User talk:PavelStaykov

PavelStaykov, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PavelStaykov! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attila

Sorry, but it's obvious your Original Research on the origin of Atilla the Hun. You're trying to connect Atilla with Bulgars and Dulo clan, yet there is no historical record to prove it. You cite dubious and unreliable historians assumptions, and literally read and consider as evidence the tradition held by many tribes, not just Bulgars, but also Magyars, Avars etc., of their "prestiguous" descending from Atilla. It has more to do with legends than actual reality. If you cannot find any reliable source for those statements, I will have to put those claims into right context.--Crovata (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to make this clear - this is not an attempt to claim "prestigious" descending from Atilla. I am from Bulgaria (I am a PhD physics student in USA) but I try to stay neutral about the topic, I simply want people to know the truth. Actually there is nothing "prestigious" to descend from these people ( Huns) - they were nomads and marauders. Attila was a sycophantic killer. In fact, such a descending is not prestigious, it is shameful. But we can't pretend that this connection didn't exist, though some people in my country try to do this - for example, Iranian Theory about Bulgars origin was invented just to obfuscate the connection with the Huns (this is my personal opinion). Now back to the story. Indeed, there are no historical records to connect Atilla with Dulo clan. Except one - The Nominalia of Bulgarian Khans - it is a recognized historical document, it is not a legend, as you put it. The point here is if Irnik, the second name from the Nominalia, is the same person with Ernac, the third son of Attila. You really should read Runciman (Appendix III) about this. Steven Runsiman (or Sir James Cochran Stevenson Runciman) was a distinguished British historian known for his expertise on the Middle Ages (as Wikipedia describes him). He wouldn't make "dubious and unreliable historians assumptions" as you put it. Also there are many other professional historians who agree with Runciman. I would say that the majority of them agree with him. Some don't though. As Bulgarian historian Zlatarski, who says that we don't have a document that explicitly states that Atilla was Dulo. But we do have a document that explicitly states that his son was Dulo. If I have x+6=10, I don't need someone to tell me that x=4. It is obvious. The argument of Zlatarski would only be conclusive if we were definitely informed that Attila did not belong to the house of Dulo.

First, here on Wikipedia it does not matter who and what you are as far the edits are not lacking neutrality. Second, that document's worth is the same as Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja or Pacta conventa, it can't be literally read and be taken for granted. Third, on Wikipedia is not supported original research (obvious or not, it is still not 4!), every citation needs to be verified in reliable sources. Fourth, learn how to properly cite references. And fifth, you can't literally cite what certain scholar concluded about certain topic, especially Zlatarski whose 19th-20th century ideas could be outdated and not supported by other modern historians. That source cannot be taken for granted. The information have to be put into context "some scholars identified xxx name with Attila" etc. It lacks neutrality.--Crovata (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you can't grasp the point. I will delete the article, when I started it was 3-4 sentences. Write it yourself.

Every article on Wikipedia is none's property, but it's great to see that someone was interested and wrote additional information in the article about the Dulo clan. Really, You don't need to leave, just first understand how Wikipedia works. Please don't misunderstand other editors and follow my points above. Cheers :)--Crovata (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I studied your comparision : Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, Pacta conventa vs Bulgarian Nominalia and I don't think it is an appropriate comparison. Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja and Pacta conventa ( never heard of them before) are unanimously viewed as unreliable sources. The problem with the Nominalia is different - it is not deciphered entirely yet. Anyway, I added the word probably on the article :

    ...from whom Attila probably descended.

this way the reader is informed that this is not known for sure.

March 2015

Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dulo clan with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a mistake. I wrote this article 2-3 months. Now some idiots want to change it. I want to delete it, as it was before that - it was 2-3 centences at most. How can I do this? I wont allow my article to be used here any more !

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dulo clan with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this not a good reason - I don't want my article here any more. When I started it several months ago, it was 5-6 sentences. I want to revert it as it was and to leave Wikipedia. How can I do this ?

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Dulo clan with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use my article without my consent. I don't want it on Wikipedia anymore. I will ask administrators how to delete it.

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Dulo clan. TheMesquito^buzz 23:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

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.

Dulo clan

added links pointing to Bulgarian, Thompson, Theophylact and Vernadsky

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dulo clan

Your recent suspicious edits require discussion as you are making a mess because of your lack of knowledge and personal POV about the Bulgars, which by the way is wrong or simply unsubstantiated. I advise you to better concentrate and find reliable reference for multiple "citation needed" for the "Hunnic theory" section. Currently am viewing to edit the "Indo-European theories" section.--Crovata (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story of Bulgarian martenitsa and those children needs reliable source, without it looks like an original research and as such can't be written on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

legends don't have reliable sources. Sometimes even the Truth doesn't have. Instead of blindly following the Wiki rules, you can try to really find the origins of the Bulgars (and Dulo). You are prejudiced that they were Turks, which is probably wrong - genetic tests deny this. The fact that the Bulgar language resembled proto-turkish does'n mean it was turkish. For sure it had Iranian, Turkish and Tocharian elements in it. Which makes the matter complicated. For me things are obvious : Bulgars = Huns = Yuezhi. It is simple. The Truth is always simple. Like it or lump it.

As regard to your replies to the discussion at the Bulgar talk page, must say there's a strong interference of your personal POV and attitude about the Bulgars based upon diverse and personal views which actually tend to be quite wrong and misleading. You do not have neutral attitude and criticism while editing Wikipedia, and as such even would dare to say while reading sources. Don't get me wrong, I am only saying this because you added many sources and you could be a good editor if you would have learned how to properly cite sources (WP:CS, for example how to Cite book and Cite web), identifying reliable sources, and most importantly learn neutral point of view principles. You obviously don't know what we mean with "reliable sources" on Wikipedia, and we must follow the rules, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not personal notebook.

I am well aware of the Turkic History website, and although it has many reliable sources, they tend to be pro-Turkic and as such losing in credibility. There many theories about the Bulgars etymology, only because "Balkh valley, hence Balkhar ~ Bulgar" is basically written there does not mean it is right and reliable. There's no original author noted as such it cannot be taken into consideration for Wikipedia. You obviously don't understand that "genetics of Bulgarians" is not "genetics of Bulgars", and the genetic studies only proved that Bulgarians have nothing to do with the Bulgars warrior ruling caste which obviously by names and language (at least by culture) were Turks.

However, to not prolong this reply, when will finish to edit the "Indo-European theories" section, will edit the whole Dulo clan article (mostly check and verify cited sources), and in the mean time do not substantially edit the Dulo clan article, and consider my advice about the multiple "citation needed" for the "Hunnic theory" section. Be constructive. Afterwards will take into consideration your notes about Bulgars and will work on that article. It will take time so please be patient. In the meantime if you have any questions, or will to discuss your viewpoints on Bulgars, you can reply here.--Crovata (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disruptively behave, remove or edit material and sources on Wikipedia, as you did to Dulo clan with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop and reconsider what you're doing.--Crovata (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Dulo clan. I don't have time to multiple times explain you something you simply don't want to understand, to discuss, and you show obvious ignorance and support of breaking of common and Wikipedian principles. Wikipedia articles are not your property.--Crovata (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you vandilize the article not me. Don't remove information any more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disruptively behave, remove or edit unsourced material with suspicious reason on Wikipedia, as you did again recently to Dulo clan with already being warned, you may be blocked from editing.--Crovata (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at Dulo clan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Crovata (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're nor discussing nor showing any interest what you're warned about.--Crovata (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgars discussion

I care about the Truth, to which you pay little attention.

Truth : 40% Bulgarians (R1a+R1b haplogroups) = Bulgars = Huns = Yuezhi

Prove me that the Bulgars were Turks and I will accept it. This linguistic analyses costs little : only 3 hunnic words have survived and they resemble slavic words. It is solely based on discussing personal names which is stupid. According such point of view if someone study today's history after 2000 years he/she should conclude that Turks and Arabs are the same people because they have similar names and common God. This theory cannot explain many things as:

1. genetic research 2. tocharian words in modern Bulgarian language 3. artificial cranial deformation 4. how is it possible "small group" of people to dominate for centuries over a "slavic sea" of people - this is against the common sense. If they were small ruling elite how they withstand all these wars with the Romans? Careful study of the history shows that the relations between Slavs and Bulgars were not of the kind that communist Russians "scholars" foisted for decades.

Already wrote about this at the Talk:First Bulgarian Empire#Number of slavs vs Number of Bulgars discussion. According genetic studies male Bulgarians belong 17% to R1a and 11% to R1b haplogroups (which is 28%). When speaking of truth, there is no evidence that Bulgars and Huns belonged to the R1a (especially not European German-Celtic R1b), actually, your personal line is loose as the Yuezhi (they were Indo-European people whose male population according one grave study belonged to R1a) were defeated by Xiongnu (which proven belonged to East Asian haplogroups), and the same Xiongu are still considered as the progenitors of the Huns, while Huns are somehow related to the Bulgars. The Bulgars ethnonym, language and culture (for example rulers names, military titles name etc.) was obviously Turkic. That's a fact.

There is no doubt that there fragments of influence from Iranian language of the previous Sarmatians inhabiting the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but the influence is overestimated to consider Bulgars Sarmatized. This "small ruling elites" withstand the wars because their Empire or Khaganate was made of heterogenous conglomerate of European tribes. Just take the example of the Huns or Eurasian Avars, they were Turk-Mongol nomadic tribes ie. warrior elite which did not left (besides few cultural remnants) any significant genetic, even archaeological trace. The artificial cranial deformation in Europe was almost exclusively Hunic traditional influence, and the investigations shown both Caucasoid and Mongoloid component, obviously the latter being tradition's carriers. The Tocharians words (which one?) in Bulgarian language are most probably related to the fate of their related people Yuezhi which were defeated by the Xiongnu and Turks. Your probability is not backed by any relevant scholars and studies, there's almost none source to substantiate your personal claims, or those source authority is deficient. With what you substantiate your claims?--Crovata (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you (and many as you) are repeating common misbelieves as parrots. And Mongols didn't practice artificial cranial deformation.

Your most recent edits were again disruptive and when checked those sources they falsely substantiate those claims. If you know everything than answer with what sources you substantiate your personal claims? There's a significant difference between terms Mongoloid and Mongols. And please sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end of your post, or simply click the writing pen.--Crovata (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of RevolutionBG

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on RevolutionBG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015 (Dulo clan)

Pavel, the information you constantly bring in the article of Dulo clan is irrelevant (relevant for Bulgars), and half of it is original research or just unreliable and outdated scholars POV. Not to mention how the citing is horrible. As the information and sections are irrelevant for it, understand they just make it a mess for the readers. It must be removed, don't bring it back, and now I will see what can be done with Dulo clan article and work on it. Don't edit the article as your edits are not constructive (and you're not aware they're harmful).--Crovata (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015 (Vandalism)

Your recent unconstructive and harmful edits (the removal of sourced information and revert to previous revision with your OR of the Dulo clan article 1, and the same discussed text wall copy-pasted on the Huns talk page) will not help anyhow to constructively build Wikipedia. Please refrain from such activity, otherwise you will be reported to the admins noticeboard and could be blocked. I am currently working on the Bulgars article, be patient and constructively discuss.--Crovata (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel, please stop vandalizing the Dulo clan article, you can be blocked for such harmful behaviour.--Crovata (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is your opinion, I have summarized the article, the Turkic theory is presented, new information is added from the Bulgaran state funded expedition to Central Asia. Some information is removed because it is nor relevant (dog as its sacred animal) even if it was true.

Since we don't agree on many points, I would suggest to write the article together via Skype talk, possibly including third person as a refer.

You are contradicting yourself and admitted to violate Wikipedia principles. This is my last warning, if you revert and remove reliable sourced information, and add unreliable and fringe theories which are unrelated to the article, you make me to report you. Please don't.--Crovata (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that your version of the article is better? I have included some parts of your version. The so called reliable sources are parrot books, modern world is full of them. What is sure is back to Old Great Bulgaria only - we have to delete everything else, including Hunnic and Turkic theories. And fringe theories can be included in Wikipedia if they are good. They need time. This theory explains 3 unsolved questions without contradicting any available experimental data:

1. The origins of the Huns 2. The origin of the Bulgars 3. The Tocharian question

It kills with one stone not 2 but even 3 birds.

And stop threatening me that you will report me. I am SOOOOO frightened.

Hi! Please, stop using only biased sources, propagating fringe views and inserting repeatedly nationalist agenda, claiming close ties between modern Bulgarians and extinct Bulgars. That all is simply marginal claim. Regards. 46.16.193.70 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Bulgarians descend mainly from three tribal groups: 1.the indigenous late Roman provincial peoples 2.the Early Slavs Seven Slavic Tribes 3.the Bulgars

How exactly they become extinct? Do you have any prove? Maybe they took journey to Brazil? Also there are many people in Macedonia, Serbia, Moldova Ukraine and Russia who consider themselves Bulgarians and descendants of Bulgars. Of course they mixed with the local population, but they do not consider themselves Serbians, or Russians or Slavs. Ask yourself why?

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your constant, and recent disruptive edits on the Dulo clan article. The thread is Editor with continuous unconstructive behaviour. Thank you. (Sorry) --Crovata (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Crovata (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Dulo clan. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June - the same unconstructive edits

Not just you continued to attack the Dulo clan article, but now also on June 8 the Bulgars article (1, 2). Please stop vandalizing articles, removing sourced scholars consideration, and adding personal WP:OR.--Crovata (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: both articles on 9, 10 and 11 June were again unconstructively edited the same way. He is constantly calling academic consideratinons, generally and mostly considered by the scholars, some "Turkic agenda" due to personal delusional POV, and adding unreliable or outdated sources and his own OR to the articles, and the appearance of text in his edits is also not good.--Crovata (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for renewed edit-warring at Dulo clan after expiration of last block for the same behavior. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why you have blocked only me? Crovata is equally guilty. He was constantly removing my edits, insisting that only his point of view be presented on Wikipedia. He accused me of this, but the truth is that it is him who is trying to foist his POV on readers. He thinks that Bulgars and Dulo clan were Turks, such theory exists, but the problem is still not resolved among scholars. Despite knowing this, he was constantly removing my edits, saying that renowned sinologists and turkologists as Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank are unrelyable sources. Also, when I pointed out to him that his conclusion (in Dulo clan article) "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" is a deception, he didn't pay any attention and continued to revert to his version of the article. I studied the 4 cited books very carefully and nowhere on the cited pages there is such a conlusion. Crovata is much more experienced editor than me, I don't know what his behavior is qualified according to Wikipedia rules, but in everyday speech, and from point of view of common sence, this is called a deliberate lie. Also, in "Bulgars" article - he states :

        "The origin of the early Bulgars is still unclear"   
        "Very little is known about the religion of the Bulgars"
        "The origin and the language of the Bulgars has been the subject of debate since around the start of the 20th century"

and despite of this, he states in the very first sentence "The Bulgars were a semi-nomadic warrior tribes of "Turkic extraction". Because he knows very well that readers are reading only article's intro as a rule, and they only skip trough the rest of any article. Using euphemistic phrases as "Turkic extraction" does not make a lie to be a truth. If you want to be consistent, you have to punish Crovata equally as me. Also, his friends (if they are real people) helped him to revert Dulo clan - all IP's 46.16.193.70 ; 149.62.243.254 ; 149.62.243.251 ; 78.159.147.70 ; 149.62.243.250 are from Sofia, Bulgaria. This is not a coincidance for sure. Is such a behaviour allowed on Wikipedia?

As first, relating my name to unknown IPs from Bulgaria where don't have any relative or friend is no good. As second, you simply deny and intentionally don't want to understand and accept what academic scholars consider and in general is considered about the Bulgars (which explains your choice of those three sentences without context). The fringe theories and those held by very minority must not be over emphasized according WP:NPOV, or simply not included. There's none my personal OR or POV (in comparison to you) besides citing what generally reliable academic scholars consider. That's the issue, you have a problem with general scholarship. I don't think that Bulgars and Dulo clan were exclusively Turks (my POV as such is inessential, and the same such as the article is about - cites of reliable and prominent scholars), but their culture and language was Turkic, and there lies the actual issue - ideological aversion for the term "Turks". What 4 cited books?--Crovata (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croata, I don't want to argue with you any more. We have been through this for 2 months. I prefer someone who is not of Bulgarian or Turkic origin to be arbitrator for these articles. The difference between me and you is that I don't mind you to present your information, but you do not accept someone else to write or add information on these articles. I don't have aversion for the term "Turks", but you simply do not understand that Turks and Nomads are different things. I don't know why - you seem to be smart guy, but for some reason you are prejudice on this. In Central Asia there were living differnt nomadic people and not all of them were Turks - there were Avars, Heptalites and so on. The language is not enough to judge about their origin - by this reasoning if someone study 13-14 AD England after 20 centuries, he would conclude that they were French. In all my revertings of the articles, I have preserved all your information, but you were deleting my information completely. Why? I have removed only 1 centence - the last one in the section Origin in Dulo clan article because it is going too far. In the cited 4 books there is no such conclusion - read it again and check your sources.

Indeed, discussing with you is like talking to a wall. If you prefer someone who is not of Bulgarian or Turkic origin than stop editing yourself, and accusing someone for foreign origin isn't helping your case. Preserved? Just whose acting smart... Who called them junk and removed multiple time? Please, stay away from editing about anthropology and history as you cannot edit without to fall into personal illusions, and see the difference between original research and Wikipedia NPOV principles.--Crovata (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your information only once by mistake. You can check this. If you don't remove this sentence I will report you. It is completely your wishful thinking and you are using double standarts - my citing Zuev and Pulleyblank is POV, but your own conclusions are not.

Fakery of some conscience, that all your edits and considerations since March were a mere "mistake", without double standard, and still calling academic and generally accepted considerations as "wishful thinking" (there's none my personal conclusion in the articles - false accusation), while very minor considerations as "facts", is not helping at all your case. Report would be useless. Your persistence is tiresome, and unconstructive for Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and on which page, which line exactly have you read the conclusion "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" ? Which book ? And how it helps Wikipedia to obfuscate the truth with phrases like "Turkic extraction" instead of saying that they were the tribes Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs?

With this reply you just confirmed your ignorance of modern scholarship. You did not even read the Bulgars article. Bulgars, Onogurs, Utigurs, Kutrigurs and so on were all different tribes, often separate, and often together in tribal confederation. If you have nothing constructive to ask, then don't, you really waste my time. And stop to add Zuev cite to the Bulgars article as it has nothing to do with the Bulgars. That belongs to the Utigurs article.--Crovata (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Utigurs were probably Brazilians? And since you know these things why you don't explain them in the article intro ? Just for your information such tribe as Bulgars didn't exist, it was a collective name.

Dispute resolution

Sorry, the dispute resolution is late as experience technical problems and was unable to post such a long dispute this days. Do not revert to your edit, it is not constructive, and neither your edit (removal of sourced info and ignorance of scholarly research, introducing personal views (WP:OR) or WP:FRINGE views in Wikipedia and their false emphasize as something generally accepted, which are not and against WP:NPOV). Please be patient, in this two upcoming days will post the dispute at the relevant noticeboard.--Crovata (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for renewal of same edit-warring at Dulo clan. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bulgars 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

At Bulgars and Bulgar language, please give your argument on the talk page. Your edits may be appropriate. However, given that we do not know that Bulgar and Hunnic were the same language, any argument that simply assumes they are the same is dubious. Take it to talk per WP:BOLD. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the information on the talk pages. If you are interested in this, I can explain you who were Huns/Bulgars and Avars. But I don't wont to get involved in endless discussions.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an unblock

If you are requesting an unblock, you must do so after signing in to this account. --Yamla (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

MarkSewath (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]