User talk:Jingiby

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Jingiby's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

custom_header

Archives: 1: 7 days

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to the articles of Jakob Notaras and Fall of Constantinople. The IP in question has perform the same vandalism in the same articles on Swedish language wikipedia as well, where they have explained themselwes more. They appear to consider all references - regardless if they are academic or not - as non valid if they provide information that gives a negative picture of sultan Mehmet II or the Ottomans. This is an IP that really should be blocked for vandalism - on Sw Wiki they engage in edit warring of an even more aggressive sort. I was worried, because I don't have time for a drawn out conflict with a vandal user (I have a work assignment in real life), so I am relieved to see someone else noticing! I have no doubt they will continue until they are blocked.Aciram (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin on svwp, and was highlighted this issue there by @Aciram. I am not a historian, but often writes about history. When I started to look into this this evening I tried to see the list of researchers that the IP gave (on svwp) I wanted to see how your articles are. And here I see the same thing. Two different IP doing the same thing (I guess he uses his mobile and at least 2 computers because we have a third IP on svwp). You are reverting it, as we did, but here you see one not reverted. I do not want to interfere too much on enwp. However, I wonder how you see on this: Should it be mentioned something it the article about the modern researchers that doubt, or are they just a perifier gorup that seems to help Turkish propaganda to white wash how they treated non-muslims by then? Please, ping me if you answer. Best regards Adville (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Aciram and Aciram. I think the last IP-addition was correct and that's why it wasn't removed. After all, Wikipedia is not censored and there is room for different opinions, but according to their importance. --Jingiby (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to letting that last phrase remain, Adville and Jingiby, if you refer to the Notaras article. While I think it is unecessary, it does no real harm and the original content of the article is not touched in its current state, though it took a long time to get there. The current state of the article is a good compromise, I think.

I should add, just for for clarification to Jingiby: I did not noticy Adville to come here, I simply mentioned that the user in question was performing the same edits on enwp as on svwp, when the user was questioned on svwp. (Adville and Aciram is not the same person, Jingiby, but I think you may simply have used my name twice because of the similarity). Thank you both!--Aciram (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, really I mixed Adville and Aciram. Jingiby (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I will see how we do in svwp. No, I was not called here. I knew they were here too, but I wanted to reade your article about it to see. Then I saw how you had reverted it too. I use to check enwp. Br Adville (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Hello, The wiki page for the Kuci tribe is entirely based on Albanian historiography and much of it is biased or simply incorrect. I am from the Kuci tribe and I have had access to family trees which are not available to the public and I know that much of what is on that page is incorrect. It uses sources out of context and incorrectly states that the tribe is of definite Albanian origin which is simply not true. It also states that the Kuci were Catholic then later converting to Orthodoxy which again is wildly incorrect as there is evidence showing that the Kuci were Orthodox long before missionary work and albanisation. If I did not correctly follow guidelines that is my fault, but all information I added was accurate and anything I removed was either incorrect or taken out of context which I fixed. Thank you.Hachibarachi (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hachibarachi, if you are from the Kuci tribe you are in conflict of interests an must stop editing this article. Jingiby (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]