User talk:Tourbillon/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Tourbillon, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by army

You removed EU from this list, I suggest you put it back. My primary argument is that it belongs there simply because its interesting and it will save users alot of time from having to sum up the different eu countries armies. I posted in the discussion page of that article in reply to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.233.166 (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Military of Nigeria

Please provide a source for the numbers and types of equipment listed. Otherwise the information is unreliable, and it may get removed at some point. Buckshot06(prof) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, the numbers have been taken from the articles for each weapon, where sources actually aren't available. I'll try to find info on the subject. - Tourbillon ^A ? 14:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please you could translate in Bulgarian and Macedonian the articles Martin Weinek, Kaspar Capparoni and Campora San Giovanni? Thanks in advance!

Good morning and regards from Campora San Giovanni. I write you regarding these articles, concerning the actors of the Kommissar Rex, Weinek or Vainek it is one of the veterans, Capparoni besides being a new entry is very famous in Bulgaria for other Italian productions that you will know thanks to Rai Intenational. If out of politeness you could translate them in Bulgarian and Macedonian I would be thankful of it. Besides this you could translate in Bulgarian and Macedonian the article on Campora San Giovanni, my village native where a strong active Bulgarian community there is in the building sector (men) and in the agriculture (women) , noché thanks to the mixed marriages among my fellow citizens and Bulgarian they are formed a new type of Camporese. Therefore if you can also help you a Tovarish as me, I am the head of the communists but not an animal communism neither so much less bourgeois but a true sincere and less animal communism. Naturally I will translate you in Italian, Spanish, Sicilian and Neapolitan a biography or geography to your liking. In fact in the Wiki Italiana they are biographer and geographer. In attends him of one answer of yours, I thank you in advance and I send you the regards from Campora San Giovanni.--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Buongiorno e saluti da Campora San Giovanni. Ti scrivo in merito a questi articoli, riguardanti gli attori del Kommissar Rex, Weinek o Vainek è uno dei veterani, Capparoni oltre a essere una new entry è molto famoso in Bulgaria per altre produzioni italiane che conoscerete grazie a Rai Intenational. Se per cortesia potresti tradurli in bulgaro e macedone te ne sarei grato. Oltre a questo potresti tradurre in Bulgaro e Macedone l'articolo su Campora San Giovanni, mio villaggio natale dove c'è una forte comunità bulgara attiva nel settore edilizio (uomini) e nell'agricoltura (donne), noché grazie ai matrimoni misti tra miei concittadini e bulgari si stanno formato un nuovo tipo di Camporese. Perciò se puoi aiutare anche tu un Tovarish come me, io sono il capo dei comunisti, ma non un comunismo animalesco né tanto meno borghese, ma un vero comunismo sincero e meno animalesco. Naturalmente io ti tradurrò in italiano, spagnolo, siciliano e napoletano una biografia o geografia a tuo piacimento. Infatti nella Wiki Italiana sono biografo e geografo. Nell'attesa di una tua risposta, ti ringrazio in anticipo e ti invio i saluti da Campora San Giovanni.--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Armed Forces

Please do not write things you might not be well informed. Thank you. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.3.243 (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so everybody is free to add information. I suggest you focus on what exactly is not correct, according to you, and then give your advices. - Tourbillon ^A ? 13:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Info

If you read carefully on the page Albanian Armed Forces do not POSSSES ANYMORE A TANK COMPONENT. The information about the russian missile is wrong. You can not writte things like: They wanted but they can not afford. This is not a serious info. Please trust me. I work close to AAF. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerd 72 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have put the information about the tanks, as the Type 69s and T-55s are still listed in the "active operators" section in these articles. Even if the tank component has been disbanded, it woulnd't be bad to find some sources about that.

"You can not writte things like: They wanted but they can not afford. This is not a serious info." - Where have I written they could not afford it ? I wrote this - "Note: Albania planned to acquire 4 ex-German MIM-23 Hawk self-propelled SAM systems in order to have an adequate air defence, but it is not known if these efforts have resulted in such an acquisition". I have noted, that there were probably unsuccesful efforts on procuring, not that they could not afford it. Please read carefully before you delete some of the information - I doubt the Albanian army has no military equipment, although with its current programs that could be possible. Best regards, - Tourbillon ^A ? 15:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your will about the sources.. Look. I am a former AAF officer and I work within a NATO HQ in Tirana, that provides advisory to AAF. I better than anyone else around, including you, know what the AAF has or.. doesn't have. I'm leaving the format of the equipment as you did it, but I am taking away both the russian anti-aircraft equipment, the Hummer and the russian antitank missile because THEY DO NOT POSSES THEM! This is fake info that goes up and down on stupid albanian nationalist pages. If you stopp a little bit longer on those pages, you will see that AAF has in its inventory the F-16, the SU-27, three aircarriers and somewhere near Tirana long range nuclear head missiles..

ABOUT AAF

I can understand your will about the sources.. Look. I am a former AAF officer and I work within a NATO HQ in Tirana, that provides advisory to AAF. I better than anyone else around, including you, know what the AAF has or.. doesn't have. I'm leaving the format of the equipment as you did it, but I am taking away both the russian anti-aircraft equipment, the Hummer and the russian antitank missile because THEY DO NOT POSSES THEM! This is fake info that goes up and down on stupid albanian nationalist pages. If you stopp a little bit longer on those pages, you will see that AAF has in its inventory the F-16, the SU-27, three aircarriers and somewhere near Tirana long range nuclear head missiles.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.3.243 (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are a specialist, but there is still a need of an "Equipment" section, it makes the article more valuable. Even if the AAF does not operate certain types of AA / ATGM missiles, main small arms at least should be listed. The only thing I did not understand, is why you remove the HN-5 MANPADS from the list, when there is a picture of an albanian soldier firing it ? - Tourbillon ^A ? 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

HN-5 MANPAD

It was officially retired by the end of 2008. In fact I have brought the change on the page of the Air Force. It was retired due to aging factor. (Geting too old. You should not keep MANPAD's more than 10 years. Because it is high tech the main engine age might condition all the rest of the working mecchanism. It is not accurate any more). The 37 mm probably will be retired soon. Because Albania will become a NATO member on April 2009, air defence is no more a priority. It will be part of wider NATO umbrella. Air survelliance (air picture or 3D space monitoring) will remain a goal. Land forces and deployble units will be the priority. Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.3.243 (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Taepodong-2

I have NOT entered automatically translated text in the article. But thanks for your help,anyway. But please do not breach the article with the souce"Japan's defence Ministry's analyst's back ground explanation about Taepodong Loanch test" interviewed by Nikkei. By the way, simple question.You writing the article about DPRK but you live in Sophia how you are getting the detailed information? And I can understand Iran's Nuke is more important for you,but analyst commented that the back ground of "ICBM loanch test" is desire of Unification. And its very important for asian peoples Please do not delite it--Jack332 (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

At first sight it sure did look as automatic translation. If you have the proper sources for your information, please insert it with <ref></ref> tags. The best configuration for that info is under the form "First stage", "Second and third stages" sections, I suggest you keep it that way. - Tourbillon ^A ? 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensive?

Hi Pal

• Would you mind tell me "Which Rule am I voilate?"
• Original Reserch?---I'm paseting Cite
• NPOV?---------------OK I will write both side opinion

--Jack332 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Your edit here here is most certainly in violation of several wikipedia policies. Assume good faith, Etiquette, NAM, NPOV, Be civil, and several others I am sure. I suggest you read some of the policies before saying "start reading, you illiterate pricks, people are getting tired of removing the same old memorized statements". The edit you removed is correct, if you werent aware. Construction was halted in 1992, to be resumed in 2008, and it never has been occupied, so I am not entirely sure what the problem is with that statement or how it constitutes a "memorized statement". Thanks, Ono (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Construction is not halted anymore, construction has continued in April 2008. It's May 2009 right now, and it's most evident that construction is continuing. And the "Ryugyong's halted construction" is one of the many catch-phrases that pseudo-specialists on North Korea continue to add very often, among others. And, I can't help it if I'm having a bad day, or if such people continue to give "contributions". Thank you. - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

Hey there, Tourbillon. I noticed your signature just now and saw it had an image in it. According to our signature guideline, we ask that users not use images in their signatures for a large number of reasons - mainly that it has the risk of really slowing down the servers, and it also makes it difficult to track where the images are actually being used. Could I ask you to remove it, please? It's possible you might be able to replace it with a unicode character that looks similar. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know. Thanks. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 14:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I already removed it, a few days ago. :) - Tourbillon ^A ? 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria

	The Bulgaria Barnstar of National Merit
	I award you this Bulgaria Barnstar of National Merit for your work on Bulgaria's main page and tireless effords to improve military and economy related topics for the country. Keep on with your good work! Gligan (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
	this WikiAward was given to Tourbillon by Gligan (talk) on 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you put your name in the list of participants in WikiProject Bulgaria. Продължавай все така ;-) Поздрави, --Gligan (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Благодаря ! - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Accidental revert

You didn't include an edit summary for this revert, so I presume it was an accident. I thought the software was supposed to prevent a Wikipedia:Edit conflict, but whatever. I'm putting my edit back in, assuming this was an accident. Art LaPella (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apparently it was an accident, sorry. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Steyr AUG

The link provided is not accessible without a subscription. Find an alternative or I will hastily remove it. Koalorka (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not require a subscription for me and I can view it freely, that's first. Second, you are not the owner of the article. You do not decide what is to stay, and what is to be removed, and your behaviour is absolutely inadequate. Your lack of access is not an excuse to remove information. Maybe you should be reminded some basic Wikipedia principles. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you have provided an incorrect URL, there is no content on that page but some crude English-Bulgarian comment at the bottom. How could I possibly own the article? Anyone has access to it. What a stupid accusation. I work to make sure the article remains factually correct. You like authority? You should accept mine without question. Koalorka (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely your problem that you can't view the content, since I can view it perfectly. I'm not able to see some english-language sources on Wikipedia either, because of the same problem you experience. Yet, I do not find it nessecary to remove them. WP:OWN - better read this. The fact, that you didn't understand what I mean under "ownership" conclusively proves how shallow your knowledge of Wikipedia rules is. You don't work to make the article factually correct, because you remove factually correct and sourced information, simply because you are having problems with viewing it. I didn't really understand the thing about authority, could you come again with that if it's something meaningful ? Thank you. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Language Wikipedia. If users are not able to verify the page, than it is worthless and eligible to be rejected. Koalorka (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a serious Wikipedia discussion on the non-English language sources, with very solid arguments in favor of using such sources if needed. Besides, I'm a user, and apparently I am able to verify the content on the provided page. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria Article

If you think that the invention of the world's first electronic digital computer did not revolutionize global society, then please disconnect your internet cable from your personal computer. Then kindly turn off the said PC and put it away in its original box packaging. While you're at it you might as well throw your mobile phone away as it too is a computer. Your car, if made in the last 10 years, is also going to have to go. Maybe you can give it away to a friend or simply have it delivered to the local junk yard. I suppose you will also not be using passenger aircraft built in the last 30 years. Please also forget about such things as modern medical scanners, vital sign monitors and other related equipment. You may also kiss robotics good bye and hence the tertiary industrial revolution of the late 20th century.

Do you want me to go on, and on, and on? I guess not, because if I have to list all the modern technologies that are rooted and/or dependent in one way or another on the digital computer, and hence Atanasoff's invention, then I'm going to have to write a technology based textbook series. Come to think of it that would be great, as I'll most surely use my academic findings as an excuse to continually update your user discussion page with wonderful and enlightening information that I'm sure you'll appreciate. Digital, digital, digital!!!... Ah so much to say, so few hours in the day.

Anyways, since your opinion stands in stark opposition to the global reality of the so-called "Digital Age" or "Information Age", it is only logical for me to assume that you will no longer be using Wikipedia, a global public encyclopaedia that requires a digital computer (a network of them at that) to exist and function. Thus since you will no longer be contributing to our digital Wiki, I bid you farewell and may your future Amish lifestyle be all that you so fervently wish it to be. --Monshuai (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs)

I expected such a reaction, although not on my talk page. Which ultimately proves your predictability as a user, hence, your style of contributing and the contributions themselves. Please, post such opinions in some forum, not on my talk page. Oh, and you could reduce the daily amount of sweets in your diet - It doesn't influence you well. I would seriously suggest you to read WP:PEACOCK. Surprisingly, an "experienced" user like you truly lacks both aesthetics and clear assessment, when it comes to contributions. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - please do not flood my talk page with millions of useless words, proving nothing. If you have to say anything about the improvement of the article, say it straight. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well of course you predicted my reaction. After all, what else can a modern human being in the 21st century say about someone who discounts the revolutionary significance of the digital age? BTW, WP:PEACOCK refers only to contentious statements. Furthermore, even controversial statements are acceptable when backed by sources. So if your feeling still is that the invention of the digital computer DID NOT revolutionize global society or lead to such technologies as the Internet, which means that opposing views are in your eyes controversial, then be my guest and try to impose your opinion on the rest of the world. Try to discard the thousands upon thousands of sources, academic and otherwise, that state that the computer is one of the most important inventions in all human history. Yeap, give it your best shot!

So when will you stop using the unimportant technology called the computer? Can you answer this question? If on the other hand you do not intend to stop using your PC, please tell us why you've changed your mind.--Monshuai (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - Please answer my questions so that I do not continually "flood [your] talk page" with useless words.--Monshuai (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK states clearly to stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what to find interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy.. I have never stated, that the inventions or personalities, noted in the section are unimportant - just the style, describing them is too pompous. So please do not distort things and be objective when you read. You're not the only person with an opinion on this world and not only yours matters. Here is what I mean:

• "...that revolutionized global society" - the digital computer and the free-fall bomb design surely did so, but any reader with an average IQ can make that conclusion for himself, so I don't see what is the purpose of this loud statement.
• "digital computer [...] led not only to mass computing but to the development of of a number of divergent modern technologies" - same as the previous;
• "to conduct tactical, intercontinental and naval airplane bombing" - intercontinental ?! I seriously hope this is some sort of a mistake. The source provided does not give information for naval bombardment, so please find one.

As you see, I have no problem with the facts themselves, just with the style. As I previously advised, you should change the style of the sentences, or if you cannot, somebody else can do it anyway. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the first aerial intercontinental mission was conducted by Bulgarians who flew to the Asian side of Instanbul and later returned to Bulgarian soil on the European side. There are plenty of sources about this, so please check them yourself. The same holds true for the first anti-shipping attack carried about by Bulgarian pilots. Other than that I'm glad we agree on most things. Regards, --Monshuai (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Curious, I wasn't aware of those two facts... I'll surely try to find some sources on them. Best regards, - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit about life expectany on Albania

You really made me laugh, with this edit. The summary was: "Has an average life expectancy and one of the lowest in Europe.". I recommend you this page and check out where Bulgaria stands regarding that topic. Btw, send your bias somewhere else. Thank you. kedadial 19:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I use this source [1]. Rank - 51. Falls in the lower life expectancy category for Europe, among with Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, FYROM, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc. You can read the list for yourself. The Bulgaria page lists the low average life expectancy, so I don't see what is your problem with that. And I don't see where the bias is - bias is to state that Albania has one of the highest life expectancies in the world, when it is really an average number. Thank you. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Has an average life expectancy and one of the lowest in Europe." kedadial 19:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, being in the last 10 out of some 50 political entities in Europe is far from a satisfactory result, although I'm sure it will become better in the near future. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence was: "Albania has one of the highest life expectancies in the world with 77.43 years". Albania is ranked 36th (right after the US) out of 191 UN members (present in the list). If we'd divide that list on five, it qualifies in the first group (1/5). According to that equation, Bulgaria (ranked 83rd) would fall in the 3rd group (3/5), so I think it's okay to mark Bulgaria as average on this issue (even though it's non of my business). Thank you. kedadial 19:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny it has a fair life expectancy, I just point out that "highest" would mean one of the first 10 or 15 worldwide, at most, and at rank 36 it sounds inappropriate. "Has a life expectancy of 77.42 years, higher than that of some European Union countries" would sound good. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How's this ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Off-topic, I reverted your image removal on the article of Albania. Please use the talk page for future removals and get the opinion of the other editors. Thank you. kedadial 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of them, because it looked somewhat overcrouded and the text gets "lost", if you know what I mean. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Science and Technology

Tourbillion, I'm glad you're making an effort to improve the Bulgaria article. Even so, I don't agree with your latest edits to the "Science and Technology" section. You've basically made it one of the smallest sections of the article, while it is arguably the most important one. After all, modern society is built upon the foundations of science and technology, and its traditions, contributions and current level of sophistication in these interconnected spheres is of utmost importance to its future standing as a relevant player in an increasingly competitive and globalizing world. As such this section should blossom and indeed showcase a small country's potential to contribute to humankind's past, present and future level of aggregate development. So you see, I find it amusing that even in its former form it was already shorter than the Sports section, while now it has shrunk to approximately 1/3 its size. It is also much shorter than the Transport section, the Geography section and approximately 1/15 the size of the History section. I realize that there is now a dedicated article detailing the nation's achievements in Sci-Tech, but that doesn't change the fact that there are dedicated articles for most of the other information provided elsewhere. Thus in applying the same criteria for your latest edits, it would also be "reasonable" to make the entire Bulgaria article approximately 1/13 its current size. Of course that would make no sense... Needless to say, I've just looked at a number of country articles that are longer (ie: Brazil). BTW, if you have the time take a look at their sci-tech section. Anyway, let's have a constructive discussion about this. You and I can put our heads together to foster an acceptable solution and likewise we can work hard to improve the overall structure (sequential and proportional) of the article as a whole.--Monshuai (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand what you mean and I'm aware that the section itself is very important. But the idea is that each section should be a brief summary with the basic and most important information inside, while detailed information should be included in the respective main article.

Smaller amounts of facts, dates, events and personalities actually make the section easier to assess. In such a case it is more likely that the average reader will also read the main article, as well as the articles on the given personalities and discoveries, where further and more detailed information about the subject is available. I think in its current state the "Science and technology" section offers much more easily accessible information, as it is more compact and organized. The facts are interesting enough and they will surely make the reader throw a look to the respective main page.

All in all, we are both aware that we simply can't include all the information in the Bulgaria article. The Science and technology section was shortened, but that doesn't mean others should stay overinflated - for example, "Culture", "Sports" and maybe "Geography". The most important thing an article should have is readability. Less specific information usually increases interest towards the object (from the point of view of curiosity) and makes the information more memorable overall. For example, I've ommitted the information about the number of cellphones in use and scientists employed in CERN. Of course, these aren't unimportant figures, but by removing such detailed information more accent falls on far more important facts - such as Bulgaria being the 6th nation to have a citizen in space. That's the main idea, and it should be applied (with care) to the sections I previously mentioned. I hope you understand what I mean. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You have made good points. I am however still under the impression that the Science and Technology section is currently eclipsed by other sections that are arguably less pertinent to the article. Anyway, good job on adding education specific info.--Monshuai (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing Tourbillion... Have you recently seen the page view statistics for the Bulgaria article? What would be your best guess as to the cause of the massive jump in viewership over the last two weeks? Oddly enough, it is currently getting more (a lot more) traffic than the articles for globally influential countries such as China, Russia, Canada, Brazil, India, Japan and even the USA. I must be missing a vital piece of information that would otherwise help me come to a logical (cause-effect) conclusion about this recent and rather puzzling dynamic. It seems unreasonable to simply attribute it to random internet activity, as the traffic has been persistently hovering at many standard deviations (at least one order of magnitude on the logarithmic scale) above pre October 17 mean daily values.--Monshuai (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea. I just noticed that they almost reached 120,000 views per day, and I can't seem to find an event notable enough to be the cause. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Geography of Bulgaria

Hi there! I really enjoy seeing your contributions to the Bulgaria page. However, I'm not so crazy about your recent substitution of the Trigrad gorge picture with one of clouds over the Pirin mountains. Purely from an aesthetic perspective, the (gray) picture of the clouds next to the (gray) picture of lake Mandrensko doesn't really look that great (and makes Bulgaria look like quite a dull place). Also, despite it being a little pretentious, I quite liked the picture of the gorge. Let me know what you think? Thanks! Tomatoman (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Pirin pic has some sunlight in it, which contrasts with the dark Mandrensko ezero pic; I didn't have other reasons to change it, really. I liked the previous picture of the gorge too, and I'm not very pretentious about this section, you can bring it back if you wish. :) - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh...maybe it's my monitor settings :). Anyway, I did change it back - I liked the way the orange in the gorge picture contrasts with the bluishness of the lake. That said, I think both pictures seem to concentrate on the "arty" side of photography, rather then on actually portraying the geography of the country. It might be a little stereotypical, but I think the best representation of Bulgarian geography would be a picture of mountains/lakes, and one of the coastline, probably with some sunshine. I'm not saying it should look like a tourist brochure, but portraying Bulgaria as a sunny place wouldn't be inaccurate :). I'll see if I can find something nice on flickr... Tomatoman (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've considered several pictures to put in the Geography section, you can see them if you wish -

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

But I really think the Mandrensko lake image should stay. It's quite good. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the one of [[2]] is really fantastic - we should definitely fit it in somewhere! The Mandrensko lake picture is indeed nice and I agree that it should stay (although I might not agree on its usefulness in showing what Bulgaria looks like :) ). I figured I might as well upload some of my own pictures into the commons (from [www.flickr.com/photos/svetlio/|flickr]), but then realized they completely pale in comparison to some others, such as the ones on forum thread. Unfortunately I don't imagine the person who posted them there could be very helpful in finding out what their licences are... Tomatoman (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The one you suggest doesn't open to me :/. You have a nice stream in Flickr, though, many of the images are quite good. Those on the forum thread are also fantastic, but I doubt whether we could find their authors and ask them for permission. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, apologies for my sporadic communication. Presumably by "the one that doesn't open" you mean the Maliovitsa one - I was just referring to the one you yourself posted above. I think I'll replace the Trigrad gorge one on the page with it and see how it looks - it's just quite a striking picture. Thanks for the compliment on my photostream - I got some lucky shots, but there's still plenty to learn! And yeah...asking unknown authors for permission is sort of tricky. Tomatoman (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks awesome now. =) - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the rewording of the names - I think I flipped "peak" and "Malyovitsa" a couple of times while I was writing it because I couldn't make up my mind... I guess putting "peak" after the name is more grammatically correct :) (though "lake Mandrensko" is definitely better than "Mandrensko lake"...I guess if I spent my life worrying about things like that I'd never get anything sensible done!) Tomatoman (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Always welcome. :) - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Weapons of Bulgaria

Template:Weapons of Bulgaria has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Tourbillon, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Tourbillon/Testrange. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Technical University of Sofia

why have you removed File:Sofia_-_TU_-_Hotel_Vitosha.jpg?

I wouldn't consider a picture with "Hotel Vitosha on the territory of TU Sofia, an illegal construction" written below it anything adequate for that article. Would you ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:BM25 Musudan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BM25 Musudan.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BGSoldiers1945.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BGSoldiers1945.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Hi! I have worked on maps in the past, yes. However, you have to consider that to make such an animated map, I'll have to draw about 10 maps at least and merge them together. For the time being, I don't think I can devote time to that, sorry... I think the best way to do that would be to request help from the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop and provide maps which they can reference. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 07:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pokpung-ho.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pokpung-ho.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Population of Bulgaria

Hi, again. The population of Bulgaria is 7.8 million by current address, see here [3] and the 2001 provisional census result is not complete. I prefer we first discuss the positions instead edit warring. Pensionero (UTC)

The address registration is not a statistical mean of how many people live in the country. It also reflects the individual ownership of the address, which is not always compatible with Bulgarian citizenship or residency, and the figures include "missing" individuals (such who do not live in the country but officially live on an address, or have passed away). In one word, address registration =/= living individual in the country. Besides, it's not physically possible for Bulgaria to have a population of more than 7.5 million, given the emigration rates and the enormous births/deaths gap which show little to no tendency of improving. The only valid figures are those of the national census, which has been completed as far as the basic population figures are a concern. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The address registration is not counting the unregistred foreigners, but aren't NSI estimate based only on the growth from 2001 census? Then this estimate actually count nothing at present, while the address registration count the citizens current residing in the country. Those who have passed away are counted on premanent address. Turkey for example use address registration for its population in the infobox- [4]. As you said the only valid figures are from the national census from 2001 and 2011 still hasn't final results. We should base on esimate, beacause the provisional results get from the population decreasily. Pensionero (UTC)

No. The NSI statistics are based on a direct population count, and the 2011 census, as I said, has complete basic results, such as number of people and growth, but it is incomplete in the religious and ethnic composition areas. The address registration in Bulgaria reflects the number of people related to a given address, but only takes into account the existing address locations. This statistic often fails to coincide with the actual number of people, as many of the address locations continue to exist on paper, but no information can be given about the owner of the location. GRAO only updates the number of existing addresses and not the number of people who actually live on them - that's NSI's job, and the last data shows a population of 7.3 million people, which should be used in the article. That is the most verifiable and up-to-date figure. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I meaned not for the 2011 census for the estimate of NSI, which was 7,504,000 you know it. I know 2011 census is direct population count, but are you sure it has complete results in number of people? Beacause in population proper article in NSI I saw the graph like that - [5].

And what means this bookmark for provisional results in a graph for population of the country only, not religion, ethnic, or linguistic area. The final data in July may show higher population, that was what I mean the provisional census result is not complete and get from the population decreasily. I think an estimate should be used until the final data in July. Pensionero (UTC)

An estimate could be used. The current census data is itself an estimate. GRAO figures are not. -

☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The provisional census data should not, it is not final data. Rather we should use the estimate of NSI: 7,528,103. Pensionero (UTC)

I have already removed the GRAO figure as you claim it only counts the existing addresses and not the people which live on them. Pensionero (UTC)

Then I guess there will be no problem if I revert the page. It's not really suitable to start the section with "Bulgaria's in a state of demographics crisis". Basic figures should be provided first. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is not suitable to start the page with "84% were Bulgarians, 9.5% Turks". "Bulgaria is in demographic crysis" isn't more basic information? And the estimates of the growth rate of CIA have nothing common with the reality. The population, which CIA shows for 2011 keep to be its own philosphy- 7,093,635, altough the prvisional census result and official estimates are 7.3-7.5. In my opinion we can think of something other than revert this version. Pensionero (UTC)

Each research body has its own methodology of doing estimates. For now CIA is the only one that provides a precise population growth and migration rate figures, something Bulgarian research institutes lack. The numbers and the ethnic composition are a basic necessity to start the section with. Everything else comes after that in a declining order of importance. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

CIA is still showing decreasing to 7.0 million and a growth rate decreasing to 7.0 million, altough 7.3 are provisionaly counted officially. In fact their growth rate is refuted officially by NSI with showing the population at 7.5 million. I don't know on what are based CIA's wrong calculations, but better without instead wrong growth rate. We can take the current population as starting sentence? Pensionero (UTC)

Their growth rate is based on the discrepancy between births and deaths per 1,000 people. I'm amazed by the ease with which you reject CIA as a reliable source, it's one of the most trusted sites on the web. "According to the (year) census..." is a good start by any means.

Oh, and one more thing - the emigrant interest stuff isn't really for the article. You can stick it to the Demographics of Bulgaria page, but on the main Bulgaria article it's simply too much and of no interest to the average reader. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We count minimum 7.3 million and CIA says 7.0 so should we write 7.0 million beacause of their ingenious calculations? I wrote the emigrant stuff to show what was the decreasing of the population by years, beacause it is not the same as the first years after the fall of Zhivkov's regime, how is written the population decreased from 9 million to 8.5 in 3 years, if that the same decreasing continue is not refuted someone may confuse that the Bulgarians will vanish in few years, a confusing is prevented. Pensionero (UTC)

They might as well be 6.0 million, but it's not up to our opinion what to write. The decrease of the population belongs to the main Demographics page, the Bulgaria article only requires the basic details and even now it's too detailed in some aspects. If figures are the problem, I can readily provide about 30 sources about a population decline in the range of 800,000 to 2,000,000 people in the 1990-2010 timespan. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK that will stay at Demographics of Bulgaria, but once again are you sure for GRAO? Beacause it is still using for the popuilation of every city and town in Bulgarian Wikipedia and for some in the English including Sofia previously. Pensionero (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain. GRAO does not take into account death/birth rates and migration rates. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Largest cities of Bulgaria

The street picture of Burgas you take really do not fit, do not understand me wrong I don't want to give my opinion insolent, but roughly said one third of the picture are cars and one third sky. Actually the panoramic picture is not better much, but Burgas hasn't got seemly for template street pictures in the site. About the amphiteatre, why this symbol of the city should be removed from the template not from Bulgaria's page? The template could be used for other pages widely in future. And it was replaced with houses of revival architecture which as the amphiteatre also exist in Bulgaria's page in paragraph Culture. Pensionero (UTC)

The truth is there are no good city pictures of Bulgarian cities, and many Bulgarian cities don't even have a lot of symbolic landmarks in them (take Burgas). In such a situation street images are much more descriptive than a panoramic view which, in such a small, template scale, has absolutely no value. The symbols of a given city are rarely as descriptive as a general view of it - not a panoramic photo, but a simple, everyday glimpse - an average reader wouldn't like an image of the Eiffel tower from Paris because that would be a cheesy cliché. As for the Plovdiv image - there's already a referenced statement of high importance in the Culture section. These image arguments are really pointless and a waste of time, I see no reason why you insist on changing the pictures on every single page. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you want to take for every city street picture with everyday atmosphere, but Burgas, Varna and Plovdiv haven't got in the site, only Sofia have boulevard Cherni Vrah and few others. Burgas hasn't got symbolic landmarks, it hasn't got both street and symbolic pictures in the site and is really hard what to take in its space. I think there should be found better street image of Burgas if there is, but there is not. In the soon taken only one third of the image is everyday atmosphere, the other third is cars and the other sky which are high class ugly and looks like the photo was taken shitty without any attention, that is not simple everyday picture that is unaesthetically taken picture, therefore in such case of exigency what to take I chose the panoramic photo. It may be probably with small, template scale, but is clean view of the city at least, if not this picture what picture of Burgas then we will take?? For Plovdiv, first, the revival architecture with which you replace the teathre is also in Bulgaria's page in paragraph Culture, second the revival houses are not better looking than the antique atmosphere and third the houses are not symbol of Plovdiv as amphiteathre, not commonly with the example of Paris, beacause the teathre is not a known metal building, famous as the Eiffel tower and looks for the average reader as unknown ancient everyday situation. Pensionero (UTC)

I've stated my arguments above - symbols are not a good representation of a city, no matter if they're famous or not. Certain things might not be good looking for you - Plovdiv in general doesn't look good in my eyes, neither does Burgas. But I'm not really expressing preferences - I'm just placing neutral images. The ones you're putting up so far are mostly based on what you find to be pretty, not on what the template/article really needs. Can't you just leave them be ? Because, personally, I'm tired of wasting time with such unimportant issues. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The new picture of Burgas just does not fit and have to be found other and normall street picture. The Amphiteatre does not looks symbol of Plovdiv for the average reader beacause it is not famous as Paris and actually Plovdiv and such cities have no landmarks-symbols. You understood me wrong - I am too not exprrssing preferences and not insisting for keeping this image beacause I like it but beacause antique situation usally is liked more by the reader and take more of his interest than some houses from recent period. Pensionero (UTC)

I forgot one more thing the English Wikipedia does not have this province - bg:Област София es:Provincia de Sofía-Ciudad. Pensionero (UTC)

The same photo is used bellow. You can put whatever you want, just not the same landmark. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The houses from the old city are also repeating bellow, see File:Blue house-Koprivshtitsa.JPG. Pensionero (UTC)

Братче, стига с тоя национален отбор и тая карта! Pensionero (UTC)

Снимката не е на оригиналната гробница, а Златната топка "на Стоичков" е толкова ни в клин, ни в ръкав, че не намирам думи. Стига сме се правили на много големи, нещата трябва да се показват такива, каквито са. Освен това българската култура изобщо не е славянско-православна, както пишеш - нищо общо няма с хомогенността на истинските такива култури, като руската или украинската, а е абсолютна мешана салата. Да не говорим, че твърдението е с източник. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

За гробницата аз лично съм ходил и това го има на купола. А снимката дали е оттам поне така предполагам. А този безславен национален отбор е някак си без принос към българския спорт. Няма ли България много по значими спортни постожения или спортисти, не задължително Златната топка на Стоичков, които да се сложат в параграфа? За културата не видях, че има сложен източник в края на изречението и затова редактирах произволно грешка просто. Pensionero (UTC)

Аз не казвам, че го няма в гробницата, чисто и просто снимката не е на оригиналната гробница. Пък именно това си е набутване на лична гледна точка - че отборът бил безславен, че България имала не знам какви още постижения. Ами така е, но разделите не се занимават с историята на спорта, а със спортът, такъв какъвто е в момента. Работата е, че от статията трябва да се съкратят възможно най-много ненужни детайли, за да има шанс за избрана. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Не става въпрос за набутване на лично мнение. Къде в текста пише нещо за този национален отбор? Пише, че Христо Стоичков е най-добрия български спортист на всички времена и че най-доброто постожение е на националния отбор от 1994, така че нормално е да се сложи картинка свързана със Стоичков, 1994 или нешо от сорта. От това виждаш, че разделът се занимава и с минало на спортта. Само като пример в статията на Унгария в раздела спорт е сложена картинка на футболист който вече е в историята, а да давам примери с други държави няма смисъл. Pensionero (UTC)

Националният отбор си е национален отбор независимо дали съставът му за момента е слаб или не - бил си е същата организация със същите цели през 1994, каквато е и днес, разликата в резултатите е съвсем отделен въпрос. И както казваш, разделът донякъде се занимава с миналото на спорта, което не е много удачно и трябва да се коригира. Отделно на ръка че другите статии изобщо не трябва да са критерий за развитие, статията за Унгария изобщо не е подходящ пример, защото е толкова тъпкана с ненужна информация, че просто няма накъде. Това, което аз гледам са тези статии: [6], [7], [8] и особено [9] и се опитвам поне да доближа тази за България до тях - изчистена от маловажни твърдения, тонове картинки, таблици и прочее. Особено таблицата, която постоянно връщаш, е ужасно грозна и оставя празно пространство под шаблона с картата, като че ли ще е и по-добре без нея. Постоянното връщане на версии е пагубно, защото редакторските войни сериозно деградират шансовете на една статия за по-добра оценка от независими редактори. Освен това трябва да те предупредя, че писането на български по беседите в английската уики често не се толерира. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

За последен път ще ти пиша на български. Резултатите са най-важното, защото в раздела се пише кой какви резултати е постигнал. Ясно е че някои неща се променят, например българската армия от преди векове не е със същите приноси и не можеш да кажеш, че снимка на днешни български войници могат да се ползват като показ на битиката при Ахелой примерно. Снимка на Стоичков или негово постижение е по-подходоящо от този национален отбор, защото той има повече приноси за спортта на България. Иначе незнам колко грозно изглежда тази таблица, която поставих, но в другата липсва една провинция и сатова я поставям. А във връщането ти участваш колкото и аз. Pensionero (UTC)

"Резулатите са най-важното" е лична гледна точка. Фактологията е най-важното. Статията не е алманах на българските постижения в различните области (в което ти се опитваш да я превърнеш), а представя историческа справка в разделите по история, и актуална информация във всички останали. Софийската "провинция" се припокрива със статията за София и няма нужда от още една връзка към същото нещо. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pensionero (talk) (UTC)

I've reported you here for 3 disruptive reverts at Bulgaria's intro in 24 hours and for your disruptive character in edit wars in the last few days. -Pensionero (UTC)

If you intended to get me banned, I'll have to dissapoint you - it comes with the 4th revert. I've reverted your nationalist POV intro along with the rest of your edits. You can keep blaming me for starting edit wars, but it doesn't really fit your actions. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I will dissapoint you beacause no administrator find your claimings for "POV", "nationalist", "tendencous" etc. in the report you shown for me. Pensionero (UTC)

I'm not dissapointed, actually that was intended to be a quick measure against your warrying edits. Knowing the erratic nature of editors like you, I wouldn't really expect you to be cooperative, even though I would recommend you to be. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Tourbillon,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 11:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Personal attacks

I will suggest that you don't personally attack me on grounds of my:
- education
- place of origin

You are in both ways mistaken in your suppositions.

About your attacks about style and stylistics:

I can only suggest that you read at least two articles, scientific and quoted on topics about countries politics and economy. About your culture and way of "writing" and communicating with others unfortunatelly I don't have anything to suggest because I believe its an unsolvable case. --Aleksd (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't attacked your place of origin, please don't apply strawman tactics. Anything on the remarks of the journalistic style you applied ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Original research at Roma in Bulgaria

The resent assertion you made at this article amounts to original research. The refs you provide are a disperate collection of web articles alleging Roma crime, apparently to advance your point of view, and do not specifically support your gross generalisation. Rather than tag each individually as 'failed verification' and 'original research', you may read this note in lieu of. RashersTierney (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

At least two of them verify this position, which is in no case original research. The Roma have the highest average rate of crime involvement from any ethnic group in Bulgaria, how does this represent original research ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied your reply and responded at Talk:Roma in Bulgaria#Original research. RashersTierney (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User nostalgia

Template:User nostalgia, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User nostalgia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User nostalgia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Tourbillion. Since you reverted me 2 times, I just wanted to know what do you think is better in the scale's picture? It doesn't present any population figure, just only a line twisting up and down, and for me this picture looks typical for the Demographics of Bulgaria page. I think it comes in more for the brief page of Bulgaria and some more productive things should be placed. Just for example - Romania and Canada use the same table. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.146.207 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The table is not a bad option, but personally I consider the scale to be better. A table would rather suit a larger demographics section, while this one isn't particularly extensive. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That I don't like in the scale is that a person should struggle and lag to understand it, while the table informes you if you look it from a distance. Swowly would be if you want to read few figures from the scale. On a whole the scale seems uninformative for me and rather for Demographics of Bulgaria page where there are any kinds of diagrames and scales. However I don't find the topic to be much significant and we should not dive on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.146.207 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tourbillon. You have new messages at Chipmunkdavis's talk page.
Message added 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bulgarian population

Hello, Tourbillon. As you've continuously reverted my edits of Bulgaria's population, here's a proof that 7 364 is actually 7.36, not 7.37:

http://www.math10.com/forumbg/viewtopic.php?p=15555#15555

User:Nicksss93 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2011

Hm, last time I read a subject on it, it was 4 and beyond that had a rounding towards the higher number. Must've remembered it incorrectly, sorry for that. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sofia photos

The Ministry of Agriculture - File:Ministry of Agriculture - Sofia.jpg ;) --MrPanyGoff (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria FA nomination

Привет, видях номинацията на статията за България за FA. Искрено пожелавам да бъде успешна. Направих един общ преглед на материала и на първо четене ми се набиха две конкретни неща, които реших да споделя тук вместо в секцията за номинации. Ще започна първо с административното разделяне на държавата. Според мен, така поднесено то довежда до известна заблуда и неяснота. Всъщност не е нещо сложно, просто още две уточняващи изречения биха оправили нещата. Съществуващите в момента 27+1 области не са ново деление. Това е делението на страната почти от Втората световна война до днес. През социализма се наричаха окръзи, а сега области. Те са едни и същи от 60 години с изключение на споменатото краткото прекъсване, което всъщност представляваше неуспешен експеримент от политбюро, който така и не заработи. Така че, тези девет области въобще не се осъществиха на практика. Реално те бяха налагани от 1987 до 1990 година. Поради динамичните процеси и хоса в държавата, формално чак през 1999 година, управниците успяха да върнат старото деление. Де факто тези девет области въобще не бяха възприети. Така че, според мен трябва ясно да се каже, че Страната е разделена на 27+1 области (окръзи) от 1950 г. или 1954 ли беше!? Това за деветте области трябва да е само като леко вмъкване заради фактологията. Спирам засега ;) Наздраве!--MrPanyGoff (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Това също ми е известно, а и погледнах статията на български като отправна точка. Проблемът е там, че има много информация без надеждни източници, в това число и за административното деление. Поне в моят опит не намерих солиден източник (тип Библиотеката на Конгреса), който детайлно да описва административната структура и нейната история. Същият проблем го имам и с много други важни за България теми и обекти - да речем в У:Р на български пуснах питане за манастира св. Атанасий, който е първият в Европа, но в същото време нямам нито един източник, който да може да го потвърди. Ще се разтърся пак, но ако имаш някакви книжни източници за историята на административното деление - с удоволствие ще ги цитирам. Поздрави, - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Я виж тук! Всичко е на български но мисля, че стават за референции. Публикуваните материали са на сайт на министерство. За да спестиш време обърни внимание на: "Хроника на обособяване на Регионите в България", "Историческо развитие на административно - териториалното устройство на Република България" и екселския файл "Окръжни и областни центрове в България 1879-2010 г." --MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Хм, това е идеално, благодаря много ! Ще го добавя, само да се оправя със скриптовете на бележките, че нещо ми правят проблем в момента...- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sofia article question

Why did you revert the change to the City's population number and the reference for it, with the edit explanation "Reverting image play."? There are no images involved, unless I'm not seeing something. Pine^talk 05:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A number of images were changed, and some of them were replaced with lower quality photos. My experience shows that sooner or later this specific article mutates into an image gallery with a ridiculous amount of pictures, so I reverted those edits in order to keep it a bit more stable. I hadn't noticed the sourced population figure until now, feel free to add it back. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Adiantum viridimontanum

Tourbillon, thanks for your support of this article as an FA. I appreciate your taking the time to read a rather technical article outside of your usual subject matter, and I'm grateful for your interest and help. Yours, Choess (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're always welcome ! - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tank 3.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tank 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Bulgaria shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In regards to this, the message you posted on Ceco31's user talk accused them of vandalism. Just as he was wrong to accuse you of vandalism, it is equally wrong to call their edits vandalism back. Ask them to stop disruptive editing perhaps, ask them to discuss on the talkpage and try to figure out BRD, yes, but calling them a vandal doesn't help your case at all. I suggest retracting that bit of the warning. CMD (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do, I'm having trouble holding my nerves lately so thanks for noticing that. I've left a note on the talk page, I might have to pass through that too. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. When you recently edited Primer with Various Instructions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Primer with Various Instructions

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sentence in Politics section of Bulgaria article

Hello, about the sentence I've removed and you've restored it:

• The first reference is really outdated since it's a news article from 2006.

• The second reference is an example of a biased news article. I don't know if you know it, but, according to the Transparency International rankings, the least corrupt country would have a rank of 10 and the most corrupt - of 1. Here's a proof of this. Thus, the data from the news article points exactly the opposite of what is written and actually, according to Transparency International, the Bulgarian judicial system is one of the least corrupt institution in the country. And this, believe me, isn't quite away from reality. Just don't trust Bulgarian media nowadays.

• The third reference you've added simply points out that Bulgaria has the worst rankings in the EU and gives no information about the judicial system.

• Same with the fourth one.

Nicksss93 (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, this is a trend, not pinpoint-accurate statistical information. Corruption trends in the public sector usually change very slowly, so it might be outdated in 5 more years. Though I'd also argue that it's outdated - by all means public institutions are even more corrupt than they were 5 years ago, but nevermind. Considering that Transparency International shows that, for 2011, Bulgaria has THE lowest ranking in the EU (3.3, as opposed to 3.6 for Romania), and that two and a half years ago (which really isn't that much time) the judiciary and the parliament were considered the most corrupt institutions in the country, I wouldn't see where and how any of the sources provided are biased or inaccurate.

What's more, the statement points out that Bulgaria's judiciary is among the most corrupt in Europe. Considering the rankings, it might not even require citations because it's close to common sense that virtually any country in the Union is less corrupt than Bulgaria. Oh, and on a side note - I don't trust the local media in the past three years either, and that is exactly the reason why I'd regard them as much more biased than anything else. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that the data cited in the article points out the judiciary to be one of the least corrupt as it has the highest ranking among the institutions and in Transparency International's rankings the higher the score is, the less corrupt the institution is. And what's written is exactly the opposite of the data cited and that's why I regard this as a blatantly biased article. Nicksss93 (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky peer review

hello,

I found your name here and I invite you to join this peer review. Any help appreciated! Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 12:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Albania

Hey there, thanks for your interest in the Albania article. I work mainly on the Ottoman side of things, and as I noted in the discussion page, I don't think that the information there needs to be trimmed - since in all other articles, including Greece, Bosnia and herzegovina, Egypt and even Bulgaria has a similar length.

I look forward to your thoughts, and let me know if you need any help.

Ottomanist (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally not a proponent of shorter history sections either, but in some cases I think it's more optimal. Albania's early history is somewhat not central to the development of the region, with the remarkable exception of Skanderbeg. That is why I proposed there simply be more accent on post-1912 Albania, when the modern state was formed. You can see the general layout in my testrange, although that's not where I keep the sources and this isn't anywhere near complete. Cheers, - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. When you recently edited Bulgarian Land Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatherland Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria". Thank you. --Ximhua (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ==

Thank you!

Other bits of Bulgarian history

Have a look at this revision history. This version reads far more in line with the history I know than the current one, as well as being far better written (and not filled with terrible wording such as "Treaty of Berlin ruined the Bulgarian principality" emphasis added). Thoughts? CMD (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the same. What is added is basically a poorly done patchwork of things already present below in the article. I think the user should be advised to change his writing style in general, because reverting there will only cause another dispute. Unfortunately all Bulgarian historical articles have the same issue. And somewhat off-topic, but I have reasons to believe that User:Ximhua is a sockpuppet, as User:WilliamThweatt suggested on the Bulgaria talk page. Should we wait a bit more before starting an investigation ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Change the writing style how? The English isn't the best, but I mean, it's not really bad at all. (I mean, better than my writing in other languages. On the side, congratulations on your elevation in Spanish knowledge!) The main problem is the way they change content, and that's the result of a viewpoint, rather than any particular style. I suppose they could be advised to use edit summaries. Bulgaria's no worse off than any other country with regards to history articles. Instead of just reverting (despite the fact I feel it would be appropriate), I was thinking of rewriting it to take into account any good points from both versions, and perhaps add a bit more here and there, if something is obviously missing. And by "it" I mean the lead, as that seems to be all that's worth editing.

Even if you suspect Ximhua is a sockpuppet, if you can't determine who they are a sockpuppet of, an investigation won't help. Checkusers won't just randomly run a username to see what pops up, such "fishing" is discouraged. I think they're definitely one of the IPs (or the IP, don't know if it was one dynamic user), but that doesn't make them a sockpuppet. On the other hand, if you have behavioural evidence that the IP/Ximhua is a sock of a current editor, that would be enough to start an investigation. CMD (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't express myself well, under "style" I meant the way he treats information. A lot of users tend to add redundant information to articles because they feel it's "important", while in fact it makes it a more difficult read. The viewpoint itself is not as big a problem as the desire to emphasise it and not keep the balance between it and the other viewpoints present. The best way out of this, I've figured, is to keep the article as source-based as possible. Currently Principality of Bulgaria only has a few. History of Bulgaria is pretty well-sourced, and there have been no disputes over it, even though it's not in perfect shape.

As for Ximhua, I have my reasons. Responds with "agreement" like the previous IP, does not sign his comments, only registered on July 25 and has no other contributions outside this issue. The problem is, I don't know who owns the IPs, and therefore who's the sockmaster. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I see, sorry. Yes, concision isn't everyone's strong point, and in my experience comes with learning and practice. Wikipedia:Main article fixation is an interesting short essay with regards to that. History in general can be difficult, even if source based. I remember doing a peer review of Romania in the Middle Ages, which had sources, and still finding issues. No doubt this is partly because not all sources are good sources, especially with educational nationalism and all that. Perhaps if you have time, you could shift any relevant information from the history article to the principality one? (or perhaps if I have time, I'll ask myself to.) In the meantime I'm going to edit the lead so it doesn't take up a third of the article.

Ximhua definitely was an IP, but as it was created after the IP edits, isn't violating any sock guidelines (although their claim that at least 7 users opposed, which I think must include the IPs, is quite dubious). Also, as a new user, it's not to be expected that they have any edits outside the topic. If you can't link the IP behaviour to an established user, there's no point to an investigation. Still, probably a good idea to keep an eye on them. If they edit badly, they'll be blocked on their own merits. If they edit well, win-win. CMD (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I launched an investigation after a second puppet appeared on the noticeboard - "obvious sock is obvious". If there's any observations you could add there, please do. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Check out the only part of this edit that wasn't lead fixation. The ghastly idea that Bulgaria might have not at one point been united. It was in the pre my edit version too. No clue what the other entities might be either. They haven't been important enough to be mentioned in Second Bulgarian Empire. CMD (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the hideous appearance of this intro, these edits are actually POV. I wonder if he will be touching this with the same changes. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and somewhat off-topic, but the eternal Balkan quest for "truth" has always amused me. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If Russian wasn't an official language, they're right that it shouldn't appear in the infobox, although this doesn't affect the first line. Besides that, yeah, it's pretty bad. Lots of banging on about the Treaty of San Stefano, despite the fact that this never went into effect. History of Bulgaria (1878–1946) already isn't much better with regards to this. Ximhua clearly canvassing there, nonneutral wording and location. The "Great Czech Nation" must be particularly fragile if it's threatened by a couple of dates on wikipedia. The quest for truth I find interesting (not always amusing), but in the spirit of WP:TIGER, quite a few 'truths' shouldn't be prowling around the forest of wikipedia articles. CMD (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That one is a correct edit - although the administration was, in fact, Russian. The San Stefano treaty is a very interesting case. The attention that is paid to it in Bulgarian historiography is very strong, and it has always been seen as the "ideal" of Bulgarian unification. I can remember how we studied it in history class, the whole story was formulated in the likes of a "fair treaty ruined by the Great Powers". The fact that it was provisional and was never intended to come into force is quite often overlooked, which leads many people around here to believe that it's actually the treaty that outlines modern Bulgarian territories. Everything concerning the San Stefano treaty is a readily available target for WP:TRUTH fighters. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know that about the administration, although clearly Russia had quite a bit of influence. Enough to scare the Great Powers anyway. San Stefano is probably treated as ideal as it seems to completely resurrect the Second Bulgarian Empire, covering a very similar area. Perhaps it could be looked at as something similar to the Treaty of Sèvres, which was superseded by a treaty which reduced Greek gains. I haven't seen much ruckus around that, but then again, I hadn't known San Stefano was such a big thing until now. I've never seen it more than just being mentioned as an initial Russian treaty that was altered in terms of an overall rebalancing of power. CMD (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just it - the treaty was not a big thing, exactly because it only remained as a proposal that the other Great Powers did not approve. But it's perceived as something big around here, even though Bulgaria never had the necessary diplomatic, economic and military power to achieve anything even near that. That's why it's a cornerstone of Bulgarian nationalism. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about the whole national identity suppression idea a bit more, it probably wasn't that hard of a thing to eliminate during that period of history. Identity then was fundamentally different to national identities today, having more to do with allegiance rather than self-identity. All the Ottomans really had to do was severe ties to the old leadership to deal with the remnants of the kingdom (although no doubt the Bulgarians still saw themselves as Christians rather than Muslims, which was a major part of medieval identity). The National awakening of Bulgaria probably wasn't a resurgence of any previous identity, but part of the development of national identity all over Europe during that period. It was definitely based off the culture that had been there for centuries, but it wasn't the resurrection of an older identity. Did minor research with this in mind. I doubt there'd be any sources discussing ancient national identities for individual groups, because these identities didn't exist, leaving not much to write about (if there are I'd be interested to read them). However, Brittanica does say nationalism disintegrated the supranational states of the Habsburgs and the Ottoman sultans, both of which were based upon prenational loyalties. Our National awakening of Bulgaria article actually attributes the beginning of the awakening as occurring due to religion, so it seems it began as an old medieval identity crisis, which developed into the modern national identity. (Sorry if it's a bother bouncing these ideas of you here, but I feel the more I understand the better grasp I'll have of the situation.) CMD (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's it. Nations as we know them today did not exist before the 19th century and the appearance of Romantic nationalism that glorified an idealised past and common origin. Basically a "nation" is a "home" or a "fatherland", but in a somewhat otherworldly sense, like something metaphysical and spanning through the ages. Pochvennichestvo and Völkische Bewegung are the prime examples of this concept. It was then that nations formed; before that everything was, as you said, based on allegiance. If a group of peasants are subjects of, say, the King of France, then they're French; the moment they fall under the control of the Spanish king, they become Spanish. Bulgaria is not an exception, although it has a number of factors contributing to the issue - one was the Medieval identity crisis as you put it, the other one is the Muslim influence which had a much more different social system. In a few words, while cultural heritage cannot be denied, European nations were more or less formed in the Age of Nationalism. The case with large, Western European countries and Russia is an easier one because they evolved without much disruption (with the exception of Russia, which nevertheless restored itself completely from Mongol domination, unlike Bulgaria). Modern Bulgaria is, without doubt, a direct product of the Enlightenment and European 19th century thought, much like the United States, and a lot unlike France, Germany or Spain, which carry the weight of their own political and social evolution. It carries little to no heritage from the Medieval Bulgarian states (unfortunately), and can generally be considered as beginning somewhere within the National awakening. The Awakening was not an "awakening" per se, rather a completely different approach on Bulgarian history by Bulgarians themselves. And, as we already figured even without this little research, no continuity other than that of culture can be claimed...though the problem is that the other party makes no difference between culture, people, and statehood. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Ceco31 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgaria". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Tourbillon. I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the volunteers at the mediation committee. On the mediation request page you said that not all the involved parties had been listed. It would be a great help if you could add them all to the list of parties yourself. It's important that all editors who have an interest in the outcome of the dispute are listed there, and it would be very useful to get your help in finding them. Also, don't worry too much about false positives, as it is no problem for editors who don't have an interest in the outcome to remove themselves from the list. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Three users that participated in the talk page dispute were not listed, I added them. Haven't been in a mediation before, I hope it will address the issue adequately. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like forum shopping to me, it's just contacting the editor who noted the SPI on the page. I'd remove that from your statement. Replace it with the fact that Ximhua considers adding more users than the ones he added "another attempt not to reach resolution", if you feel so inclined. CMD (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To me it looks pretty much like a demand for the user to step up for him. I changed my wording a bit. That one statement you pointed out is already evident to anyone who looks up the mediation talk page. The pleas on user talk pages, however, are not. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ximhua's IP, if you haven't seen it already. CMD (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation. CMD (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Saw it, thank you. It's an United States-based IP, though I still think that wouldn't exclude meatpuppetry. It was quite easy for me to ask a friend to make some grammar improvements during the FA nomination of the article, and it would be even easier to convince someone to participate if there's a single purpose attached to it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic and expansion source

Perhaps as a welcome relief to dealing with the ongoing discussions, Ximhua's edits about Cyrillic seemed alright to me, but I thought I'd check they were in the source, considering it's a GA and all that. However, as far as I can tell, the cited source covers none of the information it cites. The source instead seems to discuss how Symeon desired to become the Roman Emperor. Fascinating, and an enjoyable read that deserves perhaps more coverage on wikipedia, but not a good source for the text it cites. Am I missing something? If I'm not, I'm sure you have a good replacement source. CMD (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I haven't read that very source, but I believe it was Boris, and not Symeon, who played the major role for introducing and spreading Cyrillic through the sponsorship of Christian colleges. Symeon just took over and expanded what his father had already initiated earlier - namely a remarkable upsurge in the letters. There's a good read on this period here, although somewhat long, I think it's a complete book. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That bit of text definitely needs a new source then. It's truly impressive that the Roman Empire had such symbolic sway, even then. Read a bit of that book, an interesting read, if not an easy one. Our FA on Symeon doesn't mention his imperial ambitions until after describing a couple of wars. A bit late, perhaps. CMD (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to look for one. The whole idea of Symeon as a Roman emperor has been around in historiography for a while now, but in-depth studies were made only recently. Most of the papers I've read on the subject argue that Symeon did indeed desire to conquer Byzantium and declare himself Roman emperor, but at some point he realised that Bulgaria did not have enough diplomatic, cultural and social attributes of its own to replace the Byzantine ones once the Empire was conquered by his armies. His efforts to develop indigenous Bulgarian culture weren't made just because, they were part of this campaign. He sought to create a large enough Bulgarian corpus of literature in arts so they could outperform whatever Byzantium had, but a bit late he realised that it was next to impossible to achieve any cultural supremacy in the long term. Basically he was perfectly capable of militarily defeating the Byzantines, but he decided not to - their society and culture were too strong and in the end, Bulgaria would've just ended up being absorbed back into Byzantium. By the way, I'll be a bit busy outside Wikipedia this week, probably won't even be able to take part in the mediation, if it starts these days. This whole year dispute seriously drained a lot of my time resources...- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So he wanted a Bulgarian Roman Empire... that wasn't in the sources, which implied Bulgaria was more of his father's type of thing. Well, this is all stuff his article hasn't told me! I also now realise, due to the disambiguation page and wikipedia's spelling of his name with an 'I', that he was the namesake of Simeon Saxe-Colburg-Gotha, who has had a rather interesting personal journey, in my opinion at least. Don't worry about mediation. If it does start, it'll be very long, and probably very tiresome, if only because it's a mediation. CMD (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

DYK for Elizaveta Karamihailova

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Bulgaria shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism

Tourbillon, stop your vandalism in the Bulgaria page. How many editors need to tell you that you're wrong and against consensus?Ximhua (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

At least one who is not a single-purpose account or a meatpuppet...- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Source help

I wish I had it, but I can't really afford the £238/$366 price tag at this time. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Millet system

Hi, Tourbillon. For more see Bulgarian Wikipedia articles: Миллет, Рум миллет, Мюсюлмански миллет and Булгар миллет. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am aware, but none of these exists in English and Rumelia Eyalet is the closest article there is. Currently Rum links to the article on the beverage. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Millet (Ottoman Empire) is the right article. Jingiby (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)