::::Since there is a disagreement on the arbmac field, I would suggest to wait for the precise definition of your restriction by an active administrator. In the meantime I'm open for any additional suggestions about the southern Illyrian tribes map.[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 09:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Since there is a disagreement on the arbmac field, I would suggest to wait for the precise definition of your restriction by an active administrator. In the meantime I'm open for any additional suggestions about the southern Illyrian tribes map.[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 09:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::It does not appear that [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights]] is available to discuss your restriction. You may wish to comment in a new thread at [[User talk:EdJohnston#Restriction of Slovenski Volk]]. In my opinion your restriction needs to be clarified. The current edit warring at [[Illyrians]] is not acceptable, and you've made some nasty comments on talk pages which should not continue. At a minimum you should observe your existing [[WP:1RR]] on all ARBMAC articles. I don't know what can be done about the rancor on talk pages. If you can manage some diplomacy it may not be necessary to exclude you totally from all ARBMAC articles, though that is what the log currently says. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::It does not appear that [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights]] is available to discuss your restriction. You may wish to comment in a new thread at [[User talk:EdJohnston#Restriction of Slovenski Volk]]. In my opinion your restriction needs to be clarified. The current edit warring at [[Illyrians]] is not acceptable, and you've made some nasty comments on talk pages which should not continue. At a minimum you should observe your existing [[WP:1RR]] on all ARBMAC articles. I don't know what can be done about the rancor on talk pages. If you can manage some diplomacy it may not be necessary to exclude you totally from all ARBMAC articles, though that is what the log currently says. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Since you continue to violate your restriction, without, at least, filling an appeal, you left me no choice but to take this to [[wp:ae]].[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 22:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited South Slavs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SNP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HG I
Hm, strange to me too. That linked paper is not available to me. Is it real research (one of those conducted by Oxford) or some evaluation again? Until now there were no researches of HGs in Serbia. Does it go for the Serbs in Serbia or Serbs in general? - this can be very important, bearing in mind that the most of Serbs out of Serbia are not people of real Serbian roots, but rather Dinarian Vlachs who adopted Orthodox religion, or were Orthodox already thus becoming Serbs in the 19th century.
On the other side, if there is more I in Serbia than in Montenegro it would be only just another evidence of post-Glacial migration of the hunters-foragers from the Adriatic refugium to the north-east. Zenanarh (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Volk, I will not come back to en.wiki again. But you have my email so we can always communicate that way, it's been always pleasure to talk with you, the most of other contributors to the Balkan stuff are sick of some ideologies. So contact me on email if you want. Zenanarh (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility
Please stop your personal attacks against me, like in this edit summary (something that you have done again in the past, [1], [2]) and please stop addressing me as "Macedonian" using quotation marks, clearly in an ironic way, as you did in this edit summary as well as in this one (again, as you have done in the past, [3], [4]). Macedonian (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
R1a
I agree but no one has said much in published form. In my opinion the obvious candidate region for all R1 origins stories is the Middle East. Traces of ancient diversity seem to remain some areas but have to a large extent been wiped out by new waves such as J1--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Zhivitovsky approach has had its run, but on the other hand I treat most of these estimation techniques as pretty rough and ready.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the first term the context might be handy. Of course population and variance are terms with meanings in all stats.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Slovenski Volk. You have new messages at Talk:Pelasgians. Message added 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
We are discussing the use of your map for Pelasgians. Maybe you have some input. Thanks and regards Codrin.B (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the article, I red it. The article was interesting but I am not sure about the validity of its data and arguments. I can not comment for other arguments but, I can comment on Albanian case. For what I know I can comment that Alb. shqip for the language comes from latin excipere and is a recent development from XVII century onwards. The medieval ethnonym was Arber, in fact the albanian enclaves in Greece and Italy (these Albanian populations migrated there from 11-17th century) call themselves Arber/Arben/Arvanit to denominate themselves and reject the use of word shqiptar (they also use the word Arberisht/Arbenisht/Arvanitisht for their language). Even if the word shqip comes not from Latin excipere (which I don't think so) but from another word, remains the fact that it was a recent development from XVII century onward for the reason I said above. There is also the fact that Albanian language has nothing in common with Iranic languages (not a single loanword and different grammatical structures) so proto-Albanian people were not close to Iranic people and that eliminates Carpi and East/Northeast Romania area. Latin in Albanian also shows Dalmatian development (as admitted also by Paliga in the same article) and Romanian development, which puts proto-Albanian between these two Latin languages as a transitory zone. As for the Thracian there is an excellent article by E.P. Hamp (Albanian bese and Thracian bessoi) which shows the impossibility of Albanian deriving from Thracian.
Reassuming, I don't know if these ideas can stand alone without the Albanian argument, I can not judge that.
I tend to think that there were a lot of un-romanised and un-hellenised populations in the Balkans during Late roman Empire period. Take for example the name of the city Plovdiv. Greeks named him Philipopolis instead of Pulpudeva, however now we have Plovdiv from Pulpudeva which shows that Slav migrants took that name from native population (Thracians). The same case can be said for many areas in the Balkan, especially in remote willages and there were many of them. I tend to think that Romanian comes from Latinised Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians(?!) and was formed somewhere near Ohrid area in present RoM. The present population of Slav-Macedonians in a great(?) part from ancient macedonians and Bulgarians from Thracians. Balkan phonetics show that the melting pot of Balkan shprachbund was around Ohrid lakes. Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian and Greek show many common features culminating in that area. However this is my personal opinion.
Recently I was more into neolithic Balkan. One of my friends participated here:
The results were surprising. This shows a pretty fast advance of Neolithic populations from Anatolia. Something has to be revised. They will soon publish a book on that.
Is there anything interesting in genetics recently? I believe you have seen the case of E-V13 found in Neolithic cave in Spain (4500BC). That was the more relevant discovery I could find so far. Aigest (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. I'm interested in that article. Did you red the articles on sea people? What do you think on them? Aigest (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Western Slavs
I'm not really active on early medieval history, I just back then reported the findings apparently accepted by a majority of Polish researchers. I noticed an article by Sebastian Brather "The beginnings of Slavic settlement east of the river Elbe", is that what you had in mind?
Orczar (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, e-mail me what you've got, I'm surely interested in reading it. There is also some related movement in Poland, as Aleksander Bursche of the University of Warsaw has been given a four-year research grant to work with his team on that issue (Migration Period in Poland). It'll be some time until the dust settles, it may still turn out that we're all Russians :).
Orczar (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I read you've been using foreign experts such as Fine, Curta and Hupchick?
I wanted to add that Michael of Zahumlje was a Serbian ruler, since that is how he's presented in Serbian historiography - but not just Serbian (e.g. Jirecek agrees). However, I didn't want to come up as a Serbian nationalist, so I'd like you to share what those three historians claim.
For me it is indisputable that Mihailo Vusevic was a Serb ruler, because his representatives at the Councils of Split are referred to as Serbs by contemporary sources, despite the fact that there are a few more sources that identify them as merely Slavs' (it is not mutually exclusive).
The text writes that he's a Slavic neighbor of both Croatia and Serbia, and that is not a neutral presentation, because it places Michael's land as some sort of a 3rd nation between Serbs and Croats so violating the pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivast (talk • contribs) 14:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Did you perhaps forget about this? I see nothing on the Talk page.
The article presents his country as a completely different country and nowhere is it connected to the Serbs. In fact, it actually relies on the DAI which calls Zachlumians Serbs as additional proof that he is not Serb, in the Background paragraph. In the Church councils in Split, Croatia part, it is hinted that Zahumlje was under Croatia and Michael supposedly accepted King Tomislav's rule, and John Fine's opinion is presented as if fringe opinion - when it is in fact completely the other way around, with the fringe idea of the Split councils being some sort of evidence of Croatian rule considered mostly a historically inaccurate claim. This goes just as so when it comes to leading Croatian Medieval experts, like e.g. Neven Budak. To make matters worse, this isolated and mostly considered refuted opinion (in Croatian historiography too, I stress) is present even in the introductory text, hinting that Michael's country might've been under Croatian supreme rule.
Out of the total 23 used references in the article, 4 are Croatian and none are Serbian. However, the opinions of these four references are not dominant in Croatian historiography. While there is no problem with using Franjo Rački because it is a direct reference from a published collection of sources, Vjekoslav Klaić is a historian from over a century ago, in many ways outdated; hence a better source should be used for the years. I am not disputing anything there I just think a better source (more recent) should be used for an important thing such as chronology (since that especially changes over time). I'd also like to point out that Ivo Omrčanin was no historian but a theologian, working for the Ustashi Independent State of Croatia; later worked in the emigration. He is a lot nationalist and controversial, and his book that is cited is not a relevant work on Croatian Early Middle Ages history nor has some important scientific manner in that aim. His opinion that Tomislav actually sent him to fight in Italy do not have sources and are not shared by anyone relevant at all; should question whether it warrants any inclusion in the article at all, except if we find a Serbian nationalist and put his isolated claim next to his as well.
The whole article was written strongly in a Croatian POV. It claims that Michael is "in the same context as the Croatian king", however without a source; it is highly questionable whether a work from the late 18th century should be of relevance at all, as especially outdated. And while the citation in Latin in the beginning, hinting that there was some sort of Croatian land between Bulgaria and Zahumlje is authentic, its translation and interpretation is without doubt wrong.
There you can see the elaboration from Croatian historian Mladen Ančić, in this book of the Croatian Historical Institute's edition. Refer to pages 257-258, with footnote 89. The position is now closely dominant in historiography and no one interprets as if there was some strip of Croatian territory eastwards, which is in itself illogical.
The article is also missing Pope John X's letter.
I understand that you are the creator of the map in the article. In accordance to your map, the article should emphasize that Michael had after the fall of Serbia in 924 managed to expand and seize control over most of the southeastern littoral; namely precisely due to the Split conclusions we know that he extended his control to the Bay of Kotor, thus with probably annexing Travunia. Also I pointed out that it is your map, because it is not correct. Your maps depicts a drastically greater Croatia than it was under Tomislav, even putting that somehow Paganians are his vassals. It cannot be concluded that the Narentines were under Croatia's supreme rule, and it is most certain that the reign over Bosnia is, nationalist myths discarded, only an assumption based on Tomislav's victory against the Bulgarians - which had occurred in an undetermined location. This is a position of leading Croatian historians as well; for details refer to Prva stoljeća Hrvatske of Neven Budak, Zagreb 1994. His position is shared e.g. by historians mostly credited to exposing the baselessness of Tomislav's reign over Croatia, such as Nada Klaic and Ivo Goldstein. So in essence with this border on Bosnia is not a neutral presentation, and not even a Croatian POV, but a nationalist Croat one...
So the article in general omits even the claim that he's a Serbian ruler, which seems to be at least by large accepted in historiography, both domestic and foreign. It does so while even referencing Fine's book when it comes to Daecon's citation from the Venetian Chronicle. That should be made clear, but not just that, the article makes no mention of the potential Serb participation controversy when it comes to the Council of Split sources. On the Serbian side, the viewpoint that it is mentioned that 'Croats' and 'Serbs' participated in the 925 Split council is taken as what could be a direct confirmation of the Serb ethnicity of Michael's subjects - though the source itself remains a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivast (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Hello SV, I recently stumbled across this remark you made on a user talk page:
Of course modern Macedonians descent, biologically speaking, from people that have always lived there for thousands of years, and not from "Slavs" in what is now Poland, or Ukraine..
The fact that this population may have roots in populations living on a territory for millennia is not evidence that the people have no "Slavic roots as have Poles and Ukrainians". The fact that my nation is Slavophonic can only guarantee Slavic descent, and the fact that Poles are Slavophonic can only guarantee their Slavic descent. It matters little whether the percentage of origin per person on average is small, what matters is that it dominates in that all these other nations of the Balkan assimilated. Suffice it to say that ever since Slavs were attested to have entered the region, no period in history has recorded their departure nor their outright assimilation by other races. In other words, a continuous bloodline and evolved language goes right back to those people. The other thing is that Macedonian Slavs cannot alone have genetic features that adjacent Slavic nations do not. The basis for being Macedonian is that this is how a population identifies. Some from the very same stock within Macedonia identify as Bulgarian or Serbian; over into Bulgaria, ordinary Slavophonic people start calling themselves Bulgarian yet a handful from the Pirin region continue to identify as Macedonian there. Other Slavic people from Macedonia may call themselves Bosniak, Goran or Torbesh if they are Muslim and depending where they are, and these continue into Greece where Orthodox Slavic Macedonians live. North into Serbia, the Torlakian speaking Serbs are nothing genetically different from the Macedonians from the republic and all of these in turn have roots in the eastern South Slavs (though this is the crossover point for meeting with west South Slavs). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply S.V and your explanation makes things clearer now. The place I found the comment was here. You are absolutely right that the history of the Slavic people is very unclear with various theories which contradict each other, and without written records of a time pre-writing itself, nobody can confirm the movements of any nation. I have long stayed away from genetics because this is a shady area of historical science. If as you say, these southeastern European names can be attributed to Slavic my only guess is that they travelled, left their mark and moved on. I mean, the modern Slavic nations must have had an ultimate root even if we cannot pinpoint its exact location. Up until now, reliable histrorical sources do record the arrival of Slavic tribes in southeastern Europe from AD 555 and these groups settled everywhere, only along the coastlines (chiefly of modern-day Greece) did they not form a majority. It seems that those areas were where the development was and the interest from settled nations. In some places, those Slavic peoples became assimilated by surroudning nations (eg. Romania and Greece) and in other places, they assimilated those with whom they came into contact (eg. Bulgaria, for both already settled tribes and Proto-Bulgarians who were to arrive later). Of course if we do at this stage look genetically, there will be significant non-Slavic blood in most people of the Balkan. I'm convinced though that there was no Slavic character to the Balkan immediately prior to the 6th centiry migrations. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question on AD 555 - this is a year which comes up a lot in books. I've always based my editing and my mindset on those migrations from that time as being the ultimate ancestor for people like me (and I suppose you if you're one of us - your name suggests you are). Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of sense in what you say and in the sources you mention. If Slavic origin names of geographical features abound in the region prior to these migrations, there is everything to suggest that Slavic people were once living there. But I have so far been given to assume that whoever was using these names - names which were their own language developments of once Slavic forms - will have been non-Slavic people such as Illyrians, earlier Greeks, etc., I don't think the migrations of central European Slavs joined an existing Slavic nation on the Balkan. The Slavs who were settled before will have either assimilated or will have moved on, or even back to central Europe from where they would later re-emerge.
Regarding how language spreads, I have read many books on the subject too and I am aware of the causes and reasoning of how this happens. Even today we have power languages which imperil smaller or disenfranchised minorities within giant states. Sometimes a language is forced on a people, other times a nation may find it economically beneficial to adopt the neighbouring tongue. I guess history was no different. What is certain however, is that once a nation is assimilated, all memory of past identities is buried. It is one thing for a man here in England to trace his roots and find that one of his ancestors from the 16th century was from modern-day Vietnam but it cannot in any practical way restore this identity into him, especially if the rest of his roots are largely from the concoctions to compose the British Isles stock. So Slavs live alongside a non-Slavic nation; the non-Slavic nation adopts the Slavic tongue and with it, names of people - a single nation moves forward carrying with it any cultural remnants from the nation to have assimilated, and the size of a tribe has doubled in a short time. Now my reasoning differs from many that deny "proto-Slavs", "proto-Latins" or even "proto-Indo-Europeans"; languages take time in developing but there comes a point there has to be one community using a language. What is probably the case is that this community may be one single tribe - unaware of how far-reaching their modern tongue will be millennia from now. This tribe may just be three or four families living in isolation, could be anything. Man's origin is all the same whichever theory you follow. And even a proto-language will have developed from another; PIE is said to be related to the other proto-languages such as those of Asia and Africa. Some languages such as Basque, Korean and Japanese remain isolates but only because nobody can establish a positive link. Now this 6th century development you mention of "Slavic ethnicity" in reality is closer to the welding of the earlier Hellenic tribes to form today's Greek nation. Greeks are one with nobody claiming Dorian over their Ionian neighbours. But what is relevant is that Dorians and Ionians themselves descended from one common ancestor, atleast linguistically if nothing else - it guaranteed a pedigree in every person; this must surely have been the case with Slavic peoples from the 6th; already a common language/dialects - generations start to reunite culturally before separating again and so forth. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AE
While I don't mind the content you added per se, this whole revert restriction violation business needs to stop, as should the talkpage baiting [5]. Athenean (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the result of the AE thread, you are indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to ARBMAC, broadly construed, and may appeal after 6 months. If you have questions regarding the scope of the ban, ask me and I'll be happy to clarify. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry for taking so long to respond; I missed your first message because some other unrelated problem blew up on my talkpage. Anyways; ARBMAC is generally meant to cover the former countries of Yugoslavia (although in practice, I'd have no problem with you editing articles on Slovenia) as well as the naming dispute between the FYROM and the Greek province (other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine). You're not supposed to edit any of the articles or discussions, but should someone start an AE thread on the topic directly concerning you you're allowed to respond. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fertile Crescent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hattic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indigenous Aryans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Volk
What about this Bulgarian Macedonism: In 1892, Georgi Pulevski completed the first ”Slavic-Macedonian General History", whose manuscript is over 1,700 pages. According to the book the ancient Macedonians were Slavic people and the Macedonian Slavs were native to the Balkans, in contrast of the Bulgarians and the Serbs, who came there centuries later. However 100 years earlier, in his work “Concise history of the Slav Bulgarian People” (1792), the Bulgarian monk Spyridon Gabrovski tried to build a connection between the Illyrian ethnie and the ancient Macedonians, at a time when the latter were still treated as rivals and “colonizers” of Greece by the Greek late-Enlightenment nationalism. Spyridon believed that the name of Bulgarians derived from a mythic king of Illyria "Bolg" — the country that had once encompassed the whole of Europe, even Rome. Alexander the Great was the only one who defeated them, yet to made them the spearhead of his victorious army and gave the his birth name: Macedonians, but also Slavs. The basic message from this story on the mythical Bulgaro-Illyro-Macedonians was to assert that the Bulgarians were among the indigenous inhabitants of the Balkans who have partaken in all its major historical events. Check here: p. 224. The work became known to the scientific world in 1868 when the Russian scientist Alexander Hilferding disclosed that he had found the original manuscript "near the river Bregalnitsa", on a journey to Macedonia. Check here:p. 10.. By the way, the first mention of Macedonism was made by P. R. Slaveykov in 1871. Jingiby (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some info to you from the book : 'THE CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DANUBIAN PLAIN' by Dimitrina Mitova-Dzhonova Bulgarian Academy of sciences (with 28 maps). Regardless of the title, this book deals also with the general division of the Bulgarian dialects and culture into eastern and western parts. Thus the dividing line between the eastern ('ja') and the western ('e') dialects runs across the Danubian plain to the south, along the rivers Iskar and Struma/Mesta, but there are also more than one hundred isogloses (on-toj, zhezhyk-goresht, etc) roughly parallel to the e-ja boundary. Even more interesting is that this division extends to the north (along the Olt River), into the Romanian ethnic territory, so that in some aspects the cultures of the eastern/western Danubian regions in Bulgaria are closer to their Romanian counterparts across the Danube, than to the opposite Bulg. region across the Iskar. It runs also in south through Greek Macedonia. This is probably substratum-related, and predates the coming of the Slavs, but D. Mitova shows that the division constantly reestablished itself throughout the ages even on an initially uniform base. During the Roman times it was the boundary between Romanism and Hellenism - the official language in the eastern part was Greek; in the architecture the western round tower was opposed to the eastern rectangular one; the Italian type of sarcophagus was not found in the east, etc. In more recent times (after the XIV-th c.) it is also the western limit of the substitution of the original white Slavic dress ('belodreshkovci') with the black dress ('chernodreshkovci') from Asia Minor; also the limit between the western way of threshing with horses as opposed to the threshing with flint-stuffed threshing boards (dikanja), etc., etc. Close to this line is also the eastern limit of the occurrence of the Slavic hydronim 'Bistrica' ('limpid, bright water'). It is completely unknown in the eastern Balkans, which remained for longer under Byzantine rule. "The rest of the Balkan peninsula, if we judge from the distribution of that hydronym, was found by the Slavs virtually empty and that is why almost all larger rivers there were named Bistrica. The eastern part of the Balkan peninsula was settled by the Slavs a little bit later. The Slavic tribes penetrated there were fewer and they did not impose [their] but adopted the local toponyms and hydronyms." Jingiby (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I do get your point, and I've been having similar feelings ever since introducing the paragraphs in question which are extremely relevant in highlighting the nationalist controversy and irredentism surrounding the history of Bosniaks, and also to confront these claims with proper scholastic sources. I think I have done well. As to the placement of these paragraphs, my initial thought was to connect them to the "origins" section since the nationalist controversy itself boils down to which degree the Bosniak people (and Bosnians in general) have a separate origin. To disconnect these paragraphs and separately deal with the early obscure history of the Balkans with all the migrations and so forth would make little sense it seems since the historical obscurity and uncertainty as per se is being used by nationalist to promote their brazen "theories". I don't know if I'm making myself clear. I was hoping the new subsections would make my train of thought more understandable. If not, please suggest a possible new section altogether. However, I am rather convinced the two paragraphs in question belong to the history section since they connect to history very much so: the beginning of irredentism in the 19th century, the Bosnian war, and not to mention the citations regarding medieval Bosnia. To be perfectly honest, I am pretty satisfied with the new subsections introduced by me in response to your comments, and the whole origins section converges well (not to say further improvements are impossible). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it some more thought and have now fully separated the two leading paragraphs from "origins", also giving them an improved descriptive headline. Unfortunately, the last century or so in the history of the Bosniaks has been far from beautiful or harmonic and is tainted with the struggle for recognition which culminated in a bloody conflict at the end of the 20th century. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Slovenski Volk, I am delighted to read what is truly a remarkable understanding of the early medieval Balkans. Much of what you wrote is indeed reflected in the literature I have come across, as for example in the cited work by Peter Heather which underscores the difficulty to corroborate the mythic stories of Serb and Croat migrations by virtue of their absolutely unique character. Whatever the case most historians recognize the fact that the Serb and Croat migrations would have been considerably less numerous than the generic Slav migrations ("Sclaveni") into the area; these Slavs were one people speaking one and the same language which explains the common language of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia today. To be perfectly accurate, this language is neither Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian but rather South West Slavic in its own right. What is also true is that Bosnia was on a considerable distance from both writing centers of the time, Rome and Constantinople, so much less is known about its course of early history. The mention of Bosnia in the De Administrando Imperio simply reflects the political circumstance at that point, moreover the exact translation is matter of dispute (i.e. whether it really says "of Serbia"). Whatever the exact nature of the early migrations and associated ethnic formations, it is safe to conclude that the Slavic-speaking populations of ancient Serbia and Croatia appear to have organized themselves into coherent units earlier than the Slavs of Bosnia who continued to exist on a local, individual, basis for a longer period of time. I suggest reading "The Roots of the Religious, Ethnic, and National Identity of the Bosnian-Herzegovinan Muslims" by Denis Basic which probes a lot of the classic nationalist contention. I am, however, pretty surprised to read that Bosnia proper (the very geographic origin of its state formation) would have been near deserted between the 6th and 13th centuries. Is there any proper historic rationale for this apart from the lack of archaeological findings which could be explained by the still incomplete survey of the area to this date? No doubt, Bosnia was probably less densely populated (as any mountainous region in the old world) but describing it as deserted is a bit over the top. In fact, I find the claim that the Slavic migrations would have eradicated the indigenous population fairly refuted, T E Gregory writes: It is now generally agreed that the people who lived in the Balkans after the Slavic "invasions" were probably for the most part the same as those who had lived there earlier, although the creation of new political groups and arrival of small immigrants caused people to look at themselves as distinct from their neighbours, including the Byzantines. This has actually also been corroborated by genetic studies showing a large degree of "paleolithic signatures" in the genome of the South Slavs. I do not consider it outlandish to infer the South Slavs to be "less" Slavic than their northern counterparts. In this regard, the pre-Slavic population of Bosnia was probably less struck by the migrations on account of the rugged terrain. The population of undifferentiated Slavs and Slavicized Paleo-Balkan peoples in Bosnia before the 13th century was probably small and unorganized but far from non-existent. Nada Klaić, an influential Croatian female historian, has even proposed that the South Slavs formed their first polity in Bosnia under Avar rule. I personally have no opinion on that. At the end of the day, we can only speculate and hopefully remember to avoid original research. All written material should be cited with reliable sources. Cheers. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. As this is essentially between you and another user, getting a third opinion might also be a way forward. Lectonar (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Hi Slovenski Volk. We are a team of researchers interested in the editing dynamics on different language Wikipedias regarding the topic of Kosovo. We are looking for users who have edited and discussed articles about this topic, and who would be willing to be interviewed for the purpose of this research project. The project is approved by the Wikimedia Foundations´ Research Committee and you can find more information on this meta-wiki page. Research results will be published under open access and your participation would be much appreciated. If you would like to participate you can reach us at interwikiresearch@gmail.com and we will set up an interview in a way that best suits your needs.
Don't worry.
Don't worry, i am not done with the Scythians yet, since there are many sources that say they were of Iranian origin, and i see nothing wrong with scholars opinion about that, so i am going to discuss it on the talk page when i have time ;). --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion note
I'm really sorry to tell you this, but I've had to nominate File:Slavic tribes in the Balkans.png for deletion on Commons as a derivative work of a non-free template map. The discussion is here. Can this be recreated, based on a free template? All the best, – Quadell(talk) 18:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that it can be recreated... We would all be very grateful if you could do this! In fact, if you are able to upload a new version over the old one before the deletion request ends and causes the file to be deleted, it will avoid the disruption across a dozen wikiprojects that use the image. Do you think that will be possible? – Quadell(talk) 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I just wanted to remind you about this, in the hopes that something could be pulled together. Your maps are always excellent, and there is no way I could create anything comparable myself. All the best, – Quadell(talk) 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
referencing formats
I have no problem with parenthetical referencing as such, but all of them were converted into a very weird version of it.
I would suggest that where we just have a parenthetical reference as an appendage on the end of a sentence, this should become a footnote (and this is what they were).
I find it quite odd and a bit wrong that all the harvard templates and citation templates have been changed so that only one author is named. Most of these citations were (after a lot of work) quite complete, so someone has simply deleted hundreds of author names apparently because they could not get the harvcol to work nicely for them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maps for deletion
Hi there! There are some deletion drives on commons and some of your maps such as this one affected. Can you help with sources or better info? It would be a pity to lose them. Best! --Codrin.B (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hope you've been well. I responded on the relevant page, now it depends exactly on the permissions of the creatpor of the original template, who appears to have 'disappeared'. No matter, can do newer, better maps. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origin of the Albanians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illyrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Antes people may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
a marker of ''social'' distinction of chiefs and 'big men' from the forest-zone settlements.<ref>{{harvtxt|Curta|2008</ref>
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ancient Balkans.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brodnici may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
', Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România 1986.</ref> Iranian or various mixed scenarios (Romanian-[[Jassic people|Jassic]];<ref>O. B. Bubenok, Iasy i brodniki v stepiakh Vostochnoi Evropy (
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Greece] the KKE recognised that the Slavophone population was ethnic minority of Slavomacedonians]. This was a term, which the inhabitants of the region accepted with relief. [Because]
more easily be traced through the recent historical record.<ref name="Cambridge University Press">{{Cite book | last1 = Rae | first1 = Heather | title = State identities and the homogenisation of
Question|resolution supporting the development of the entity]].<ref>Резолюция о македонской нации (принятой Балканском секретариате Коминтерна — Февраль 1934 г, Москва.</ref> This action was
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Greece] the KKE recognised that the Slavophone population was ethnic minority of Slavomacedonians]. This was a term, which the inhabitants of the region accepted with relief. [Because]
more easily be traced through the recent historical record.<ref name="Cambridge University Press">{{Cite book | last1 = Rae | first1 = Heather | title = State identities and the homogenisation of
more easily be traced through the recent historical record.<ref name="Cambridge University Press">{{Cite book | last1 = Rae | first1 = Heather | title = State identities and the homogenisation of
Question|resolution supporting the development of the entity]].<ref>Резолюция о македонской нации (принятой Балканском секретариате Коминтерна — Февраль 1934 г, Москва.</ref> This action was
Hello, I'm Jingiby again. I noticed that you made a changes to the article Bulgarians, but they were non constructive. They have been reverted for now, but if you'd like to re-add it, please discuss the change on articles' talk pages before making it again! If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Macedonians (ethnic group)".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 06:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
If you didn't realise, I have added a days ago the following sentence to the article Bulgarians: In different periods to the ethnogenesis and the local population contributed also (Sarmatians), Celts, Goths, Cumans, Pechenegs, Vlachs, Greeks and other indo-European and Turkic people, who settled or lived on the Balkans. The same is undisputable fact also in Macedonia and I have put the sentence in the article Macedonians with exception of the Sarmatians. Regs. Jingiby (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please join the discussion when you have time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ty.
Merry Christmas!
Please, look at the page on the Macedonians. Very carefully and conscientiously I am trying to find a compromise with you. Please, read the attached reliable sources before you delete them without any comment. I believe that substantial changes that you are trying to pass without discussion and consent, and without clear sources supporting your opinion are wrong tactics. Please, discuss on article's talk page before making blind reverts and biased innovations again and we will find some compromise. Do not delete prof. Mikulchik. Your comment was: ive read milkuciks book, and that's not what it says. There are no bulgar traces till 9th century is wrong. Mikulchik wrote as follows: Во некрополата "Млака" пред тврдината во Дебреште, Прилеп, откопани се гробови со наоди од доцниот 7. и 8. век. Тие се делумно или целосно кремирани и не се ниту ромеjски, ниту словенски. Станува збор наjвероjатно, за Кутригурите. Ова протобугарско племе, под водство на Кубер, а како потчинето на аварскиот каган во Панониjа, околу 680 г. се одметнало од Аварите и тргнало кон Солун. Кубер ги повел со себе и Сермесиjаните, (околу 70.000 на броj), во нивната стара татковина. Сермесиjаните биле Ромеи, жители на балканските провинции што Аварите ги заробиле еден век порано и ги населиле во Западна Панониjа, да работат за нив. На Кубер му била доверена управата врз нив. i.e . Mikulchik writes about Bulgar's archeological findings from the late 7th century near Bitola. Best regards! Jingiby (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas Jingiby. I hope you are having a happy and safe Holyday period. Couple of things:
(1) Mikulcic only claims to have found "Cutrigurs" in Debreste. In reality, there is no concensus as to who were buried in debreste - Eg Witold hansel thinks they were Berziti. Whatever the case, the chronology of the levels at debreste are not clear despite over 25 years since initial excavation. It might have been abandoned in the early 7th centruy and then only reoccupied in the 9th. So, how can you then claim that one site (which probably isnt even "Bulgar") represents "a whole Bulgar culture in Macedonia dated to 7th century" ?!
(2) The eminent Rasho Rashev has dated actual Bulgarian-styled assemblages in Macedonia to 9th century [6].
(3) Combined with fact that in 7th and 8th century Macedonia, there is nothing but "late Roman" finds- as per Curta. And even Mikulcic's page states this very same observation
(in fact, that is the case for most of the non-Bulgarian Balkans. Cotinuity of "Roman" tradtision on the dalmatian coast, parts of Macedonia and Albania; and 'emptiness" of the entire Dinaric heartland, from Slovenia to northern macedonia between the late 6th to mid 7th century. The situation is different in Bulgaria, with some clear evidence of any early (ie 7th centruy) presence of Slavs. )
As for Kuver's Bulgar's, let leave it as "Kuver's bulgars' on the Macedonians page, so we dont have to go into unnecessary detail on the composition of his people there; and we can later define further who his people were on the article on him. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, you introduced a lot of text, including an inline cleanup tag. That is a clear marker of a copy&paste from elsewhere in Wikipedia. Where exactly?
In the future, please don't copy&paste that much content around articles without a) edit summaries b) {{copied}} tags on the talk page, because the attribution is lost and you actually make Wikipedia break copyright law. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make a few edit to fix it now? The procedure is described at WP:RIA. Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you improve the genetics section of Iranics? A comparison between ancient Iranians and Modern Iranians. Their relationship to other Indo-European peoples. Specially evidences about their Eastern European origin. Other cleanup and improvements plus adding scholary/academic sources to this article is useful. But genetic section is top priority for editing. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbmac restriction violations
I remind you that you are under arbmac restriction broadly contructed, with the exeption of Prehistric and Roman Balkans. However, as I see you violated this restriction multiple times and started various edit-wars.Alexikoua (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I see your only exception is Paleolithic and Roman period Balkans per User_talk:Slovenski_Volk#WP:AE. You are still prohibited to edit about the rest 'broadly constructed' (including medieval history also).Alexikoua (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have crossed the line, none allowed you to edit in pre-Roman, Classical era Balkans. By the way why you removed a map we had a consensus about it in the past and replaced it with a rejected one?Alexikoua (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the Dardani in the map, but per last discussion we had on this issue your reverts are lacking wp:agf since you ignored a past discussion in talk:Illyrians in which you also had agreed upon.Alexikoua (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a disagreement on the arbmac field, I would suggest to wait for the precise definition of your restriction by an active administrator. In the meantime I'm open for any additional suggestions about the southern Illyrian tribes map.Alexikoua (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that User:The Blade of the Northern Lights is available to discuss your restriction. You may wish to comment in a new thread at User talk:EdJohnston#Restriction of Slovenski Volk. In my opinion your restriction needs to be clarified. The current edit warring at Illyrians is not acceptable, and you've made some nasty comments on talk pages which should not continue. At a minimum you should observe your existing WP:1RR on all ARBMAC articles. I don't know what can be done about the rancor on talk pages. If you can manage some diplomacy it may not be necessary to exclude you totally from all ARBMAC articles, though that is what the log currently says. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you continue to violate your restriction, without, at least, filling an appeal, you left me no choice but to take this to wp:ae.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Antes people may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
This message is being sent to inform you that there is a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
