulgars, and in the case of Bulgars it was not used always! Invading hordes, were they of Slavs, Goths, Huns, Scythians, Avars, Turk etc., were often used for each other group, but that does not mean they were ethically the same people. For example the Croats were called as Goths, Scythians, and Slavs by Roman and Byzantine historians. Does that mean they were Germans, or were they Iranians, perhaps they were Slavs? When you don't understand historical circumstances then don't edit.--Crovata (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to argue with you any more. You have learnt a lot from me in the past months, now you DO know who were the Huns and Bulgars. What I have heard from you is only speculations based on Golden personal views. It is high time for you to read some other authors. Start from here, just to break the ice: 

    Absence of information about historical migration of Sünnu-Huns to the west before the end of the 4th century AD, and existence of the "Hun" population on the eastern fringes of Europe in the 3rd century and earlier, lead to the conclusion that in the composition of the western Huns also participated other tribes, and first of all Usuns.
  page 23  http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Usuns/ZuevHunsandUsunsEn.htm

Encyclopedia Britannica is highly reliable source, 1/4 of the articles are written by Nobel price winners authors: 

Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations. Early Bulgars inhabited the European steppe west of the Volga River from about 370 ce. Retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and east of the Sea of Azov.

Nowhere such Ogur/Oghur tribes are mentioned, not even a single word of them. Ask yourself why. Compare the description of Yuezhi clothes : 

 Yuezhi on Bactrian Embroidery from Textiles Found at Noyon uul, Mongolia Sergey A. Yatsenko Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, page 41, paragraph 2 :

" The basic color gamma of the depictions is a combination of red/rose and white, which is characteristic for the Bactrian Yuezhi. Furthermore, there is a definite symmetry of these two basic colors. Thus, if an individual has a red caftan, then his shoes are also red but he has white trousers and a white belt, and, on the other hand, if he has a white caftan and shoes, the trousers and belt are red.", http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol10/srjournal_v10.pdf

with this site http://www.shevitsa.com/ AMAZING, isn't it?

I did learn something from you, that some people will be stuck in their own little boxes of mind and won't open their eyes, even if other built the windows and opened them. Your reply only proved your lack of will to accept and understand real knowledge. Perhaps Creationism is something more closer to you rather then Scientific theory.--Crovata (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden and Karatay are not the "real knowledge" dude, the real knowledge are the multiple Books that you removed from WP. We don't need these windows that banned other points of view, they don't belong to the European culture. Let's not pretend that we don't know what is going on here on WP - all these fake accounts( as yours) here registered to impose biased nationalistic propaganda. Don't waste my time any more. The articles will remain locked. For years.

Golden follows multiple scholars and cites them in his own works and they in theirs - that's how science work. What you call multiple books are outdated, fringe sources or scholars who conclude on own presumations or others like parrots without any scholarship reference and neutral historical source analysis. That kind of sources are less reliable and unreliable. As for the fake accounts and propaganda, you speak from your own experience, but not from mine. Indeed, please don't waste other editors time anymore.--Crovata (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have real jobs dude, I don't spent all my time here to study the stupid rules of WP - as the one that 2 accounts are forbidden. It is not important for me. From my point of view the accounts should be forbidden at all - they are misused by people as you. I will not be surprised if you receive money (or it is called donations may be?) from Turkish organizations: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales_accused_of_editing_Wikipedia_for_donations

Personal attack[edit]

@Bbb23: Behind this IP is the same subject as in recent user account NewZealot, and like previous user accounts and IPs recorded (see above, due to the same characteristic), from which would like to report constant personal attacks on me, racial discrimination against the Turks, and disruptive comments; [1], [2], Talk:Bulgars#Hard question. Think this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated.--Crovata (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New sock Bolghar.--Crovata (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:93.152.143.113&oldid=693984324"