User talk:Gligan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Gligan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Academic Challenger 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your entry about Greece

Gligan, inserting racial insults in Wikipedia articles about nations is a particularly unacceptable form of vandalism.

This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nehwyn 21:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I wish you'd also stop your sneaky vandalism of changing data that's referenced in Romania article. -- AdrianTM 11:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Македония

Здрасти, би ли спрял малко с ултранационализма, подобни гледни точки като твоите нямат място в Уикипедия и ако продължаваш в този дух бързо-бързо ще те блокират. Няма да спечелиш нищо с подобен тип поведение, по-скоро бих тип препоръчал вместо да се залавяш с нападки към Гърция, Сърбия и т.н., да обогатяваш информацията за България в Уикипедия (като спазваш и фундаментални принципи като WP:NPOV, с който те съветвам да се запознаеш подробно). Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 08:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your entries in Talk:Romania

  1. learn to sign your entries
  2. don't be a troll

-- AdrianTM 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Отг.

For non-Bulgarian speakers: this is a short introduction to Wikipedia policies on neutrality and citing sources, as well as uploading and tagging images.

Това за Кавала, Драма, Костур и т.н. е друга работа, там са си виновни гръцките редактори — обясняваш им на дискусионната страница доводите си, осигуряваш източници, с които да подкрепиш тези твърдения, и проблеми обикновено няма да имаш. Повечето гърци, които познавам тук, са много приятни хора и ще се разбереш с тях според мен.

За Македония мнението ти е доста популярно в България, но не е неутрално и в никакъв случай популярно в международен план — те вече не се самоопределят като българи и така нататък... И на мен ми е ясно за какво става въпрос, но изборът си е техен и няма какво да направим. В Уикипедия се стараем да не позволяваме някакво македонистко преиначаване на историята на България и региона Македония, което е напълно в духа на WP:NPOV, или политиката за неутралност на Уикипедия. В този смисъл — когато добавяш информация към някоя статия винаги се старай да го правиш от неутрална гледна точка, съобразявай се със самоопределянето на дадения народ, с универсално приетото мнение (примерно по исторически въпроси не позволявай никакви македонистки измислици, но се въздържай от крайни мнения като "македонците са българи"). Също особено важно е при по-противоречиви теми като Македония винаги да цитираш източниците, на които си се позовал (виж WP:CITE).

За снимките: понеже Уикипедия цели да е свободна енциклопедия във всякакъв смисъл, всички картинки трябва да са със свободни авторски права, което значи, че абсолютно няма как да хванеш някоя снимки от Google и да я качиш — трябва авторът изрично да я е освободил под GFDL, Creative Commons или друг свободен лиценз. Засега има няколко сайта, от който можеш да качваш снимки на България без проблем, стига да напишеш откъде са и на кого са: http://imagesfrombulgaria.com и http://pbase.com/ngruev/bulgaria са най-полезни към момента.

Има два начина да качиш снимка: или чрез Upload file в лявата лента (второто отдолу нагоре под самото лого), като преди това си я запазил на твърдия си диск, или по същия начин, но през http://commons.wikimedia.org (там трябва и отделна потребителска сметка), където обаче вече ще може да се ползва от всички проекти на Уикипедия, не само в английската версия (за което ти го и препоръчвам).

Винаги отбелязвай и под какъв лиценз е картинката с етикет: за http://pbase.com/ngruev/bulgaria примерно слагай {{NGruev}} {{GFDL}}, а за http://imagesfrombulgaria.com — {{cc-by-2.5}} и името на автора.

Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ами то не се определя от големината на единичната страница колко добре е покрита страната с информация. Аз пиша доста като отделни статии, например. Основната статия не трябва да е подробна, а да обобщава съвсем накратко най-важното, затова повечето такива статии не включват детайлни секции за спорт или национални празници. Всички детайли по принцип трябва да отидат по отделните статии, а не да се събират в секции на главната, затова например това, което си добавил в Bulgaria#Economy ще е хубаво да отиде в статията Economy of Bulgaria, а секцията Economy да се съкрати наполовина, Transport също донякъде. Историята също е отчасти прекалено детайлна за определени периоди и пренебрегва други.
Всъщност не е толкова важна дължината на секциите, колкото това да не се изпада в прекалени подробности на главната статия, а да остане само най-важното като обобщение. Примерно информация колко череши произвеждаме е напълно излишна в Bulgaria, но в Economy of Bulgaria ще си е съвсем OK. Както и подробностите къде какво се добива, да кажем. Todor→Bozhinov 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Zdrasti, well actually I don't recognize FYROM at all. I would support a division of FYROM between Bulgaria and Serbia, Serbs have serious claims on parts of FYROM as well. As for Romania, right the country exists under the name Romania for only two centuries but Wallachia which existed before Romania is ethnically the same. I see Romanians as a Romanized Dacian population. So my idea of Romania=Moldova,Wallachia and Transylvania (70% is Romanian now). Also I know that the name Moldova is historically more accurate but Romania is more realistic simply because there are more people that identify themselves as Romanian than Moldavian. Just a matter of covenience.--Eupator 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to comment on one thing, when you said population of Wallachia is similar to that of Bulgaria. I don't doubt that either, but everyone in the region is similar to one another. What sets people in the region apart (I don't use the word "Balkans" as it's of turkic origin, I prefer Dinaria or even Haimos or just South Eastern Europe) is the language they speak and their cultural self-identification. Besides you probably should worry about the MRF :)--Eupator 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Middle Ages

If you check the archives of this page, you will see that I was thwarted in my attempt to start a separate section about Kievan Rus, the largest state of early medieval Europe (and the one that dealt a death blow to the First Bulgarian Empire, by the way). I was told that this article presents a brief overview of Europe in general and it should not have separate sections about each country, lest it will be reduced to a mess. IMHO the section about the Byzantine Empire should stay (because it was culturally and politically the preeminent polity of the period), while all the rest (including "England" and "Italy") should go. Let's continue this duscussion on the article's talk page. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Srbija

Do you know how many civilians were killed by Bugars after battle of Slivnica in 1885....And in 1915,when Bugarska was supposed to help Serbia and the allies,it became the traitor and attacked Serbia togather with Austro-Ugarska and Germany....Hundereds of thousands Serb civilians died 1915-1918 all accros Serbia,JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO BECAME BULGARIANS....THEY RATHER DIED THEN SWITCHING TO ANOTHER NATIONALITY.....Not to menton how many people died from the hands of Bulgaria Fascist and Nazists in 1941-1945...Bulgaria,again,helped Germany in occupaing the Serb lands.......Only this time crimes were even worse...In the villige of Kriva Feja,where my father is from,more then 30 man was killed by the Bulgarians, and their houses were taken.....Bulgaria history is one full of bloody crimes...

YXYX 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia

For your information, it is Greater Bulgarian irridentism that claims today's Macedonian Slavs as Bulgarians. You said that they were Bulgarians back than and still are now (referring to the population of Mrnjavcevics' lands). --PaxEquilibrium 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are much more found to claim that Montenegrins are Serbs (much, much more), but that would be Serbian irridentism. Montenegrins were a recognized minority in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia in 1946, however Macedonians were never recognized in Bulgaria. You are whatever you wish to be. The Slavic Macedonians that formed 7 tribes during the Slavic migrations came even before the Serbs, and most surely before the non-Slavic Bulgarians. It might be true that those Slavs were gradually assimilated ("bulgarized"), but obviously not to the extreme point of staying Bulgarians, like the Slavs from eastern Moesia. --PaxEquilibrium 11:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I have replied at Talk:Bulgaria#Municipalities. Todor→Bozhinov 12:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I see you're working a lot on Bulgarian military history, so you may want to take part in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force — just add your name to the list of participants. Todor→Bozhinov 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Ами... за какво служи — координация на работата по точно тези теми, с които ти се занимаваш. По принцип щом работиш по някоя тема повечко е хубаво да се записваш, за да могат да те потърсят хора със същите интереси за консултация или ти да питаш нещо и т.н.
За Брегалница — просто представяш нещата и по двата начина, никаква паралелна статия! Пишеш "според сръбски и още не знам какви си източници е еди как си", "българските и които там други историци пък са на мнение, че..." и към всяко прилагаш бележки с източници (с {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} и другите). Изобщо — източниците са много важни за неутралността, затова ще те посъветвам да наблягаш и на тях. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 17:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] don't be silly

Nobody wants Macedonia, least of all the Serbs. The rules of the game have changed. Macedonia is the poorest Yugoslav republic. It's a weight on whoever carries it. Period.

There is one economic heuristic that holds in general today: poorer countries want to join, richer countries want to separate. --VKokielov 00:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply - nationalism

I understand, perfectly (however - wasn't Macedonia conquered by Bulgaria afterwards?). But the Serbs interfered earlier than the 19th century. Throughout the Late Medieval Ages Macedonia was the "heart" of the Serbian realm.

What I am trying to tell you is that that concept of nationalism is archaic, old and still maintained only by people who no longer belong to this time, belonging to the 19th century (example is Austro-Hungarian monarch, Franz Joseph, who admitted that he's way out of the Habsburgs' time). If we come across ethnic origin, we will bump into many things - the Albanians pride themselves to be of Illyrian origin, however little Illyrian blood is in them. Serbs, for instance, have a lot of Vlach blood (then again, this depends which Serbs?). Croats could be easily called a multi-ethnic group, same as Bosniaks or even Montenegrins. The Highlanders are descendents of refugees from Kossovo under Turkish yoke. The Herzegovinians are ancestral Serbs. The Coastlanders are descendants of the ancestral romanized populace and the old Montenegrins draw origin even from the Illyrians! Yet they all belong to one people. The Kucs are a Montenegrin/Serb Highland tribe; they have Serbian/Montenegrin surnames and speak the Serbian language as well as physically resemble Slavs in general. But the Kucs are not Slavs. They are Albanians.

It is the national affiliation that matters. One feeling might win over a people - and then other, but that still doesn't change who those really are/were. In Montenegro Orthodox Slavs can't really decide if they are Montenegrins or Serbs. Today, Bunyevs, Janyevs and Shoktzs are recognized peoples - while they were Croats before. The generalization of one nation's origin comes down to the generalization of saying "Montenegrins are lazy" or "Bosnians are stupid". Do you understand? --PaxEquilibrium 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but yet again Serbs were in Macedonia even before the Bulgarians. :)
As far as I remember, no one denies (not even the Macedonian government) that Samuil proclaimed himself "Czar of the Bulgarians". But I do not know what lies in that statement so much contradicting/mysterious... --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Slavicized people known as "Serbs" came to the Balkan peninsular in the first half of the 7th century => 620s and 630s. They settled in West Moesia, Kosovo, Metohija, Macedonia and the surrounding lands. There they built the very first Serbian city on Earth (cca 626): Servia, in southern Egean Macedonia, which still stands today as a major tourist attraction of Greece. However, the Serbs didn't like much those lands; what simply because they were practical slaves to the Imperial crown, and what simply for "touchy" reasons. Some Serbs did say, but most went back towards Singidunum. Among those who stayed (Greater Serb nationalists argue how Macedonia had been ethnically Serbianized already then), 3 (of the many) Macedonian Slavic tribes were formed (some of them completely losing a Serbian "national" - if such a word can be used for the Medieval Ages = feeling). It all then amounts to the half-truth that Macedonians indeed have some Serbian origin. ;) This became the main reason for the later Medieval Ages Serbs' conquests of those territories. They wanted their "Promised, Holy Land" (see Jews for a good comparison).
Thanks for that kind compliment. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the first of the Serbs' conquests of Macedonia were in the second half of the 12th century. They continued on across the 13th century. Northern Macedonia was already a component part of the Serbian realm. Note also that this very same part of Macedonia (which includes Skopje) has remained populated by Serbs even in Ottoman times, and only after World War II and the exile of almost 300,000 Serbs from (mostly northern) Macedonia is that the area was completely ethnically Macedonian (and Albanian). The whole of Macedonia was slowly conquered across the late 13th and early 14th century, and since the first half of the 14th century was fully a part of it. Macedonia was conquered by the Ottomans (fully) almost a hundred years later, so I wouldn't precisely draw 30 years. Of course, it was not a really long-time held occupation of the "promised holy land", but areas have to be differed - as northern Macedonia (today the area around Skopje) was indeed historically and in every way a part of the Serbian kinship, and has remained throughout the ages, whereas other parts may have had little or no cultural importance. Then yet again - it's the Macedonians' themselves' culture that is most important in Macedonia for centuries.
Hm... depends what kind of joining do you suggest and what do you consider by "better"? --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Better for Macedonians because of the growing Albanian population - yeah; but also bad for Macedonians that want their own country, where they are in a majority. Bad for Albanians, because they will lose a giant share of the population of the country. Bad for Serbs - they don't really like Bulgarians messing in Macedonia, and even nowadays see them as competitors; fear of numeral loss and die-out. As for other people of Macedonia - Vlachs, Turks and Romas - depends. They might not care, they might depending on their numbers in Bulgaria. Then yet again - it mostly depends which nationalities would Bulgaria constitutionally recognize? Tell me, since Bulgaria is the state of the Bulgarians today - what would be the national recognitions (constituent) of the enlarged Bulgarian state?
Well, I repeat - it depends which territories you mean. Skopje was capital of the Serbian monarchy from the second half of the 13th century to late 14th century. And those are feudal statelets. A country "Serbian Empire" normally existed, but numerous feudalists were very powerful. They all called on "how they serve the Empire!" while they were fighting for their personal gains. AFAIC, the traditional deeply carves spiritual existence of an Empire is the only thing that kept them together. Vukasin's title was "King of Serbia" and Uglesa's "Despot of Serbia" - and they were component subjects of the Empire. So was the Realm of Serres (modern-day eastern Greece - approximately Macedonia). Simeon later created an independent realm - but Thessaly and Epirus (and Albania) made his Empire. The actual inheritance of Serbian statehood was passed on the Mrnjavcevics (a. k. a. Macedonia), as the very last "hero" - Kraljevic Marko Mrnjavcevic was the very last wearer of the traditional Serbian crown (up to his death in 1395 - the "legitimacy" was then taken by his Ottoman overlords). The 15th century late medieval Despotic Serbia to which you refer (while Macedonia was Ottoman Turk-held) has no continuation with the High Medieval Serbian realm and shares (almost) no continuation. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that that will be good for Macedonia's population. Political pressure over 100% of its population (especially the Macedonian part)? --PaxEquilibrium 20:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Persia and Iran

Thank you for contacting me about a subject that is very interesting to me. Yes, in another way, Iranians are Persians. It's just that Reza Pahlavi, one of the Iranian kings decided that the west should use Iran (which was the name used by Iranians themselves from the foundation of Iran) instead of Persia (name used by Greeks). Persia itself is derived from the Persian word "Pars". (I'm not going to take your time on a subject that you already know of). Although, I do not think it was the right thing he (the king) did, because if that is the case, Germany should be call Deutchland around the globe. Iran is very often confused with Iraq, and is very very often misspelled by many as "I Ran" or "Iron", "E Ran", etc, while Persia is easy for people to spell. Plus people will not get confused about Persia as an ancient country which doesn't exist anymore. And in my opinion, Persia is a glamorous name. And about Cyrus and Darius, they are among the people Iranians are very proud of, specially these days in which many of Iranians do not like their government. ;-) If you have any questions, comments, etc, you're very welcome to leave a message. It was a pleasure answering you. --Arad 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Iran
 
Empires of Persia - Kings of Persia
edit
Hello again. About the name Fars (a Province of Iran), It's because after the Islamic Invasion of Persian, Arabs, who couldn't spell the letter "P" refered to Pars as Fars and Parsi as Farsi. (Same as many Iranian names such as Pyruz (Fyrus) etc.) I go now to the answer of questions. 1) If Parthia restored Persia or Sassanids? Parthians are Iranian people (not Persian but Parth. *Just a little history out of topic*: When Aryans settled down in the Iranian plateau, they were three groups. Medes, Parthians and Persians. That's the reason Iranians called their country Iran and not Persia (Parsa) as Persia belongs only to Persians and not Kurds, Lurs, Parths, Medes, etc who live in Iran* Ok back to the question, It was Parthians who restored Iran (Persia) after the conquest of Alexander (and Seleucid Empire). But, because Parthians were a confederation, of Provinces, the Empire, as it got bigger was harder to manage. So the Sassanids, who were Persian, wanted to reorganized the Empire by a Centralized state and they always wanted to show themselves as the continuance of Achaemenid Empire (as you can see they had carvings under the tombs of Darius the Great and other Persian Kings in Nagsh-e Rustam. So as conclusion, Parthians are Iranian (Persian in the western meaning). 2) If I agree with restoration of monarchy in Iran. Although, I would love to have a constitutional monarchy in Iran, we do not currently have a person of Royal blood of a dynasty of which we respect and love. As you probably know, dozens of dynasties have ruled in Iran in the past 7000 years (as you see the the template). But the only two dynasties, of which there is a hair to the thrown is the Qajar Dynasty (hated by majority of Iranians) and the Pahlavi Dynasty, which themselves were the cause of the Islamic revolution in Iran because of the oppression they had on Iranians (the last king wanted only one political group). So if ever Iran gained to freedom, personally i would hate to see someone who had done nothing for my country to become the king, and wasting the money of the population. So i think it's impossible for Iran to return to monarchy. But first we need democracy, then monarchy. I'll be happy to answer your other questions. Hope I hadn't took much of you're time. With the best wishes. --Arad 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srbija

You forgot that Bulgarians lost battle of Slivnica. YXYX 12:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Lets be honest: Bulgaria,as a country,lost almost all important battles that happend.No other nation is so familiar with losing like Bulgarians.

For example: Bregalnica....That is one of the most famous victories in Serbian history,and if you dont know that,you should go back to school.Or just read Wikipedia about Bregalnica.

When I said you lost battle of Slivnica,I ment that we avenged that defeat ten times.On Bregalnica Bulgarian army was destroyed and I am proud that my grandgrand father captured 3 bulgrarians on Bregalnica,he didnt captured them that is,they surrended.

Bulgaria showed their evil tricky face in 1915 once again,when it betreyed Serbia and mother Russia and attacked us....But it was again defeated in 1918.

Then Bulgaria was on the losing side in 1945.

So,you see,Bulgarias history is full drastic defeats.

Not to mention that Bulgarians have no culture,just look at our manastiri and fresks....Gracanica,Zica,Decani and so on and so on......or Hilandar on Halkidiki....


But I dont hate Bulgaria,I am happy that even the best football player in the history of Bulgaria Hristo Stoickov said: "I wish I was Serb"......

one more thing: I DIDNT KNEW YOU WAS SO FUNNY :))) YOU SUPPORT MONARCHY,WHILE YOUR PRIME MINISTER WHO HAD RIGHT TO BE THE NEXT KING IS REPUBLICAN...."YOU ARE REALLY SOMETHING",AS AMERICANS SAY.

YXYX 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Gligan, do you hate all Serbs or you just simply hate enyone who is not Bulgarian? I would really like to know why. Just don´t give me that crap about lost battles, war crimes etc. I know so many Serbs who didn´t kill anyone ever, nor have they supported Milosevic at any time, nor have they killed any of your relatives!!!marijica 12:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


I know what you mean, but you really sounded hatefull:( But think about this - you have obviously learned some other history than people in Serbia. Of course, everyone writes his own, right? And there is no way you or me or XYXY or anyone else can agree on the "facts" when we all have the "right ones". (I have no doubt in my mind that the facts I have are true! You probably feel the same, don´t you? So does XYXY). Oh, and Greeks also think Macedonia is supposed to belong to them. What are we gonna do about that? As for your attitude towards serbian government, why don´t you (and so many other people) STOP putting the sign EQUAL between Tito or Milosevic and Serbian people!! And remember this: Macedonia became the part od Peple´s Federal Republic od Yugoslavia during TITO, and he was a Croat, and he hated Serbia. So I hope you´ll agree with me that there is no point in arguing about history (esspecially with Serbs:)). People still can´t figure out what was goning on 2000 yers ago... It will be the same with 21st century sometime in the future. So relaxs. It doesn´t matter where you live, it´s how you live! Hope you know what I mean... marijica 15:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is not exactly my feald but - with a little help from my friends - this is what I got, so far: 1. yes, many, many, many,... for example: "head" from Vinca - the most famous one...

2. after arrival from North Europe in 6th or 7th centrury, serbs have found their first state between 8th and 9th centrury called Raska. There was only roumors who was the first serbian ruler: Visheslav, Radoslav, Prosigoi rulers of some tribes and maybe the first state, Vlastimir or one of his son Mutimir,... (check the names!!! so similar to Czech and Slovak names of that time, before we took Christianity, that is one of the prooves of our SLAVIC origin, unlike Blgars)!

3. Ask politicians, but my opinion - please, let it go already!!!! I´m so sorry about all the Serbs who got killed and slottered and raped by Albanians but it will never stop!! Albanians act like everyone else did centuries ago, gaining terrytories. Late blomers, I guess. They are at civilisation level of an ape, so no reasoning with them obviously. This is a little harsh maybe, but I personaly know so many people who had to escape their homes in Kosovo. And, of course, I couldn´t find any nice words about albanians in Kosovo after burning to the ground almost all (XII century) churces and monasteries there. Those were works of art and history for God´s sake!!!

4. uf... try to check for some geographical and geo-political informations - use google...

5. uf... - " " -


Hope I have answered some of your questionsmarijica 17:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I got some more, but it´s on my talk page. Look it up:) marijica 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria FAC

Hi! Today I've nominated the article Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria for a featured article, believing it meets all criteria.

This is the article's third nomination (see the previous ones), and because the previous ones received relatively little attention, I'd like to invite you to voice your opinion about it, be it as a vote or a comment, on the article's nomination page.

Thanks! :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Gligan

Re Florina/Lerin, with all due respect to Bulgarian language, the page with the three languages spoken in the region (which was there before you replaced it) was a compromise solution among various editors. The discussion is in Thessaloniki/Solun. Thanks. NikoSilver 21:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I will second this. It is generally a better idea to include alternate names in seperate paragraphs or etymology sections~(even though this is not usually done everywhere in Wiki, unfortunately. I removed your addition to Thessaloniki since it is already in the intro further down. Cheers! Baristarim 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bor

I see no point of your historical map of Bulgaria posted on my talk page. In the Middle Ages, borders changed very often and lands often passed from one country to another. I found two sources that mention that Bor belonged to Serbian state in the Middle Ages and I quoted those sources in the article - the historical atlas and unofficial web site of Bor. O yes, and check this map of empire of Stefan Dušan: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Dusanova_Srbija200.jpg It clearly show that area of Bor was within Serbian state in this time. Regarding data about Serbian heavy industry, I do not know where you can find it. PANONIAN (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no access to original historical documents. I have only access to published sources and quotation of those sources is enough to satisfy "cite sources" policy of Wikipedia. The peoole who wrote those published sources certainly did not invented information from their head, but they based they work on original sources that they read. PANONIAN (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"The serbs (and others of course) tend to invent some thing from time to time."

Should I consider that an insult? I really do not understand why half of our neighbours have this "need" to "prove" that our cities are not our but "their". PANONIAN (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"For example in Macedonia they tried to convince that the local Bulgarian population was "south serb""

No, it is Bulgarians who tried to convince that ethnic Macedonian population is not Macedonian but Bulgarian. Serbian scientists fully recognizing the existence of Macedonian people. PANONIAN (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Today I know Serbs who confess that the population of Macedonia is Bulgarian. I guess the same is with Bor"

Let me tell you one thing: do you know why is so ridiculous that some Bulgarians want to create greater Bulgaria? It is ridiculous because Bulgarians will lost even their "small" country that they have - 100 years from now dominant nation in Bulgaria will be Turks, so the efforts of the nation that cannot keep the land it have now to gain more are really pathetic. Just leave Macedonia and Serbia alone and stick to your own country, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is serbia which will lose its small territory, not Bulgaria. Serbia is desintegrating, you lost Monte Negro, you will lose Kosovo very soon and hopefully Voivodina and the Western Outlands in the long term."

Hahaha. Let see: Montenegro was not part of Serbia, so how can Serbia lost it? Kosovo was lost already in 1999, but on long terms, it is good for Serbia because Albanians will not become dominant nation in the whole of Serbia. Vojvodina - 65% of population are Serbian and the largest political party there is Serbian Radical Party, so, no, I really do not see how land with such characteristics could be "lost". Western Outlands - such thing do not exist, and do not worry, I will propose that ridiculous article for deletion soon enough. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Turks will never outnumber us in BG, be sure of that."

I am sure that they will. :) This is 21st century now, you cannot expel them from the country again as you did before. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"All the obective historical evidence show that there are no Macedonians"

If you want to know something about Macedonians then the only relevant person to ask about this are Macedonians themselves. Nobody in this world do not care about your opinion about them. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"I am tired of explaining the truth. Why only the serbs and the "macedonians" believe this?? Because the serbian theory is nonesense."

You cannot explain the truth because you are not the one who know the truth. The whole world recognizing Macedonians as nation and if Bulgaria is the only country that does not recognize it then we should ask the question: is something wrong with the whole world or with Bulgaria? I would not bet on the first option. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"You will see that the only chance of Macedonia is to join Bulgaria, because in 20 years the Albanians will be more that the Bulgarians there."

Then Albanians and Turks will rule over greater Bulgaria. LOL And by the way, there are already more Albanians than Bulgarians in Macedonia - just check the census results. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Albanians are not more that the Bulgarians, the BG are 64% of the pop. of Macedonia."

According to the last census in Macedonia there were 25.17% Albanians and only 0.073% Bulgarians, so please educate yourself. 64.18% of population of Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians. PANONIAN (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"And Bulgaria+Macedonia is NOT greater Bulgaria, it includes also Serbia to the Morava river, Greece to the north of Larisa, most of European Turkey and the whole of Dobrudzha."

Every Bulgarian state larger than current one is Greater Bulgaria. And I told you already: there is no reason for you to want greater country because you will lost even this small country you have when Turks become majority. PANONIAN (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bor, I told you already that it was part of Serbian state during the rule of Stefan Dušan. Stefan Dušan ruled from 1331 to 1355, so what exactly you do not understand here? PANONIAN (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My sources are not detailed, so I cannot tell you more than I did about time of Stefan Dušan. Hungarian rule: according to my historical atlas Hungarians ruled there in the 12th-13th century (I cannot tell you more than this). PANONIAN (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not agree with this because Bulgarians held it temporarily too, so glorifying Bulgarian rule there is POV thing to do and I will revert any such edit. PANONIAN (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that your data might not be truth. My historical atlas show that borders between various Serb and Bulgarian states between 13th and 15th century were exactly in the Bor area, and since Bor itself is not shown on those maps, I cannot say for sure on which side of the border it was, but it looks more likely that it was on Serbian side. PANONIAN (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more maps for you:

Both maps show that area of Bor was a border between Serbia and Bulgaria, and we cannot say for sure on which side of the border it was (but if I compare this with my geographical atlas I would say that it was on Serbian side). The only correct thing that we can write is that it was a border area between two countries. PANONIAN (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is map from the address you gave me: http://www.bgns.net/Bg/otech/history/sredna/maps/2-25.html Regarding Bor area, it do not differ much from the map in my historical atlas. Today, we cannot know exact position of border line from that time, so we still cannot say for sure where Bor area was. I still believe that best formulation would be that "it was a border area between two countries". Also, my atlas show that area was under Hungaroian rule in one time period, thus I see no reason to delete that. PANONIAN (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
All right, I have no problem with you guys discussing on a historical topic, but please mind your language: statements like "100 years from now dominant nation in Bulgaria will be Turks" and "you will lose Kosovo very soon and hopefully Voivodina and the Western Outlands" are just offensive and absolutely do not contribute to the discussion if you want it to be fruitful. It's sad to see chauvinism and irredentism live on even today... I mean, you've got to have understood we can achieve more by co-operating. Silly nationalist claims have no place in the 21st century. Todor→Bozhinov 12:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, he started this. I never insult anybody first, but I respond equally to insults adressed to me (not only if somebody insult me personally, but also if he insult my national feeling, and claims that Serbs "stole" most of their country from their neighbours is very big insult indeed). PANONIAN (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"But the serbs LIE for Macedonia. All the objective facts, sourses and documents prove that Samuil was Emperor of Bulgaria and he was Bulgarian and claiming the opposite is an insult for Bulgaria."

It is not lie, but question of interpretation. Byzantine sources simply used term "Bulgarians" to designate Slavs and term did not in the past had same meaning as it had now. PANONIAN (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Balkan War

What are your views on a prospective Third Balkan War, with the Balkan League consisting of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia, to divide FYROM between them. Albania would get the Albanian speaking areas, Greece the areas with the (seriously diminished) Greek community (Pelagonia-Gevgeli), Serbia the limited Serb areas (from Kumanovo) and Bulgaria everything else. I know this is fiction, but what do you think? LieutenantBoom 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fiction too. On first hand, no great power will allow such a war, on second hand our nations still remember what happenned in the previous Balkan Wars, here there will be conflicts between the allies too. Sincerely, I believe that the only realistic scenario will be the joining of Macedonia to BG, at least because of the increasing number of the Albanians, not to mention that the truth as you know is that there are simply no Macedonians. Another realistic way is to remain independent as a federation, but I do not think it is appropriate. I am against war because it will ruin our economies and there will not be considerable gains (from econimic point of view Macedonia will be a burden to BG). --Gligan 15:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe that you two have this discussion in the 21st century. The worst problem with you is that you never saw war with your eyes. But unlike you, I saw it, and believe me, you do not want to see it too. PANONIAN (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...

Е, хайде сега, кой кога започнал няма значение — той и да е започнал ти не е трябвало да му отговаряш. Просто според мен е трябвало да му кажеш, че такива твърдения са обидни (а те наистина са).

За съкровищата... трудна работа. За да се качат в Уикипедия е нужно да са пуснати под свободен лиценз, а за това трябва да се пита авторът. Снимки на тракийски съкровища от НИМ има примерно в http://www.imagesfrombulgaria.com/ и са с подходящ лиценз. Ако си избереш нещо и не можеш да го качиш, само кажи ;) При картите нещата седят така: ако авторът е починал преди повече от 70 години можем да ги ползваме като обществено достояние, иначе също трябва да са пуснати под свободен лиценз. Затова като ми потрябва карта просто я начертавам (като тази за Иван Александър), позовавайки се на някакъв източник.

Като говорим за Иван Александър — ами надявам се скоро да закрият номинацията. Ако нещата останат така, както са (т.е. няма повече възражения и гласове против), ми се вярва, че ще е успешна. Според правилата човекът, който закрива номинации и определя дали са минали успешно, е Raul654, така че чакаме неговото решение :) Надявам се да е скоро, защото нямам търпение да стане избрана статия. Todor→Bozhinov 14:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ето ги: commons:Category:National Historical Museum (Bulgaria) :) Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ахелой... не съм сигурен дали Скилица има миниатюри точно за Ахелой, но за Ключ мисля, че има. В commons:Category:Skylitzis Chronicle има разни от неговата летопис, не знам дали са всички :) Дано послужат. Можеш да разгледаш и надкатегорията commons:Category:Byzantine illuminated manuscripts и изобщо commons:Category:Illuminated manuscripts, все трябва да има и други. Малко снимки на крепости има под свободен лиценз, на тази в Ловеч бях намерил, изобщо тези от по-големите градове ги има където има снимки на градовете, но малките и скътани крепости по-рядко са снимани, да не говорим пък под подходящ лиценз. В Images from Bulgaria има Аневско кале, Асенова крепост и Царевец.
За оправянето... ами оправяй, но винаги прилагай източници и бъди внимателен към чуждата гледна точка — може пък и другите да имат какво да кажат :)
А, и между другото Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria вече е избрана... честито! Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gligan

Здрасти... не взимай това съобщение от MILHIST много насериозно, изпратено е с бот на всички, които по някакъв начин членуват в проекта. Става въпрос за избори, а задачите на координатора и асистентите са общо взето да поддържат проекта технически.

Не бих те съветвал да правиш отделни статии за хижи, защото обикновено няма какво толкова да се каже в повече от един параграф, а това значи, че завинаги статията ще си остане мъниче. В такива случаи ще е най-добре да направиш една обща статия "Хижи в Пирин" (не съм сигурен дали "refuge" е най-подходящата дума) и да пишеш за всяка отделна хижа като секция, а в увода да дадеш някаква информация колко са хижите, какви са, къде са и т.н. От имената на отделни хижи пък ще е добре да направиш пренасочвания към общата статия. Todor→Bozhinov 12:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Такова, да ти кажа, не отдавай прекалено значение на тия чужди имена в статии за български населени места, имат си право хората. Наистина са владяли Южна Добруджа, пък макар и за кратко... подхождай по-меко: в статии за чужди градове рядко махат български имена, независимо че от Средновековието не сме имали власт върху тях, виж например Hârşova, Giurgiu, Kırklareli. За села и градове в Банат, където има банатски българи, също имаме споменати банатски български имена: Dudeştii Vechi, Sânnicolau Mare, Timişoara. Отнасяй се по-либерално, като изброяваме и чужди варианти на името (където ги има) само добавяме полезна информация към Уикипедия. Разбира се, трябва да спазваме и някакви логични граници, но без излишна ограниченост. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ммм, откажи се от тия карти, те са в Уикипедия, значи не са авторитетен източник (правил ги е някой потребител като нас). Не е добре да се опитваш да си потвърждаваш тезите с карти, които си намерил тук. Извади някой надежден източник, където се казва, че тази част от Добруджа е била под българска власт от еди кога си до еди кога си, и проблеми няма да имаш. И карта става, стига да е от някоя авторитетна историческа публикация.
Потребител може да бъде блокиран временно за нарушаване на WP:3RR (над 3 връщания за 24 часа). Преброй ги внимателно и докладвай в WP:AN3. Ако обаче и ти си нарушил правилото, и ти ще бъдеш блокиран. А предупреждение можеш да му пратиш и сам още сега, с {{3RR}} на дискусионната му страница.
А, и между другото, като добавяш имена на български, прави го с {{lang-bg|име}}, изглежда по-добре, ботовете го разпознават и връзката си е към Bulgarian language. Todor→Bozhinov 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's your proofAnonimu 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Those maps don't prove nothing. As long you can't bring documents, archeological, epigraphical or numismatic proofs, you can't prove that. Map making is very permissive when it cames to mapping something that nobody can bring proof for. This is a general trait in Eastern Europe. That's why Hungarian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian and Greek maps will never match. Because most of the time there are no documents to prove or to disprove one or another interpretation. So no, maps(especially those found on the internet) don't make good sources.Anonimu 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the rule for adding a name of a place/town/region in another language should be:

  • a significant minority lives or lived there
  • the place/town/region had OFFICIALLY that name

Of course, as a rule of thumb, all the edits should be referenced and verifiable. All the other names should go as exonyms to the corresponding articles (see for example List of European exonyms). Mentatus 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you ignore an important thing. No document of the First Bulgarian empire mentions those names. They all appear in late medieval documents, when those cities were already part of indep or turkish-vassal Walllachia or in Hungary. I don't accept them either because you didn't reference them the right way or because they're irrelevant. As for maps, they are no acceptable sources. The number of Romanians and/or Vlachs in Vidin, as they appear in bulgarian censuses:
23,845 in 1881 (the whole admistrative division)
1,500 only in the city in 1910 (much more around it)
6,200 only in the city in 1940 (much more around it)
(more complete data, in romanian, with the above numbers sourced here)Anonimu 13:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't write names just because they were used by somebody in the middleages. If you want to add named used in medieval Bulgarian documents, go and add them in the article about Bulgarian exonims. Anyway, except for turnu magurele, all other names are cyrillic renditions of the romanian name. And unlike the romanian rendition of the names in southern dobrudja, there's no proof they were used during the bulgarian rule in the region.Anonimu 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No, mentatus and todor agreed to put bulgarian names if we could find documents contemporany to bulgarian rule mentioning them.Anonimu 12:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There are two problems: 1. The fact that those cities existed during Bulgarian rule. 2. The fact that they were called that way during Bulgarian rule.. If the Bulgarian names used for those cities today are different from those used in late middle ages, how can you prove that those late-medieval names were the same with the early-medieval ones? It's not "my logic". It's "the logic", opposed to your protochronism. Turnu Magurele was called Turnu (Turris in western sources)... Magurele is a very late adition (modern era), so that the reader or the listener doesn't think the the speaker refers to the other Turnu (Severin). I say no, unless you bring some documents proving the existence of those cities and the use of those specific names during the Bulgarian rule.Anonimu
Anonimu, I think you're crossing the line a bit. We already agreed — we have the historic Romanian names in articles for Bulgarian places, and we have the Bulgarian names in articles for Romanian places if those were under Romanian or Bulgarian rule respectively. Instead of being intentionally petty, allow us to have our names when you've already had yours, even in areas you've never ruled or where you've never had a minority (like around Vidin, where bilingual, mostly Bulgarian-identifying population lives). You see, I can be petty about Vidin too, but we've agreed that the Romanian name should stay. Todor→Bozhinov 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can prove that those cities existed under Bulgarian rule, it's spurious to talk about "Romanian places under Bulgarian rule". Who cares they identify as Bulgarian? Would you preffer "old Romanian and Bulgarian Vlach name"? And remember Michael the Brave briefly occupied Vidin in the 1590s. Anyway, only you've agreed, since gligan deleted the old Romanian name every time i tried to add it. Anonimu 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If they had a name, then they existed, yes. I would prefer "historic name: Vlach and Romanian: Diiu", that's for sure, but I'm not complaining. "Who cares they identify as Bulgarian" is very ignorant and offensive, you're disregarding these people's clear non-Romanian self-identification. And no, Michael the Brave didn't occupy Vidin, these were just brief incursions.
Since their names are mentioned only in the period when Wallachia was independent or under hungarian/turkish suzeranity, you can't say nothing about their existence during the Bulgarian rule. And about what they think of themselves, it would be nice if we had the hungarian criterias for defining nationality (self-identification + nationality + affinity with cultural values&traditions + mother tongue + language spoken with family and friends + mother tongue spoken outside the family). But there was a period, varrying from few hours to few days when Michael, the ruler of Wallachia, virtually ruled the city =>Wallachian(Romanian) rule over the city ;)Anonimu 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Gligan won't stop removing your names unless you stop removing our names, I'm pretty sure about that. And he would do this not without reason. Todor→Bozhinov 18:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that thing about the names, especially because we have some from the time of Ivan Alexander, when Wallachia was at least de facto a vassal. The actual rule of Michael over Vidin is pretty doubtful too, ruling a city is a bit different from just invading, conquering and going on, but anyway. Was it officially called Diiu in those few hours/days you claim it was ruled by Wallachia? Or was it called that way before Michael conquered it (thus non-officially), or after he lost it (thus non-officially)? :) See, I can be petty too. So quit that silly thing and let us have our names! :) Todor→Bozhinov 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can find documents, i have nothing against. You still have to prove me Wallachia (and Dobrotici btw) was vassal of Ivan Alexander (and anyway, de facto doesn't count too much). I know that it wasn't a proper rule (i.e. one that would qualify for the first criterium), but anyway my intention was to include "Diiu" in the second criterium. But nevertheless, there was a Wallachian rule over Vidin ;) Anonimu 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't exactly rule, as I said. As for the vassalage, I consulted Ian Mladjov of the University of Michigan and he provided some handy references, which I've included in the article. Anyway, here's the original sources which this is based on:
“ Тѡго радї, ц а р ю А л е ѯ а н д р е, варе ктȍ ти e вамеш въ Рѹокеръ, да мѹ запрѣтиш да ѹзимат вамѫ, що e закон. А инако да не смѣетъ ѹчинит. И кои либо щет битъ вамеш под Дѫбовнцѫ, и тои та(ко)ждере да имъ ѹзимат. ”
In other words, he addresses Alexander as "tsar" and requests that Alexander tells his own customs official (вамеш, vameş) in Rucăr and Dâmboviţa (border towns of Wallachia) to collect toll taxes.
  • A letter of Louis I of Hungary to the lord of Padova of September 1377 refers to Radu as "Rodanu, principe di Bulgaria infidele", or "infidel prince of Bulgaria". Todor→Bozhinov 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but those references are from Bulgarian authors, and i have the right to have my doubts about their objectivity. Could you translate the whole fragment (a bulgarian friend told me it's not very easy for a bulgarian to understand old slavonic, but you could try to translate it more accurately). About the second reference, it doesn't say too much. we have hungarian documents about moldavian princes calling them prince of cumania, so it's not uncommon. Anonimu 12:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If you dispute original sources, then I can't do anything about that, I can't change history to suit you. And you didn't seem to dispute the objectivity of Miletich when his opinion was of use to you. Anyway, Miletich doesn't even have to say anything here, his paper just provides a recording of an original source. Todor→Bozhinov 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't dispute that document. I just said Bakalov and Koledarov might have followed an agenda. About the document quoted by Miletich, i just wanted a translation (i'd never contest Miletich, except the cases when he contradicts himself, but here is not the case)Anonimu 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not Moldovans or Macedonians to follow an agenda :) Basically, there's nothing else special in the document, Radu only flaunts how great he is, how he rules by the grace of God over all of the "Hungaro-Vlach lands", and how the laws of his ancestors shall be preserved under his own rule. Then he goes on to appeal to John Alex to tell his officials in the towns mentioned to collect taxes according to these laws, and if anyone collects taxes against the law, then that would be "great evil" or something. Of course, the language is very antiquated and I couldn't make out many of the minor details, so perhaps you should find someone with good knowledge of Old Church Slavonic to translate it for you, if you'd like some great detail. Todor→Bozhinov 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars

I have added the battles you have requested. If you want to access the Campaignbox page, go to Template:Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars. You can just ask me again if you want me to add more battles. Thanks for the cooperation. Crispus 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


BTW, if you need more ideas for more Byzantine-Bulgarian battles to make articles for, there is still one battle of Anchialus, which occured in 763, that has not been written. Crispus 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Battle of Dobro Pole

I'm glad that you liked my article! I was wondering if you had any more info on it, since you are a native Bulgarian - it was very tough researching information about this battle. Since you live in Bulgaria, maybe you know more details about it since the impact that it made was so huge to Bulgarian participation in the First World War.

-Sean 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todays Empires

Just as the Roman Empire is modern day Romania right? - Francis Tyers · 11:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former countries

"Well, if you say that the Kingdom of France, or the Persian Empire, or Kingdom of Poland are former countries, I should totally agree that the Bulgarian Empire is also a former country. Is this what you mean?"

Yes, I mean exactly that - I just created new category named "former Slavic countries" and my intention was to place all former Slavic countries there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Slavic_countries PANONIAN (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this total nonsense now really. I was looking for the reason of putting such a category and I found it only here. Don,t you find such a category a little misleading - it might impose a lack of connection between the countries we have today and those that were yesterday. --Laveol 12:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this category, because I don't consider the Bulgarian, Persian or Japanese Empires as former countries, because they still exist today; the only change is the type of government. But Panonian has created this and it would not be in the good manner to destroy it myself, though I find it misleading. You should convince him that he is not right and persuade him to delete or change that category: ) --Gligan 13:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we need a real discussion going. They're just trolling the Bulgarian articles, in my sense. I can now clerly see why the former country tag was added. --Laveol 10:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Southern Buh

Hi! What's the source which says that the battle between Simeon and the Magyars in 896 took place at the Southern Buh? I'm currently trying to write an FA-quality article on Simeon (User:TodorBozhinov/Simeon I of Bulgaria) and I'm using a variety of sources (although part of them are somewhat older) and none of them says anything of the exact location. Also, if you've got any more reference which can be added to the article, I'm open to suggestions :) Regards, Todor→Bozhinov 12:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Да, това за Буг и Днепър и аз го намирам на някои места, но все пак е "между", освен това става въпрос за цялата територия на маджарите. Явно немската хроника ни е надеждата :) Ще се радвам, ако успееш да намериш и други източници за Симеон, а и за битката.
Относно програмата: ами за картата за Иван Александър ползвах CorelDRAW 11, защото исках да е изцяло векторна (предимстовото на този формат е, че не се пикселизира при увеличаване). Не мисля, че се работи чак толкова сложно с тази програма, но ще имаш нужда да я поразучиш. Todor→Bozhinov 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Здрасти! Хубаво си се разстърсил. Наистина, доста източници поизнамерих. Имаш ли възможност да представиш цитат и страница от Фулденските летописи (Annales Fuldenses), така че да мога да ги ползвам като източник? Благодаря! Todor→Bozhinov 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Значи все пак не пише, че битката е била при Южен Буг? Наистина целта ми е страницата за Симеон да стане избрана статия, но преди това трябва да мине през WP:Peer review за коментари, ще ми се да я прегледат един-двама англоезични, за да проверят дали е добре езиково, а и да поседи просто така една-две седмици, да я поогледам малко по малко и да коригирам където е нужно. Има време, но целта си е FA, можеш да си сигурен :) И то не просто FA, ами наистина да бъде една от най-добрите статии в Уикипедия. Todor→Bozhinov 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pak sam az : )

Здрасти, оправих бележките под линия: за да се появяват трябва да сложиш едно {{reflist}} там, където искаш да излизат (т.е. под заглавието Footnotes). Статията за България е адски далече от нивото нужно за FA: почти няма бележки под линия (за статия с тази големина за FA ще са нужни поне 70-80), на места текстът е с лошо качество и структура, има Trivia секция, което по принцип е лоша идея и т.н.: иска си още доста работа. Виж как изглеждат FA статии за други страни (WP:FA#Geography and places) и прави сметка. Todor→Bozhinov 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

Hey Gligan, I agree with your compromise. Cheers, Khoikhoi 01:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/i/User_talk%7EGligan_1dd5.html"