User talk:StoryCarver

April 2022

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't whether or not you think something consists as POV, you can't delete it. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr Reading Turtle, you are being awfully quick with your "only warning". Way too quick. And please don't answer a false "vandalism" edit summary with another "vandalism" edit summary. StoryCarver, it is time for you to stop this. If you have a problem with a source, feel free to discuss that on one of the article talk pages. If you continue blanking without a proper explanation, your career here might be very short. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess I was kinda biting. I get a bit aggravated when I see constant vandalism. Sorry, @StoryCarver. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. I got inspired to join Wikipedia because I want to present credible information backed by credible sources verified by international experts, but I get disappointed when I see editors using Wikipedia to spread nationalistic sentiment through the presenting of sources that use vulgar terms which are based on the subjective opinion of the author. Thank you for the warm welcome @Mr Reading Turtle @Drmies. StoryCarver (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I started editing I had many problems with the same things you get upset about. However, Wikipedia is not censored. If you honestly believe the things are incorrect, than you can discuss this on the talk page. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I hope as normal people we can discuss things. However what upsets me is when rational people try to reason with irrational people. I respect each editor as long as we don't go into conspiracy theories that are very controversial. Such theories need to not only be sourced but the source should also be accredited by the proper authority. We cant edit in things that are not shared by top university lecturers from the most prestigious universities. There are a lot of books out there, we need to be subjective and filter what is correct and what is unlikely. What is a fact in one place can be dismissed in others. Thank you for responding. ~~~~ StoryCarver (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi StoryCarver! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @Drmies. I tried to contact you through the talk pages but I couldn't because Wikipedia has a rule where an account needs to be a certain amount of time old. That is why I am reaching to you from here, in regards to 4 edits that got undone.

In regards to the Wikipedia pages that have this as sourced. This book is very controversial due to the fact it does not align with the information from other sources that claim other wise. There is a difference between what the author claims and what is factual. There are no international historians that support the theory that is written in this book therefore what is written in this is categorized as a "Claim" which is defined as believing in one's own or other views but not having the evidence to prove it. It uses terms that in history that are not recognized as valid arguments such as the process of assimilation due to the fact this argument is about identity.

In this source terms are used such as "Slavicisation", such nationalistic, racist terms should not be used in regards to the population of these places, as identity is a personal question and not the evaluation of the author of this source. Modern day inner-feelings are a reflection of the past, and I would like people to respect that. If we all started claiming that people of the past were of a different race to what is today than we would have a world that is one dimensional, where one's beliefs are prioritized over historical and modern fact.

Sources that date from a certain period that talk about the same period in history, that are conflicting should be left a side according to Wikipedia's policies until it could be verified by international experts that could engage as a middle man in conflicting views and give unbiased assessments. Therefore conflicting views need to be removed until proven by international experts. StoryCarver (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StoryCarver, you are arguing your point, I think, here as if you were explaining on the relevant talk page, to a larger article, what your case is, and then you go on to revert saying "discuss on talk page". I am sure you don't want to come across in some antagonistic fashion, and yet it is hard to escape the thought that you are trying for a kind of tit for tat. The problem here is that you are not correct. The sources are in there, they have been in there for a while, you have not explained in the proper place what the problem is and you have certainly not gotten consensus for your claims--so you are not justified in reverting. And I must warn you: if you do so again, you may expect one of a variety of counter measures. A block is one of them. A partial block is another. And more disruptive edits in the same area may lead to a topic ban per the discretionary sanctions referenced below. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @Drmies. I am very clear on everything I have said so far. Your talk page is locked it doesn't allow me to open up a new pop up due to me being a new member. As for the edit the problem is the source is not credible. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, based on credible sources that are correct. For example; you cant just go on the Vaccine page and type "Vaccines are dangerous" and add a poor source to back your claim, that is called spreading disinformation. Now I don't need to refer you to anything as i have already said in my previous post. The information with the source is edited 7 days ago and is very deceiving just like the vaccine example. It is just such a shame there is no fact checking on what is true and what is not on Wikipedia, and administrators can choose what they believe and what they don't, exactly like, when this source got edited 7 days ago nobody asked a thing but when somebody fact checks it concludes it to be deceiving and removes it, in that case its vandalism and the administrators are looking for an explanation that they shortly receive then disregard it. I'm not trying to be condescending or antagonistic, I'm purely doing what you told me to and that is discussing, although it seems you already have lined up your position on this debate, therefore I would be wasting my time if I try to rationalize here. With that in consideration I wish you a happy day. StoryCarver (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, you stated "The sources are in there, they have been in there for a while". In fact, the sources were added within the past week. So, if these new sources are being contested, I believe the burden to prove the sources are WP:RS is on the user who added the content this week. --Local hero ^talk 03:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

User:Local hero, I am happy you point that out--it's a pity that the new editor with their bull-china shop way of editing didn't point this out. If you don't mind, and you probably know this material better than me, get something going on the project page? Drmies (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I reverted storycarver [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mirkovci,_North_Macedonia&action=history] on mirkovci. I went through the sources to see what is the problem, but it is not really saying anything that is not found in other sources. The central Balkans are "mixed", that is all the sources says. some of his comments about the author (Iljaz Rexha) do need moderation. Iljaz Rexha is an osmanologist and a living academic with a real academic career. storycarver may disagree with his research in Ottoman archives, but he can not call a pretty normal paper radical. I have to confess that i find it strange that what storycarver considers "radical" is just the observation that in the Balkans different ethnicities have lived side by side for many centuries. Durraz0 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only source that claims such information. An Albanian historian spreading radical claims about some sort of Slavicization of a population that he claims are orthodox Albanians people that have Slavic Christian names on a defter that isn't even shown in the book (doesnt exist) in villages that have Slavic toponyms so he can go ahead and earn money through the already nationalistic population that craves such books. If this is not propaganda I don't know what is. Such a claim needs to be backed by more sources. A lot historians claim a lot of things but that needs to be backed up by the rest of the community. StoryCarver (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StoryCarver, I see you disagree with the authenticity of the cited source and the objectivity of its author. At the same time, you cannot point to another source on the topic, with a different conclusion in support of your thesis. You claim that the information is incorrect as a whole. Thus, you can start a discussion about this issue and mark the relevant sections in the corresponding articles with which you disagree. You may add there a tag for lack of neutrality or a similar one. But you cannot simply remove sourced information from a lot of articles because you do not agree with it. What I see is the author is an Osmanologst, Professor in the University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Philosophy, Orientalistic and History. The publication is in a scientific magazine called Gjurmime albanologjike (Albanological research) - Historical Sciences Series no. 43, Prishtina, 2012 --Jingiby (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can read what I wrote above your comment. If you think it is accurate information then go post your complaint on a WikiProject talk page and get consensus. There are terms that are used in history, but Slavicization, or having Slavic-Albanian names are terms never used by any historian, as there is no way you can define what is a Slavic and what is an Albanian name and certainly you cant determine the identity of the person from such source. This is one source that is poorly written claims to derive from a defter and yet there is none in the book. Wikipedia's guidelines are very clear even information from "experts" needs to be verified, because there is contradictory information that claim otherwise and this is not a conspiracy theory website it is a encyclopedia. The same user Alltin also tried to remove edits regarding Turkish related subjects on these places, he also vandalized the English page with famous Turkish people because he thinks they are Albanian. Its clear what this user promotes and that is a pro-radical extraordinary Albanian sources. If there is one source, then there needs to be more to back it up. Therefore this is the only source here, and is very questionable. StoryCarver (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StoryCarver, I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of several articles several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable. Moreover, your objections to the term Slavicization are completely unfounded. It is widely used in the scientific literature everywhere including for historical processes in today North Macedonia. An example is the fate of the Cumans. Here is an exception from the book "Balkan Worlds: The First and Last Europe: The First and Last Europe" by Traian Stoianovich, an American historian and a professor of history at Rutgers University, and published by Routledge, a British publisher of professional and Academic books in 2015 on p. 133, ISBN 1317476158: In Bulgaria and Macedonia, they were Slavicized or Romanized. Cumanians also played a key role in the forging of Romanian and Vlacho-Bulgarian states. As to the designation Slavic-Albanian name you can read the dissertation of Matthew Cowan Curtis from the Ohio State University called: Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence from 2012. This dissertation seeks to present the facts of linguistic evidence of Slavic-Albanian contact, and apply them to an informed understanding of Slavs' and Albanians' interactions historically. This analysis demonstrates that contact between Slavs and Albanians has brought about many linguistic changes, particularly in dialects that have remained in contact with one another. Even today, there are many Albanians with Slavic-meaning surnames as for example: Pandeli Majko ("mother"), Paskal Milo ("glad"/"nicely"), Said Najdeni (lit. "Said the Found One"), Oni Pustina ("desert"), etc. Also keep in mind that all editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I agree with what you say but that is not the point. The point is you have a source that takes things such as names of people, Christian names out of context that is not very accurate because it is contradicted by other sources that claim otherwise. It (the source) is nationalist material it is used as a basis for nationalism, it takes things out of context just like other Balkan historians with their claims, like to take things out of context in order assert a narrative that something is foreign and that they are native, and that is why there is no peace here, and there are always conflicts, prime example is this defter which is misinterpreted by numerous historians (obviously all Balkan) intentionally or by accident to assert a narrative, and that narrative is absurd such as claiming that Christian names represent Macedonian, Bulgarian, or Albanian names and they do that because the absurdity of nationalism is wide spread, different monarchs even wanna be dictators in the past used nationalism to assert their dominance to the illiterate population in order to put them on the "same foot" because when you control the peoples opinion its much easier to control them overall because you are the one writing their faith through religious, educational, and down right, discriminatory practices of eliminating what they deem as "not fit" for their kingdom, and what monarchs taught their people is something that even today is not eliminated due to Balkan people already being heavily invested in the story that was sold as history by this system.

Even politicians today promote these values because I will repeat its much easier to control a person if they have the same opinion as you, all you have to do is write dodgy books like this and develop a sort of me vs you mentality. Have you ever heard of a Balkan politician talking about the crimes their state did in the past? Obviously not, thats not what the politicians want you to think, they dont want you to be self critical because then you are not emotional. Did you know how the Indians got Bison wool and meat for years, they would "scare" the bison's by making noises from the opposite side of cliff edge and when bison's started running they fell down and died even when one bison saw that it was a cliff edge and wanted to go back the herd of bison's pushed that bison down, and the Indians had wool for days. Its same here power greed and money is asserted through such incorrect books in a growing nationalistic population is heaven for the Indians (politicians, monarchs, authors) those who don't put a stop to this.

Its the same with the Corona Virus, there are more people dying from the common flu then from this virus but dont get distracted. What did I say? The Indians (politicians media doctors who work for the government) are creating noises from the opposite side of the cliff so the bison's ( the people) can jump down and give up an excuse for the state to give up money to the pharma companies. People need to be independent and listen to the doctors who know their job who don't work for the government. I'm not saying we should not take steps in stopping this virus. What I am saying is people need to be rational I recommend you watch this good video that explains everything I said nicely sadly its only in Macedonian language but if you understand it take a look. Here is the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2nUngAOjyk&ab_channel=ZoranVitanov. Here is also another link to the Bison story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZzK_nJ83Ac&ab_channel=ZoranVitanov. Sorry for some off topic discussion but it all inner-connects to what I was firstly talking. @Jingiby StoryCarver (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Jingiby (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post your complaint on a WikiProject talk page and get consensus. StoryCarver (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to continue with your edit war, and indeed expand it. I also see you making comments like "seek consensus on talk page"--which is of course exactly what I told you to do, and what you still haven't done. This editorial stance is very problematic, and it needs to stop. If you persist with that same attitude after this block expires, you will no doubt be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for consensus. There is contradiction when it comes to the source. I have found other sources that are enlisted on Wikipedia that talk about either the same or a different defter from that period, that give different information. I will post you some examples:

Турски извори за българската история, т. VII, София 1986, с. 335 a book published in Sofia you can find this source, on the Macedonian Wikipedia page of the village of Leshok, it talks about the same defter 1467/1468 in this source the names of villages and villagers are specified and some Bulgarian historians, interpret the names in the defter of being evidence for the existence of a Bulgarian Orthodox Community.

Турски документи за историјата на македонскиот народ кн.4, Методија Соколоски, д-р Александар Стојановски, Скопје, 1971, стр.367 a book published in Skopje this is sourced on the Macedonian Wikipedia of the village of Falishe talks about the same defter 1458/1468 in this source the names of villages and villagers are specified and some Macedonian Historians, interpret the he names in the defter of being evidence for the existence of a Macedonian Orthodox Community.

And then you have the source currently listed on English Wikipedia that claims otherwise.

The problem is, the fact that religion village names and some villager names are mentioned in the defter but different historians claim differently about the identity of these people in regards to these names. This is exactly what I said that such sources are contradictory to one another, and you can say "Yeah you gave me a source yeah he is a professor sure it sounds good" but no it doesnt sound good, when there are multiples sources from credible people from different countries, who also study history, that claim otherwise. I hope @Drmies we can finally put this to rest, and I am asking for your help since I am new here and dont know the bureaucratic procedures. Thank you for the block. StoryCarver (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that this is a different interpretation of the same document from different scientists. It is clear that this was a process of long-term coexistence of the Orthodox Christians in the region. Some of them were Slavic-speaking, others Albanian-speaking and there were Vlach-speakers too. Over time, many Vlach and Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians became gradually Slavicized in the mixed Slavic villages on the Balkans. In my opinion, this is the logical conclusion and it should be imposed in the relevant articles in order to avoid nationalist one-sidedness.--Jingiby (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StoryCarver, the village Leshok isn't included in the list of articles you have edited. You should understand that if you want to dispute information about an article, you have to limit the discussion to that article and use sources which discuss its subject. @Jingiby: I agree that's it's best to focus on anthroponymy in itself without the accompanying assumptions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing is that in most villages in Macedonia with exceptions like Galicnik and Reka, the majority of the population moved there in the 17th and 18th centuries from other villages in Macedonia and nearby areas. StoryCarver reverted 4 times at Mirkovci, North Macedonia because he thinks that if the article includes 1467-68 defter information then it implies something about the origin of the modern population of Mirkovci. If he read the ethnography Skopspka Crna Gora by J. Trifunoski (1971), he would see that only a few families of Mirkovci come from the old population. The majority of existing families in Mirkovci come from 1)villages of Kaçanik 2)Blace, Čučer-Sandevo 3)other villages of Skopska Crna Gora - all in the same microregion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example in Bulgaria are dozens of villages founded during the Ottoman rule by Albanian Orthodox refugees. All of them were fully Slavicized before the beginning of the 19th century. Jingiby (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense because then we would presume that every person in the Balkans is not who he is and that he derives from somewhere else, it also doesn't explain how relevant ethnicities especially where I live to this day are respected and represented (through state funded minority language books in schools, state funded cultural events for minorities, benefits when enrolling in university special larger margins of acceptance for minorities, representation in State Assembly, Registration of political parties based on minority national rights such as Vlach Turkish Albanian Romani Serbian and Bulgarian parties, even higher employment margins in State Jobs how ridiculous that sound). So therefore if a process of Slavicization took place then today we wouldn't have a multi-cultural country but a mono-cultural country according to your logic. So your argument is very shaky and broad as well as leaving room for people to continue to dispute the identity of others through promoting such non-sense as Wikipedia approved (how this site has gone downhill). Bulgaria's constitution and how it treats minorities is a lot different then Macedonia's, considering the numerous human rights violations the Bulgarian state has been charged with, so that is no excuse to be used against a territory now state that I repeat since Ottoman times (assimilation didn't exist the state didn't Turkify the population, except Islamisation) till the beginning first years of the 20th century then starting again from 1948 till today has respected the rights of others and we can testify based on how multi cultural the country is, so you cant use assimilation as something that has occurred since Macedonia is the only country that has given rights to preserve identity of minorities like no other Balkan state.

Or maybe it is a process of recently published books that take a defter out of context by adding citations based on the beliefs of the writers about the non-stated identity (in the defter) of the people, and maybe "your opinion" is the only opinion that matters, considering you obviously have connection's, as well as reverting edits of multiple users on Macedonian related Wikipedia because they don't align with your beliefs (including mine about wine production because according to you the state agencies website information about wine production in Negotino is "unreliable", the audacity), you also never had any altercation with an "administrator" for those reverted edits, so I will save myself the mental health I have left arguing with "editors" and just assume Balkan Articles are doomed. Good bye, I'm not planning of sticking around in this circus show. @Jingiby ~~@Drmies~~ StoryCarver (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]