User talk:Jingiby

Aromanians

You support your opinion about Balkan people on a Sultan's firman? Is sultan ethnologist or sociologist?

If we accept (I say "if") sultan's firman as a sociology study(!), we should mention the following:

Vlachs are the today Romanians.

Aromanians is a different tribe far away from the Romanian lands, with a different ethnic backround, different origin and different customs. The only connection with the Vlachs (today's Romanians) is that their languages come from Latin (separated from latin laguage in different centuries and with individual differencies). In 1905 Romanian Foreign Policy and Propaganda tried to usurp Aromanians in order to extend their influence in Southern Balkans. After 2 decades of propaganda, money spended and pressoures to the Ottoman government (supported also by Austrungaria) for that scope, Ottoman Administration recognized the Aromanians, not as an individual nation, but as part of the Great Vlach (Romanian) nation and allowed them to have the Romanian school and church system.

So, this firman, is just a proof that Aromanians are connected with the Greeks, since Ottomans tried unsuccessfully, to put them under Romanian control, during the Macedonian struggle. Additionally I would like to mention that Aromanians declare to be Greeks in 99% percentage for the last two centuries (that we have data). And another thing: from the 18th century Aromanians used to consist Greco-Roman Associations in central Europe as immigrants, because the believed in common nationality.

According to the above, I correct the article. User:Pyraechmes Chrusts

Mixture

Of course there were. The Romans practiced a lot of measure re-settlement. Actually Sarmatians were settled in Macedonia also, some of those "300, 000) (not doubt exaggerated figure by the Romans) Limigantes redistrubuted throughtout Moesia Inferior, Dacia Ripensis and Macedonia; there were also "Goths", possibly Cumans (-> Cumanovo), and even a group of Magyars ! There were Kuvars people also. Don't think there were any Pechenges, they all went to NE Bulgaria and around Belgrade. (see Curta). Unfortunately , there were no Celts. They raided, but not settled in Macedonia. They settled around Belgrade (Scrodisci) and Bulgaria (Tylis, etc) Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

For now, I have amended it slightly to what we have references for. If you can find references for Kumans that would be great ! I couldnt find it in Curta's paper. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Historical dictionary of Republic of Macedonia mentiones Pechenegs' as Turkic settlers in Byzantine Macedonia, together with Kumans and Vardariots during 11-12th century. However, Curta wrote: It has been noted that the earliest Pecheneg raids into the Balkans shifted from west (1027) to east (1036), in order to spare provinces that had been attacked in previous years. The reason for this shift in raiding appears to be that the regions of western Bulgaria, Serbia, and Macedonia were less fortifed. Jingiby (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi I replied on my TP Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the Pechenegs - yes they raided Macedonia, but they were not settled there. Only around Belgrade and NE Bulgaria. Raiding is different from settlement. The aim of raiding is raping and pillaging. Settlement was only ever done with Roman permission - federates or defeated, pacified and Christianized/ Romanizsed enemies - eg Getae, Sarmatians, Carpi, etc were all defeated groups, not groups which forced their way in. Becuase a raiding group can go all the way to Greece, camp the winter there, but ultimately can never settle becuase the Romans would always eventually 'catch up with them'. Even with the Slavs/ Avars, the emerging evidence suggests that, yes they raided, but did not settle till later. it appears that the Byzantines tactically withdrew much of the population of the Balkans further south. Then the Slavs settled (? were allowed to settle) by Phocas or Heraclius. The problem is the sources are silent on this matter, becuase the Byzantine historians of the 8th/ 9th century disliked those Emperors. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macedonians (ethnic group), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Byzantines (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) 08:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rv. Not an improvement.

By improvement it hasn't meant only rewording, but also putting stats, references and general description. Do you understand now what I've meant? Don't go into verbal war with me. Have a nice day. AirWolf (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have written this in affect. Thought you've meant my edits. Bye.

Don't worry. However my edits didn'n change nothing you have edited. Jingiby (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Adrianople Vilayet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Turks

Salonica Vilayet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Turks

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mara Buneva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Museum of the Macedonian Struggle (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) 08:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Amend Edit

Hi and happy new year. Because I do not want to revert you, I bring forth attention to your latest edit to the 'Identities' par: "These Slavs did not have sufficient state-building skills, they failed to unite them and in the 8th century they were reconquered by the Byzantines.[88] On the other hand, recent prestigious publications by Florin Curta describe the great Slavic invasion of the 6th and 7th century on the Balkans and particularly in Macedonia as an 19th-century historical invention.[89] Thus, the construction of the first South Slavic states was organized by a subsequent invaders, called Croats, Serbs and Bulgars and the local (Slavic) poulation in today Republic of Macedonia was conquered by the Bulgars in the middle of the 9th century.[9'

• Curta does not state that the Slavic invasion was invented, but it happened later (ie 7th century, not 5th or 6th). He rather states there was no migration from 'mother Russia' to the Danube. That is where your Daminopoulos """"scholar"" (sorry, Im choking from laughter) misunderstood . BTW you should generally avoid using a second ""scholar"' to interpret the work of an original modern source. That's just poor editing, especially when its decidedly wrong. There definitely was a migration of some sort into the Balkans from Romania, at some time between 600 and 700, the details of which are still being clarified.
• But Curta (and others) say that there was no separate migrations of "Serbs" and "Croat" migration which was actually a 'politogenesis' in the 9th century. The Bulgar invasion obviously did occur- as plenty of contemporary sources noticed it.
• The Macedonian area was not conquered by the Byzantines "Stauriakos campaigns had no effect on the Sklaviniae in northern Greece"[1], but were Byzantine 'clients' , yet independent. They later joined Bulgaria. There is no evidence of a Bulgarian invasion into northern Macedonia (apart from some raids into the far eastern aspect - around Struma and Thessaloniki) - as per the cited reference by Fine in the 'origins' section.
• "These Slavs did not have sufficient state-building skills" That's just stupid. Croats, Serbs, Poles , are all Slavs and they all formed "states"

So i suggest you remove the entire addition- as it is full of factual errors and non-relevant topics. Noone claimed that there was a "state' in 8th century ?!

Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the sources. All are academic tertiarry sources and they support every word written there. Also other users comments on talk are interesting as for example: I am more than inclined here to agree with user Jingiby. On a different, user Slovenski Volk has repeatedly used unacceptable language that is ad hominem. I suggest we drop the matter. Also keep in mind you that you are under ARBMAC restrictions. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)