User talk:Avidius

Repeated removal of link in Plovdiv article
You can't just remove stuff, such as the link you keep taking out of that article, without one word of explanation in your edit summaries.

By the way, it looks like you've stepped over the three-revert rule line here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. CoJaBo (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have requested arbitration in regards to the link Plovdiv - Granada of the east due to its constant removal and inclusion by different parties. As you are included in this process I would like it if you could join in the arbitration process with your case at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plovdiv#External_Link_-_Plovdiv_-_Granada_of_the_East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plovdiv#Clean_up_External_Links

Many thanks Koal4e 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Plovdiv
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Hi Avidius, I agree with you and dont like the Plovdiv - granada of the East link at all but would rather fight the inclusion of the link through the avenue I have taken so that we dont end up with you losing your account. I love Plovdiv and travel their regularly as my wife is from Plovdiv and her family still live there.

I am hoping that we can get agreement from other Wikipedia users that the link should not be included for its bias and innaccurate information, only time will tell though.

Please understand I support you in regards to this link. Thanks. --koal4e (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Plovdiv link
Whilst neither you nor has technically violated the 3-revert-rule, there is no doubt that both you and ILike2BeAnonymous are edit warring over the external link at Plovdiv. The history of the last 100 edits: is unacceptable and other editors are complaining about the disruption this is causing. For now, I am simply asking you and ILike2BeAnonymous to cease edit warring at the article and to try to find either compromise or consensus on the talk page. CIreland (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked you earlier today to cease edit warring over the external link at Plovdiv. However, you have continued to edit war at the article:. This is not an effective way to resolve the dispute and is highly disruptive. For this reason, if you do not cease edit warring, I will block you per WP:EDITWAR and WP:BLOCK. CIreland (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you suggest to resolve the dispute when the opposing side dismisses all our arguments as irrelevent and yet has no arguments for the article to stay but the fact that it has no grammar mistakes ?--Avidius (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One possibility is informal mediation (WP:MEDCAB), if ILike2BeAnonymous is willing to participate. Of course, this does not preclude continuing discussions at the RFC on the talk page. I will not pretend that there is an easy or obvious solution but this constantly adding/removing of the link has resolved nothing. CIreland (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nikola Zhekov.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Nikola Zhekov.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: post on my talk page
I am using an automated tool to revert vandalism, and I may have been overzealous. I will remove the warning from the talk page. J.d ela noy gabs adds 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ivan_Fichev2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ivan_Fichev2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU ≈ talk 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:First Balkan War.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:First Balkan War.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cplakidas (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:454px-The Balkan boundaries after 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:454px-The Balkan boundaries after 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cplakidas (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Avidius! The maps you have provided are great, but there are some problems with your copyright claims. I cannot really believe that Image:First Balkan War.JPG is PD, as you claim. It certainly looks as if it is from a relatively modern publication, therefore its author or copyright holder cannot have been dead for more than 100 years! Likewise, Image:454px-The Balkan boundaries after 1.jpg can only have been produced after 1913, so it is again impossible that the author has been dead for more than 100 years. In this particular case, it may be possible that it is PD, if it was published in the US before 1923, but for that you have to find where the image was published. That is a common problem with images found in the internet, where the original author is unverifiable, in which case it is better to use a fair use rationale. I advise you to check out Image use policy, Non-free content and Image copyright tags. I know it can be extremely annoying, I've experienced it myself, but, unfortunately, it is important to provide correct copyright tags and adhere to the rules concerning copyright... Cheers, Cplakidas (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Bulgaria
I saw you're pretty active on articles about Bulgarian cities, so I guess you'd be interested in the Wikiproject. Cheers. -- L a v e o l  T 10:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:First Balkan War.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:First Balkan War.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jackaranga (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) --Jackaranga (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:000015055big5ca.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:000015055big5ca.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Roman Aqueduct.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Roman Aqueduct.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Plovdiv Hills.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Plovdiv Hills.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 02:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Romanian army size
Hmmm, I appreciate your point. However there is a difference between the army a state can potentially raise and the army it actually mobilizes. Further, there is the question of what portion of the mobilized army was actually deployed in the relevant front. Greece for instance raised an army of over 190,000 in toto, but only ca. 145,000 were in the Bulgarian front, and that was a case when a well-nigh "all-out effort" was made. Romania simply did not have to commit that scale of forces, as it faced no opposition. I and the sources I use may of course be wrong, esp. since they focus more on Greece and Serbia than Romania. However, even so, if Hall clearly states that a 250,000 army marched against Sofia and another 80,000 occupied the Dobruja, that still does not make 500,000 effectives. Do we agree on emending the number to 330,000 (plus the citation Hall (2000), p. 117)? Best regards, Constantine  ✍  08:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Preferably not in the infobox, as there one usually puts the relevant numbers, i.e. the numbers fielded by the opposing armies in a certain conflict/theater. But I have obviously no objection whatsoever on mentioning the total mobilized forces in the section "Opposing forces" to provide more context... I'll try to work on this article a bit further in the next few days, and begin adding some inline citations. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  12:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. What I am telling you is that 50.000 or 60.000 men was the equavelant of five of six divisions in the Greek and other armies, so closer to the equavelant of an Army not a Corps of three Division. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 07:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no Greek Division of 15.000me Greek VI Division in 6/13: 11.755 V                       :  12.037 III                      :  12.334 Thessaloniki Division     :    7.200  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only the battalions ALL of the Division included the officers, included the non fighted personel, included the cooks, included ALL. I can sent you the full lists from 7.200 to 12.000me. There were Bulgarian Division having 50.000 men. Thats 4 to 7 Greek Divisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 08:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The 7th had more than 48.000 men--Factuarius (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The 7th had more than 48.000 and you have already mension it. Hall is a known pro-Bulgarian author taking info solely from Bulgarian sources. That's why there are many having reservations upon his book. You cannot accept him whenever you want and not accept him whenever you don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read Hall you will notice that he cites the number 47 000 as the total number of bulgarian troops in Macedonia nowhere does he mention that the 7th division has 47 000. i have put it in brackets because it is the only large unit which was in Macedonia that doesn't mean that there were no irregulars for instance. I don't take your accusations of Hall being pro-bulgarian seriously because at the end of his book there is a detailed list with all the serb and greek sources he has used not to mention your efforts to turn the entire page in a greek POV .--Avidius (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What was the provocation?--Factuarius (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He is pro-Bulgarian and you know it. Everyone who had read him knows it. Even the Bulgarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 09:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not plans of division of Macedonia. It was agreement of division of their part of Macedonia, the part of Macedonia under their control not under the Bulgarian control. Where is the amoralism. Why this is bad for Bulgaria? Because it want it all? What they had to do according your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbia to my opinion no. Greece yes. But I am all ears about your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 10:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Give me an e-mail I will sent you the map of the arbitration area. You will see that it was inside the Serbian area of occupation.--Factuarius (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

When I started to edit the text two months before nobody knew about Serbia's dishonesty about the pre-war settlement with Bulgaria over northern Macedonia, or nobody mension it. It writed about for the first time and the existed paragraph even now is entirely main. I posted the map with the settlement line for assure them about this dishonesty. I made what ever the possible to unmusk Serbian dishonesty and giving the honest true. So don't tell that. But what was Greece's fault? I still wait to tell me.

To my personal opinion Serbia was also dishonest with Greece by not telling why it was absolutely sure for the Bulgarian attack before it dragged Greece into the alliance in 1913. Only Serbia knew and told nothing. But also Bulgaria's maximalism and luck of common sence favored Serbias games.--Factuarius (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible to include these (about honest and dishonest acts etc.) on the txt because they will cut it as characterizations. All I can do is to try to say the facts as they were and avoid the lies. To my knowledge, and to try to find more. I am also sick of the nationalism(s) of the Balkan and the top brasses playing the patriots from behind the battle line. The more I learn about them and their personal life the more I hate them. They treated us as sheep, they counted us like the sheep and they slaughter us like sheep. For them the only thing that was mattered was how to have more of us, and in doing this they were so idiots that they slaughtered us to the end of us by the tens of the millions,

like stupid sheep. And I am speaking on behalf my grandfather, a decorated hero of the battle of Kilkis-Lahana, whom his name I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

fair enough, I believe the section of the operations between the Serbian and the Bulgarian Armies is comparatively very poor but for the time being I lack enough info to expand it. Do you have more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We are talking for the total numbers here. It was the same with the Gr Army. We have mension both these to the txt. No need again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 16:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My mail
hercs.public@gmail.com

The numbers (80.000 to 105.000) is not from my book. If you remember you put it sometime and I left it. But its source is from the book of Hall (p112). You can find by Hall's footnote that his source is not from any official history of the greek army but from someone Cassavetti and someone Nikolaidi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Give me an e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No we are not talking for the greek army, we are talking for the bulgarian army and his "official books". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your book said about that but I do know that the tendency of the Bulgarian commanders to hide or exaggerate numbers is mentioned in every book included Hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Chataldzha attack.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chataldzha attack.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

About Bulair & Sarkoy
You have msg in the article's discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factuarius (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Conquered Aivaz Baba Fort at Adrianople.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Conquered Aivaz Baba Fort at Adrianople.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.65.246 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

About Adrianople
Yes but your numbers are more than the actual number of the defenders. Let the Turks at least to know how many troops had!

Cannot understand what you say

I meaning it. I cannot understand what you are trying to say me. Say it again cannot understand.

Since it's the only point in where Hall & Erickson agreeing and both characterized the operational useless I have to insist on that. From the point of view of them Bulgarian authority had every reason to try to find excuses for this unnecessary bloodshed since they are the accused for that. About the numbers I have answer you that the Bulgarian number just isn't possible because are more than the defenders.

Is this my responsibility?

So what? Naturaly the garrison during the Armistice rested and recovered. What this has to do with the numbers? Bulgarians allowed the transfering of the wounded & the sick, but allowed no replacements. And allowed no food to transported although they transport through Adrianople (by railroad) both replacements, armaments, foods and everytning they wanted to their front in Chatalcha. Read about.

"The territorial aspirations of the Balkan states" Map
The territorial aspirations of the Balkan states map is totally inaccurate


 * To Serbia leaves outside Northern Albania (with Durazzo) which was inside the per-war agreement between her & Bulgaria and also most of Vardar Macedonia which was the reason going to war with Bulgaria in 1913


 * To Bulgaria leaves outside Western Thrace and especially Salonika which was one of the main reason entering both the wars


 * To Greece leaves outside any portion of Asia Minor which was the reason of a prolonged war 6 years later and instead includes near all Albania which is just inaccurate.


 * To Romania leaves Silistra outside which was the very reason Romania went to war in 1913 against Bulgaria

It's more of an ignorance fantasy. Having so many major errors must either replaced (if there is any better) or removed. Agreed?--Factuarius (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case is grossly wrong. Are you agree to delete it or you can rectify it?--Factuarius (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ottoman Armies
The Ottoman army had 4 Armies before the war.

The 1st stationed between the Eastern Thrace & north western part of Anatolia.

The 2nd Army from Ebros and to the west (during the war splited in two -Vardar & Macedonia due to tactical necesities)

The 3nd in Kaukasus against Russia

The 4th in Irak-Arab peninsula

No units of 3rd and 4th Armies took part in the war. The 3rd due to the Ottos terror of a russian attack to totally disable the Ottoman Empire. The 4th at start had to transported (together with some 2nd Army's units) to the European theater by sea. Concentrated with very slow rythm in the ports of Libanon & Syria waiting for months. After the failure of the Turk fleet to establish naval supremacy it was decided to go through the railroad and starting to go to the north to meet the line. In the meantime the Turks military officers and poilitical employees that had put in charge of the train network (after the dismissal of the christian personel) had destroyed most of the machines due to limited knowledge of using & maintenance. So after waiting there, they took the way by foot under haotic contitions. Never make it to Europe. That's the story of the 4th Army. Think that much of its units where in Yemen because of a revolution there.--Factuarius (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes its wrong I never write it. Someone else had write it--Factuarius (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Plovdiv sahat tepe.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Plovdiv sahat tepe.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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Извинение
Здравейте. Току що се регистрирах в Уикипедия и докато си създавах личен профил, съвсем неволно запаметих собствената си информация върху вашата.След като разбрах грешката си натиснах 'undo' и възстанових профила ви.Искрено ви моля за извинение и се надявам да не съм ви причинил никакви щети поради невниманието си.Поздрави Bulgar khan (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Kilisse battle -Bulgarian forces-
The total force -not only the compatants- of the Ottoman 1st Army according the Ottoman's tables was 115,000. The total figure of the XV Corps was 29,000. So the rest 86,000 of the 1st Army was not the compatants was its total force. The 64,000 men you excluding represents the 60% of the total Bulgarian force of the 1st & 3rd Bulgarian Armies. That's not discent although there are no present of Turk editors in the discussion we cannot leave it like that. What you propose? See article's discussion --Factuarius (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kresna's Bulgarian stregth & casualties
Can you provide the number of troops of the Bulgarian forces taken part in the battle of Kresna and their casualties? And also to check if the Turks really reached Yampol (an ID user have put it but I cannot confirm it)--Factuarius (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you agree to put out the Greek casualties also until the time to have them together with the Bulgarian's? The greek figure alone looks like a Greek catastrophe, not like a both sides bloodshed as realy was --Factuarius (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Percentage enlargement of Bulgaria after the BWs
It seems we have a dispute over the percentage of the enlargement of Bulgaria after the BWs. 16 or 29%. My reference is this. The other percentages which is given there are correct since I have check them with other sources, except Romania's end Bulgaria's expansions (not finding a second source). A look at the map giving me the impression that must be closer to 29 than to 16 but that's not a criterion. Can you provide your reference so to compare the reliability of the sources and end this old issue? --Factuarius (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Source of the figures? --Factuarius (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to report you, believe me this is the only reason I am writing you. We have spend so many hundred hours discussing or fighting for these f** articles that I am feeling really bad about it for an hour now although that sounds mad. You never reported me I never reported you in the middle of so many fights. Will you try to help in finding out a solution by discussing the matter and get over it? --Factuarius (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Avidius we cannot continue to revert its other for a hundred times. I stopped in my 3rd because there is a 3rr (3 reverts rule), not because you persuade me. You have made 4 and you are ready to go to 14 as I can remember. The fact is that by edit-warring we will end both banned. Is that so difficult to understand it? The issue here is that the book you have in your hand is not the only book in the world about the BWs and is not the first time that contradicted with other sources. Every colonel who writes a book especially in Balkans had not always the absolute truth as his first priority. Is almost by default POV. This is also a problem with other official military books all over the world included Greece especially when we are speaking for armies' studies of 80 years before. You are reluctant to accept anything else except those book's numbers and facts. That's a problem with anyone who don't has the Bulgarian Army's study as a Bible for the Balkan Wars, how you cannot understand it? Also is not accurate that you are using the book only for the Bulgarian army, you are using it also for the Ottoman army as your edit for the Ott. 1st Army nr. of men indicates. Now you are removing the Stanford's map saying that it is not accurate although you know that WP don't judge if a historical document is it or it is not accurate (which is in any case ridiculous argument since in Balkans there are no accurate ethnological maps from the day the Christ died until today as I know that you very well know). and you very well also know that this historical document was so important as to shape the Bulgarian borders the very day that state born, thus it is almost impossible for you to omit it. To me you are doing that today only to open another edit warring front, since the map was there for months. Anyway tell me what you are going to do. --Factuarius (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are deny the discussion. I never said that the Bulgarian War Ministry didn't knew the structure of its army, what you are denying is that 240,000 men took also part to the war which is to me ridiculous but for you is a fact. Since no militia units took part in the war so it is obvious that those 240,000 men took part in the war inside the existing tactical units. The Bulgarian HQ was forced to order the 7th Division to abandon Salonika when tried to establish condominium there because it needed the men in Thrace and you are insisting that in the same time the Bulgarian HQ had a pull of 240,000 men and don't used them. Every serious source saying that Bulgaria had and used 600,000 men during the war and I am sure that if the Bulgarian HQ had left unused 240,000 men during the war, every book about the war would had noticed such a fact at least in relation with the defeat outside Constantinople. You are also effectively deny the discussion about the map. I didn't told you that “you cannot omit the inaccuracy of the map” (it would be ridiculous to say such a thing), I told you that you cannot insist to omit the map from the article with such arguments like being wrong or inaccurate since the value of the map isn't its accuracy but its character as a significant historical document a value by itself that no one can deny. As for what I believe for the E. Rumelia I am not sure; and when the map appeared in WP a discussion about it started among Greek editors with different opinions. What is for sure is that the name given had to do with its Greek inhabitants since the Turks are using the word Rum for the Greeks and not for the Bulgarians and the fact that they called it Eastern is adding evidence about. What is for sure is that the Greeks in E. Rumelia where more that the Gypsis whatever any census said. Then there is the population exchange after WWI. Although most Greeks had left E.Rumelia during the previous 40 years due to bulgarization efforts of the Bulgarian policies and especially during the last 20 years there where still many, enough as to justify a mutual population exchange even voluntarily with the numerous Bulgarian minority in Greece (although the numbers were not even). --Factuarius (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are repeating yourself again and again. We have discussed this a million times before and you know very well my position about. The same as with the German and the Bulgarian armies that is a fact with every army in a war, as was with the Serbian and the Greek in '13. The Greek had I think 86,000 fighting men, you can find the Serbian in the article and nobody knows about the Ottos. You are the only editor who insisting to count the Bulgarian army by the rifles. Cannot understand that? All the other armies in the article are counting by the men under uniform, except the Bulgarians. Is that reasonable with you? Well it's not with me and every other logical editor. You are insisting with rvs to exclude all the non-combatant personnel which to your counting is almost the half Bulgarian army, that's not POV is just ridiculous. Understand it. And injustice for the rest of the armies. For the E. Rumelia read again my previous msg I told you that I am not sure and I told you why. --Factuarius (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Impossible. That is exactly what I tell you. That what we are counting to all the other armies in the article is the nr of troops, except for the Bulgarian on which we are counting RIFLES. For god's sake. --Factuarius (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sofia is excluded take a fresh look. No I don't believe that was the majority. And I am also not sure that was the most numeral from the others. Not sure. But that is not minimizing the value of the map as an historical document since it is the only ethnological map that ever mattered in Balkans, since it shaped the Bulgarian borders until 1913 and thus must be included in the article as such. What about the army--Factuarius (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you really want of me. What we will do with the army. --Factuarius (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Avidius I didn't touched it. It is the corp size as you put it. I didn't revert it check it.--Factuarius (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What we are talking all the f**ing day is about the total number of the Bulgarian army. The number you have left is the very same 366,209 Avidius --Factuarius (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No I get it. But I am not agreeing in trying to mislead the readers by letting them to believe that only the half of the Bulgarian army took part to the war with tricks like this. Every single of the other armies had also Militias, logistical units, administration units, etc. the Turks, the Serbs, the Greeks, the Montenegrins but we counting the total number of men both in the text and in the infobox. We will do the same with the Bulgarian army. For any comments please use the talk page of the article. --Factuarius (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere to found and of little interest since I have the total number of men of the Greek army, 142,000. If you have them put it in. At the outbreak of the 1st BW where about 78,000 men, at the end of the war about 120,000, at the start of 2nd BW about 142,000. Some from the 42,000 added where volunteers the rest conscripted. Many of the foreign volunteers left after 1st BW ended. Hq's book gives no number of the volunteers, only the total number of the troops and the numbers per and for the divisions and non-divisional troops. Total 142,000. --Factuarius (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW what about foreign volunteers in service to the Bulgarian army? I have sources about full trains passing through Adrianople during the period of the armistice in the middle of the 1st BW full of Czechs and Russians volunteers. Are these also included to the Bulgarian numbers as with the Greek's numbers?--Factuarius (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My answer & every new is & will be in my talk page.--Factuarius (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Take fresh look in my answer new sentence added. --Factuarius (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

--Factuarius (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When I have to choose between Hall & Erickson, I choose Erickson as any logical man due to the fact that Erickson's study is specialized about the Otto army during that war and is the only English source about it.
 * When I have to choose between a Bulgarian source and Hall, I choose Hall as any logical man because the Bulgarian is by definition POV.
 * The difference between Hall and Erickson is 175,000 and 200,000 which is logical, not between 115,000 and 200,000 which is out of any discussion.
 * What you did is that you just removed the Hall's figure together with the ref. to put your ref. with its figure and at the same time you asked me to be serious!
 * You are lying about what Hall says for the Turks: He says 115,000 IN THRACE not of the Eastern Army. Page 22.
 * I am getting tired with your edit warring. Stop edit warring, that's again your fourth revert. Period.

--Factuarius (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Erickson is not relying solely in Ottoman sources to the contrary. Is ABOUT the Ottoman Army. Get the book!
 * Is giving many figures for many units all over his book, but not for all the units in the start of the war. That's why I referred Hall's figure.

Almost never used them. In the Kilkis battle is together with the Bulgarian figure, showing both. --Factuarius (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! What's your opinion about the Standford map in 1st Balkan War? I believe its a bit let's say fictious.Villick (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:454px-The Balkan boundaries after 1.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:454px-The Balkan boundaries after 1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for translation
Nivóce to see you here. I'm a contibutor from Hungay. A took two weeks in Bulhgaria and now I am very much interested about your country. I've just started o read Vazov'snovel. I found some placenames which I may not find in english language Wikipedia. Would you be a nice to translate the article about Криви камък from Bulgarian Wikipedia to English? Thank you fo your help. --Ksanyi (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is Under the Yoke, but I couldn't find its English title immedatily. Would you be as nice to transcript the article'sname also? Can you help me? Is there any city or village like Счип? Could you write something about it? I've read about Byala Cherkva also. Can you find somebody who can expand this article? Thank yu for your helpfullness. --Ksanyi (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The first map is ridiculously misleading and pro-Bulgarian (and Bulgarian), the second is very accurate showing exactly what I am saying to you. As for who was the main factor in wining the war, although is irrelevant with the current discussion and I don't know why you open it now, you can take illuminating information in the Conclusion Chapter at the end of Erickson's book (p.333). (I preferred from the start not to mention what he says about because I didn't wanted to open another fight with you, but unfortunately you are not thinking in the same spirit) No one have studied more extensively the Ottoman defeat than him and has a totally opposed opinion than you. And he explained extensively why in his book. --Factuarius (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is biased? --Factuarius (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I told you that the map is obviously representing only the Greek operations as it is mentioning in its title. Is there anyone who could believe that the only contribution of Bulgaria in the war is the arrow in Edirne? Even the article's subtitle in the picture says that! You just pretend you are not understand it only to continue your edit war. I edited the map deleting the Bulgarian arrows, as for your answering dialogues I am leaving them to the community's judge. --Factuarius (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The line to the Serres direction was impossible to be deleted. If you can, delete it by yourself. --Factuarius (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Pliska,Constantinople.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Pliska,Constantinople.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You may want to have a look in First Balkan War talk page --Factuarius (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such a battle in WP. Or if there is with some other name I never edit it. What you mean? But if you are NPOV why you did nothing when your friends rv your Hall's sentences, since you have the book and you knew that what I put in the lede of the paragraph were the exact phrases of Hall's and yours were not left them to continue to rv me?--Factuarius (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are deaf or what? What are you talking about "biased Povs"? Check the source THERE IS NO SUCH A THING IN THAT PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have the page infront of me, nothing about what you say!! Hello?--Factuarius (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest (again) that you tone down your comments. Do not shout or make personal attacks (like calling the editor deaf). It's not appropriate here. -- L a v e o l  T 18:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think from Erickson's book. I only interested on what Erickson thinks. You are turning the article into a joke by constantly lying in every possible way. You really didn't read the rest lines of the paragraph? Give me a break. --Factuarius (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Ahem, you are waaaaaaaaay past 3RR on First Balkan War. I suggest you stop edit-warring immediately because if I report you, you are going away for a long time. Athenean (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Factuarius has ceased edit-warring. You haven't.  Athenean (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at First Balkan War. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/ c)  08:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Note: After seeing the discussion here, I've made this additional comment. If you are in agreement, we can end this block with the condition that you and the other editor do not revert anymore on the article for at least one month. The only exception to this no revert restriction would be blatant vandalism. Let me know here. Thanks, NJA (t/ c)  08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring for nothing (again)
It also said that Bulgarian soldiers managed to avoid capture succeeding to left out the city and were captured or killed later. No 48,000 division can have less of 2,000 men per battalion and you claim that these men were symbolic force! 2,000 men as a symbolic force? Do you know what symbolic force mean? And if they were "symbolic" why did they fortified? For symbolic reasons? Also the agreement said nothing about "symbolic forces" either in Salonika or in Serres. It was a clear Bulgarian violation of the agreement by any means and everybody knew that. Both in Athens as in Sofia. You are trying to disguise that from the readers by using vague, OR, and POV wording like "symbolic force". Stop edit warring for nothing or I will report you in your very next revert. --Factuarius (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And by the way as of now you have broken the rules so I might as well go and report you.--Avidius (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pls count again. --Factuarius (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Balkan Wars, per the WP:ANEW report. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.  Sandstein  21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBMAC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/.  Sandstein  21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix the table
What you are doing is ridiculous your sources is valid about regional GDP but national and EU gdp figures for 2008 have been out for a long time replacing them with those for 2007 is stupid.--Avidius (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear friend, it seems like you make a confusion between final data and estimates. For 2008, Eurostat does have only estimates, and not for all countries!


 * Before doing anything else, please check the Eurostat official website and you will see the press release from 18.02.2010, right on the first page, at the "latest news releases":
 * http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/


 * Those data are the latest official data, and yes, they are for 2007!
 * Name it as you like, stupidity or ridiculousness, but this is how Eurostat and statistics work!
 * (Rgvis (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Very well, give me the 2008 data for Greece, Austria, Romania and Slovakia!
 * (Rgvis (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC))


 * With data from different years, and mixed with estimates or provisional values, it will be a very nice inaccurate comparison table!
 * (Rgvis (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't know how your arithmetics is, mine is different :-)
 * Austria - no data for 2008; Romania - no data for 2008; Slovakia - only estimated value for 2008; Greece - only provisional value for 2008. That means 15% (four countries in 27)!
 * For 2007, we have all official values, for all 27 countries (Greece included), in the last official Eurostat newsrelease, published 2 days ago, on 18 February 2010 !
 * (Rgvis (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Please, provide me with the information about the official 2008 values (not estimated, not provisional), using the same source, for the next countries:
 * 1. Austria;
 * 2. Greece;
 * 3. Romania;
 * 4. Slovakia.
 * (Rgvis (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

For Wikipedia we need facts, not personal research, not improvisation or speculations! So, to have a comparison method, we need to use data under the same standard. This is a very, very simple rule! Once again, in order to provide a comparison image in the same table, we need official final data, for 2008, for the next countries: 1. Austria; 2. Greece; 3. Romania; 4. Slovakia. If you are not able to provide this information, tell us, and we'll see what it is the best solution in this case. Your solution might be good, might be not! Thank you!

(Rgvis (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC))


 * My dear friend,
 * You seem a bit nervous and agitated, nobody is accusing anybody!
 * We are, many of us, here, interested in making the Wikipedia project a reliable source of information.
 * Take it easy, :-)
 * (Rgvis (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

File:2nd-balkan-war-bulgarian-plan.JPG
Thank you for uploading this media,

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Image_copyright_tags which will assist you :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria discussion
Hello. Could you please express your opinion here ? Thank you. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Nerezov
Thank you for your contributions to this article (and for creating it), but it is still completely unreferenced; note that unreferenced content on wikipedia may be challenged and removed by any editor. Please try to find at least a couple of reliable sources for your additions, preferrably (but not necessarily) in the form of inline citations. Thanks.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:5t Dunavska pri Karagach dere.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:5t Dunavska pri Karagach dere.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Boiat na chervenata stena.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Boiat na chervenata stena.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Kolev (general) and the like
Hi! If you add footnotes for every paragraph (at the least) in your articles, there's no reason they can't appear on the Main Page's "Did you know..." column. We're always looking for new articles for that section, and yours are generally of high enough quality for that. All you're missing is footnotes for every paragraph and every claim :) If you have any questions, do let me know. Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 40a08a3deb20f9a5766fc335669e954d
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

DYK for Mobilization of the Bulgarian Army in 1915
The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :)  — Toдor Boжinov — 18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:5t Dunavska pri Karagach dere.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:5t Dunavska pri Karagach dere.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited Economy of the European Union, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Billion and Goods (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) 09:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Monastir Offensive
In the article Monastir Offensive, do you mean that the end of the defensive line should be linked to Makovo, Macedonia instead of Makovo, Bulgaria? --Bejnar (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what I mean.--Avidius (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Bejnar (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ivan Fichev2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ivan Fichev2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Zhekov1.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Zhekov1.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Zhostov.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Zhostov.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian help needed
Hello Avidius, I'm contacting you because we need some Bulgarian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on bg.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Bulgarian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581306632 your edit] to Central Powers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * of Germany, the Austria–Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria hence also known as the Quadruple Alliance [http://archive.org/details/

Question
Question, since you come from Bulgaria, do you know how many seats the Communist Party of Bulgaria has in the national parliament? I know they have one (the leader), but is he the only one. I'm trying to save the article List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation, and its proving difficult. Would you mind help solving the Bulgaria-mystery in the article? Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Serbian Campaign 1915.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Serbian Campaign 1915.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
As my edit summary said, those sources do not meet our criteria for this article - see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. This is about archaeology so we need archaeological sources, not newspapers, etc. It isn't up to me to show they aren't reliable, it's up to you to show they meet our criteria. We do have a discussion board where you can raise the issue at WP:RSN. You shouldn't just automatically revert. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So the research by the Bulgarian archaeologists like Butusharova "doesn't meet the criteria" but all the other cities that have no citations at all "meet the criteria"? It looks very hypocritical.--Avidius (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * See the talk page, the article needs a lot of work. Are there peer reviewed sources for continuous occupation as a city? Even continuous occupation as a settlement for that long would need multiple academic sources.  Doug Weller  talk 09:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So why didn't you remove all the other dates that have no reference? Or, for that matter, the date for Gaziantep which uses the Telegraph as a reference? There is a double standard here, obviously.--Avidius (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=708799900 your edit] to Central Powers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * |+Economic statistics of the Central Powers&amp;nbsp; [https://books.google.com/

File:Generla boyadziev s shtaba na 1va armija.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Generla boyadziev s shtaba na 1va armija.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Turtucaia
Hi, I have a question about one of the sources in Battle of Turtucaia. Could you please take a look here? Thank you, --Akeckarov (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Akeckarov (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Plovdiv and the List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
Please note that this article is mean to list cities from the date they became cities, not when someone first built a hut in the area. This is determined usually be historical evidence. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what the List of oldest continuously inhabited cities has to do with the fact thet Plovdiv has been inhabitet for at least 6000 years. When it became a "city" is besides the point in this case.Avidius (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence for it being continuously inhabited for that long, for a start. And you wrote ". Plovdiv is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities" which among other things wasn't sourced and in any case isn't significant as there are a lot of older cities. Doug Weller  talk 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)