Ivanicov

Welcome

Hello Ivanicov, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Learn the basics by reading the introduction and taking the tutorial.
• Remember to sign messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically insert your username and the date.
• Enjoy editing to improve articles, but try to leave an edit summary to explain what you are doing.
• Create your first article using the Article Wizard to help avoid common mistakes, which may lead to article deletion.
• Although you don't need to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, try to keep to the core principles and basic guidelines.
• When dealing with fellow Wikipedians, please remain polite, solve problems calmly, and remember that no-one is out to get you.
• Get involved with the community by joining a WikiProject.
• Make any test edits in the sandbox or click here and create a sandbox of your own.
• If you are having difficulty, consider finding a mentor to give you more personal advice.
• If in doubt, be bold. If you make a mistake, it can easily be reverted.

If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Wikipedia:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Haytov

Hello, please make yourself familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR before engaging in any revert wars. You can't just include slanderous claims in an article about someone and let it go. Any bold claims like these *must* be supported by a wide variety of extremely authoritative sources.

I bothered to check the references in the Bulgarian version of the article which you referred to. None of these were reliable enough and what's more, they appear to be mostly the POV of the same people who actually produce these claims.

1. Footnote 1 is a primary source, it is the claim by Tomova that her work was plagiarized. It is thus not a good reference by itself, per WP:NOR.
2. Footnote 2 is a blog, which makes it unreliable right away.
3. Footnotes 3 and 4 are interviews in an "online newspaper" which spread these claims. This makes them both primary sources and not reliable enough for such bold statements.

Unless you can provide some other, much better (and preferably secondary) sources, kindly remove the plagiarism claims. They do not belong to the lead anyway. Todor→Bozhinov 10:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the last thing I want is a revert war. The allegations against Haytov are publicly well-known in Bulgaria, still being allegations, and that is what I wrote. I didn't write Haytov stole other people's books, did I? I wrote that he was on numerous times alleged to have done so, and that he was and still is alleged to have done so is a clear fact. There are dozens of articles on Wikipedia that have 'Controversy' parts precisely for issues like this. I would be happy to write up a 'Controversy' part (and I would have gladly included Haytov's proponents' point of view on the issues, if there was one, apart from just dismissing them as 'slander'). About the sources: yup, they are interviews with well-known people, Velislava Dareva being a reputable and among the most famous Bulgarian journalists. She's not the sourse of allegations (Velichkov is) so why do you consider her interview to be a primary source and what would you accept as a secondary source? Ivanicov (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't want a revert war — don't revert, it's as simple as that.

Unproved allegations are generally not good encyclopedic material. For example, we don't usually include transfer rumours in articles about footballers. Yes, indeed, some articles have a 'Controversy' section, but there is also the concept of WP:Undue weight: an entire section devoted to those disputable claims would be giving them too much attention.

Interviews are primary sources in this case because the interviewed people are stating their claims on the matter first-hand. It is not a third party's analysis on the subject (that would be a secondary source), but an actual participant in the controversy's opinion. There is no distance between Dareva and the dispute, she's part of it. Her journalist biography is entirely irrelevant because she's not involved in this case as a journalist, but as a side.

At this point, I think the best decision would be to remove the allegations altogether because they cannot be indisputably proved and such dubious claims do little to improve the article. I'll proceed to remove the allegations, if you have a problem with that, please seek a third opinion instead of reverting without an edit summary. Todor→Bozhinov 12:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'll look for additional sources. Although you can basically always find arguments if you decide to play devil's advocate. If Dareva says in an interview there are two issues of the same book, in one Haytov is co-author, in the other he's the only author, you say Dareva is a side and non-NPOV. If I take a picture of the books' covers, you'll say it's original research. In the end, that's rather funny. Whatever. Ivanicov (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't me who invented the rules. Both you and me have to stick to them, whether we like it or not.

Dareva is a side in the dispute and not a neutral observer because she publicized claims of plagiarism. And yes, if you take pictures of the covers and use those to source the allegation that Haytov purposefully insisted that Dichev's name be removed from the cover so he could get all the fame. In fact, deliberately changing the author names for the second edition seems like a ridiculously bad attempt at plagiarism. So whether the plagiarism allegations have any truth in them or not, I simply don't think Haytov was that stupid.

Now, when you have better sources, please contact me or write on Haytov talk, don't just revert to your old version. Todor→Bozhinov 17:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)