User talk:Stevan22

October 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bulgarians, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Caution for unsourced and unexplained changes. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 01:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback Bulgarians

Hello, Stevan22. You have new messages at Talk:Bulgarians#Bulgarian ethnogenetics misconception.
Message added 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TishoYanchev (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgarian ethnogenesis description". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 December 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Bulgarian ethnogenesis description, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TishoYanchev topic ban proposal. !dave 09:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romani people

Please, stop your disruptive behavior and biased statements and start discussing your highly controversial changes.

The statement "Some 736,981 (10% of the population) did not declare any ethnicity." is biased. You're trying to insinuate that these 10% undeclared are actually from the Roma minority, which is biased statement. The same 10% are used by few other minorities pushing the same theory.
You've added that the Roma minority in Bulgaria is 10.33%, based on the estimates and you're removing the 4.4% figure from the official census in 2011. On what are based those 10.33%? In the document you provide as a source they are 9.94% (Average estimate as a % of total population based on World Bank population from 2010). You can't remove official census result and add some average estimate. You can add the estimated percentage clearly explaining that this is not official, but an estimate by some organization.
"There was not any option for a person to declare multiple ethnicities." That's not true, there was a separate field, for "other" where people can declare as they feed. There are people that declared them selvs as "Bulgarian-Russian" for example, having one parent Bulgarian and another Russian.
Regarding the "gross manipulation", it's not clear who is the author of that. Even if it's authored by the National statistical institute, it is applicable when you have a summary of the results and the idea is when you quote the results for the ethnic groups, to quote as well all the other numbers up to 100%. In this case we have information only for one minority and those numbers are pushing the reader to completely different direction, thinking that these 10% undeclared are actually from the Roma minority. --StanProg (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 - Regarding your third remark - this is disputable, do not hesitate to remove this if you feel you are correct. There was one field only. Even if somebody writes Bulgarian-Russian this would end up a single other ethncity than Russian-Bulgarian. Indeed there WAS an option to declare multiple ethnicities if you are asked for one, but the statisticians did not have the practice to summarize multiple ethnicities. The Hungarian census had such divisions and, although ethnic minorities int constituted less than 5%, the people declaring multiple ethnicities constituted more.

The rest of your three assumptions do not make sense to me.

1- Regarding the first remark - I can't find any clue for this bizzare allegation. It is a note of essential importance regarding a gross m..
2- Regarding the second remark - I am not even removing the census figure, although it is already clear what it is. The NSI revoked the validity of that figure, not me. So, I provided an official estimate of a governing body(Bulgaria is part of the EU), where it says 10.33% in two publcations - 1st:2nd:[1], 2nd:[2](page 15). Although I don't understand why I can't remove the census figure I am not removing it, despite the census figure(5,664,624) is removed from the article Bulgarians.
4- Regarding the fourth remark - I am not questioning the NSI as authors. There is no implication by NSI how much of the undeclared are Roma. We have also higher estimates of Bulgarians(6 m.) and Turks(800k), not only Roma, check.

And I also found a bit of users biased, although I am from Bulgaria, I am not Romani and I am not mixed with any tiniest Romani ancestry. I exposed the 2011 census also in Talk:Bulgaria, but as for the infobox everybody acted as unable to understand. For example, in the Hungarian census Roma are 3%, in the infobox of Hungary they are only 8.8% and no user questions it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary For example the Hungarian Statistical Office(www.ksu.hu) in a report, they say:"In the latest census 316.000 persons declared themselves as Roma and according to the recent survey approximately 876.000 Roma people lived in Hungary in 2010-2013"[3] The Bulgarian Statistical Office revoked the validity of the ethnicity results of their census. I don't understand what is controversial in this, but I left this census figure throughout the articles, but it must have notes next to it anywhere. However, I wonder, is there any merit to spread(and imply they are informative) these census figures since they are a gross manipulation? Stevan22 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers

Do you happen to have the page numbers for two of the sources, 37 and 38, you added? The article is under FAC and book information needs to be standardised. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I noticed you had added URLs so I found the page numbers there. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've found them out. Stevan22 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]