User talk:Gligan/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Academic Challenger 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

January 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Could someone translate into English the following message from Gligan to Lantonov? "Ах, да и трябва да се спомене само за османските турци в историята, защото другите са тюрки и съвременните турци имат точно толкова право да се нарекат 'най-преки наследници' на тюрките, колкото и всички други произлизащи от тях народи. Аз предлагам, като не може да се спори с този човек да се редуваме да премахваме редакциите му (доколкото съм тук).--Gligan (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)"--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your entry about Greece
Gligan, inserting racial insults in Wikipedia articles about nations is a particularly unacceptable form of vandalism. This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nehwyn 21:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I wish you'd also stop your sneaky vandalism of changing data that's referenced in Romania article. -- AdrianTM 11:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Your entries in Talk:Romania
-- AdrianTM 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) learn to sign your entries
 * 2) don't be a troll

Отг.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ами то не се определя от големината на единичната страница колко добре е покрита страната с информация. Аз пиша доста като отделни статии, например. Основната статия не трябва да е подробна, а да обобщава съвсем накратко най-важното, затова повечето такива статии не включват детайлни секции за спорт или национални празници. Всички детайли по принцип трябва да отидат по отделните статии, а не да се събират в секции на главната, затова например това, което си добавил в Bulgaria ще е хубаво да отиде в статията Economy of Bulgaria, а секцията Economy да се съкрати наполовина, Transport също донякъде. Историята също е отчасти прекалено детайлна за определени периоди и пренебрегва други.
 * Всъщност не е толкова важна дължината на секциите, колкото това да не се изпада в прекалени подробности на главната статия, а да остане само най-важното като обобщение. Примерно информация колко череши произвеждаме е напълно излишна в Bulgaria, но в Economy of Bulgaria ще си е съвсем OK. Както и подробностите къде какво се добива, да кажем. Todor→Bozhinov 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Zdrasti, well actually I don't recognize FYROM at all. I would support a division of FYROM between Bulgaria and Serbia, Serbs have serious claims on parts of FYROM as well. As for Romania, right the country exists under the name Romania for only two centuries but Wallachia which existed before Romania is ethnically the same. I see Romanians as a Romanized Dacian population. So my idea of Romania=Moldova,Wallachia and Transylvania (70% is Romanian now). Also I know that the name Moldova is historically more accurate but Romania is more realistic simply because there are more people that identify themselves as Romanian than Moldavian. Just a matter of covenience.--Eupator 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to comment on one thing, when you said population of Wallachia is similar to that of Bulgaria. I don't doubt that either, but everyone in the region is similar to one another. What sets people in the region apart (I don't use the word "Balkans" as it's of turkic origin, I prefer Dinaria or even Haimos or just South Eastern Europe) is the language they speak and their cultural self-identification. Besides you probably should worry about the MRF :)--Eupator 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

YXYX 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

O, tempora! O, mores!
Bulgaria was alright partner and ally of Germany. And for that We were panished non less than many others. Today, howevere, we live in times unlike those before. I recomend not to try walk in a conflict, but to look for peace and welfare. I do not belive that Serbia may benefit from any misery of its neighbours. Please if you write in English (Austro-Hungarian Empire) do it all the time. Also mark there were many victims of the World Wars, also Bulgarians, and we are not proud of what our armies did (as I am sure none are). If you look in your own national history you will find a lot to think about. I will tell you only one more thing: I live at the Black Sea Coast, meet a lot of people from different countries, and we still call Russians -bratushki and Serbians- bratia. It is not a matter of speach, but a matter of fealing. Hatred will not bring back our beloved. We could only try not to forget our common dark past and never to let it be again. {Pavel Dimov, Burgas, Bulgaria - 2007 11 14} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmorne (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Reply
I have replied at Talk:Bulgaria. Todor→Bozhinov 12:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I see you're working a lot on Bulgarian military history, so you may want to take part in the WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force &mdash; just add your name to the list of participants. Todor→Bozhinov 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ами... за какво служи &mdash; координация на работата по точно тези теми, с които ти се занимаваш. По принцип щом работиш по някоя тема повечко е хубаво да се записваш, за да могат да те потърсят хора със същите интереси за консултация или ти да питаш нещо и т.н.
 * За Брегалница &mdash; просто представяш нещата и по двата начина, никаква паралелна статия! Пишеш "според сръбски и още не знам какви си източници е еди как си", "българските и които там други историци пък са на мнение, че..." и към всяко прилагаш бележки с източници (с cite web, cite book и другите). Изобщо &mdash; източниците са много важни за неутралността, затова ще те посъветвам да наблягаш и на тях. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * We've developed a number of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
 * The project's monthly newsletter will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

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


 * Additional reviewers for the military history peer review and A-Class review processes are always needed!
 * Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * All project members are invited to help with this fortnight's project collaboration.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

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

don't be silly
Nobody wants Macedonia, least of all the Serbs. The rules of the game have changed. Macedonia is the poorest Yugoslav republic. It's a weight on whoever carries it. Period.

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

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

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

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


 * Indeed, but yet again Serbs were in Macedonia even before the Bulgarians. :)
 * As far as I remember, no one denies (not even the Macedonian government) that Samuil proclaimed himself "Czar of the Bulgarians". But I do not know what lies in that statement so much contradicting/mysterious... --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the Slavicized people known as "Serbs" came to the Balkan peninsular in the first half of the 7th century => 620s and 630s. They settled in West Moesia, Kosovo, Metohija, Macedonia and the surrounding lands. There they built the very first Serbian city on Earth (cca 626): Servia, in southern Egean Macedonia, which still stands today as a major tourist attraction of Greece. However, the Serbs didn't like much those lands; what simply because they were practical slaves to the Imperial crown, and what simply for "touchy" reasons. Some Serbs did say, but most went back towards Singidunum. Among those who stayed (Greater Serb nationalists argue how Macedonia had been ethnically Serbianized already then), 3 (of the many) Macedonian Slavic tribes were formed (some of them completely losing a Serbian "national" - if such a word can be used for the Medieval Ages = feeling). It all then amounts to the half-truth that Macedonians indeed have some Serbian origin. ;) This became the main reason for the later Medieval Ages Serbs' conquests of those territories. They wanted their "Promised, Holy Land" (see Jews for a good comparison).
 * Thanks for that kind compliment. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the first of the Serbs' conquests of Macedonia were in the second half of the 12th century. They continued on across the 13th century. Northern Macedonia was already a component part of the Serbian realm. Note also that this very same part of Macedonia (which includes Skopje) has remained populated by Serbs even in Ottoman times, and only after World War II and the exile of almost 300,000 Serbs from (mostly northern) Macedonia is that the area was completely ethnically Macedonian (and Albanian). The whole of Macedonia was slowly conquered across the late 13th and early 14th century, and since the first half of the 14th century was fully a part of it. Macedonia was conquered by the Ottomans (fully) almost a hundred years later, so I wouldn't precisely draw 30 years. Of course, it was not a really long-time held occupation of the "promised holy land", but areas have to be differed - as northern Macedonia (today the area around Skopje) was indeed historically and in every way a part of the Serbian kinship, and has remained throughout the ages, whereas other parts may have had little or no cultural importance. Then yet again - it's the Macedonians' themselves' culture that is most important in Macedonia for centuries.
 * Hm... depends what kind of joining do you suggest and what do you consider by "better"? --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Better for Macedonians because of the growing Albanian population - yeah; but also bad for Macedonians that want their own country, where they are in a majority. Bad for Albanians, because they will lose a giant share of the population of the country. Bad for Serbs - they don't really like Bulgarians messing in Macedonia, and even nowadays see them as competitors; fear of numeral loss and die-out. As for other people of Macedonia - Vlachs, Turks and Romas - depends. They might not care, they might depending on their numbers in Bulgaria. Then yet again - it mostly depends which nationalities would Bulgaria constitutionally recognize? Tell me, since Bulgaria is the state of the Bulgarians today - what would be the national recognitions (constituent) of the enlarged Bulgarian state?
 * Well, I repeat - it depends which territories you mean. Skopje was capital of the Serbian monarchy from the second half of the 13th century to late 14th century. And those are feudal statelets. A country "Serbian Empire" normally existed, but numerous feudalists were very powerful. They all called on "how they serve the Empire!" while they were fighting for their personal gains. AFAIC, the traditional deeply carves spiritual existence of an Empire is the only thing that kept them together. Vukasin's title was "King of Serbia" and Uglesa's "Despot of Serbia" - and they were component subjects of the Empire. So was the Realm of Serres (modern-day eastern Greece - approximately Macedonia). Simeon later created an independent realm - but Thessaly and Epirus (and Albania) made his Empire. The actual inheritance of Serbian statehood was passed on the Mrnjavcevics (a. k. a. Macedonia), as the very last "hero" - Kraljevic Marko Mrnjavcevic was the very last wearer of the traditional Serbian crown (up to his death in 1395 - the "legitimacy" was then taken by his Ottoman overlords). The 15th century late medieval Despotic Serbia to which you refer (while Macedonia was Ottoman Turk-held) has no continuation with the High Medieval Serbian realm and shares (almost) no continuation. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that that will be good for Macedonia's population. Political pressure over 100% of its population (especially the Macedonian part)? --PaxEquilibrium 20:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * My sources are not detailed, so I cannot tell you more than I did about time of Stefan Dušan. Hungarian rule: according to my historical atlas Hungarians ruled there in the 12th-13th century (I cannot tell you more than this). PANONIAN   (talk)  21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I do not agree with this because Bulgarians held it temporarily too, so glorifying Bulgarian rule there is POV thing to do and I will revert any such edit. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem is that your data might not be truth. My historical atlas show that borders between various Serb and Bulgarian states between 13th and 15th century were exactly in the Bor area, and since Bor itself is not shown on those maps, I cannot say for sure on which side of the border it was, but it looks more likely that it was on Serbian side. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more maps for you:
 * Serbia in 1319: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KraljMilutin.jpg
 * Serbia in 1373-1395: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mapa0225.jpg

Both maps show that area of Bor was a border between Serbia and Bulgaria, and we cannot say for sure on which side of the border it was (but if I compare this with my geographical atlas I would say that it was on Serbian side). The only correct thing that we can write is that it was a border area between two countries. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is map from the address you gave me: http://www.bgns.net/Bg/otech/history/sredna/maps/2-25.html Regarding Bor area, it do not differ much from the map in my historical atlas. Today, we cannot know exact position of border line from that time, so we still cannot say for sure where Bor area was. I still believe that best formulation would be that "it was a border area between two countries". Also, my atlas show that area was under Hungaroian rule in one time period, thus I see no reason to delete that. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, I have no problem with you guys discussing on a historical topic, but please mind your language: statements like "100 years from now dominant nation in Bulgaria will be Turks" and "you will lose Kosovo very soon and hopefully Voivodina and the Western Outlands" are just offensive and absolutely do not contribute to the discussion if you want it to be fruitful. It's sad to see chauvinism and irredentism live on even today... I mean, you've got to have understood we can achieve more by co-operating. Silly nationalist claims have no place in the 21st century. Todor→Bozhinov 12:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he started this. I never insult anybody first, but I respond equally to insults adressed to me (not only if somebody insult me personally, but also if he insult my national feeling, and claims that Serbs "stole" most of their country from their neighbours is very big insult indeed). PANONIAN   (talk)  13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I think it is fiction too. On first hand, no great power will allow such a war, on second hand our nations still remember what happenned in the previous Balkan Wars, here there will be conflicts between the allies too. Sincerely, I believe that the only realistic scenario will be the joining of Macedonia to BG, at least because of the increasing number of the Albanians, not to mention that the truth as you know is that there are simply no Macedonians. Another realistic way is to remain independent as a federation, but I do not think it is appropriate. I am against war because it will ruin our economies and there will not be considerable gains (from econimic point of view Macedonia will be a burden to BG). --Gligan 15:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe that you two have this discussion in the 21st century. The worst problem with you is that you never saw war with your eyes. But unlike you, I saw it, and believe me, you do not want to see it too. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Като говорим за Иван Александър &mdash; ами надявам се скоро да закрият номинацията. Ако нещата останат така, както са (т.е. няма повече възражения и гласове против), ми се вярва, че ще е успешна. Според правилата човекът, който закрива номинации и определя дали са минали успешно, е Raul654, така че чакаме неговото решение :) Надявам се да е скоро, защото нямам търпение да стане избрана статия. Todor→Bozhinov 14:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ето ги: commons:Category:National Historical Museum (Bulgaria) :) Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ахелой... не съм сигурен дали Скилица има миниатюри точно за Ахелой, но за Ключ мисля, че има. В commons:Category:Skylitzis Chronicle има разни от неговата летопис, не знам дали са всички :) Дано послужат. Можеш да разгледаш и надкатегорията commons:Category:Byzantine illuminated manuscripts и изобщо commons:Category:Illuminated manuscripts, все трябва да има и други. Малко снимки на крепости има под свободен лиценз, на тази в Ловеч бях намерил, изобщо тези от по-големите градове ги има където има снимки на градовете, но малките и скътани крепости по-рядко са снимани, да не говорим пък под подходящ лиценз. В Images from Bulgaria има Аневско кале, Асенова крепост и Царевец.
 * За оправянето... ами оправяй, но винаги прилагай източници и бъди внимателен към чуждата гледна точка &mdash; може пък и другите да имат какво да кажат :)
 * А, и между другото Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria вече е избрана... честито! Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Не бих те съветвал да правиш отделни статии за хижи, защото обикновено няма какво толкова да се каже в повече от един параграф, а това значи, че завинаги статията ще си остане мъниче. В такива случаи ще е най-добре да направиш една обща статия "Хижи в Пирин" (не съм сигурен дали "refuge" е най-подходящата дума) и да пишеш за всяка отделна хижа като секция, а в увода да дадеш някаква информация колко са хижите, какви са, къде са и т.н. От имената на отделни хижи пък ще е добре да направиш пренасочвания към общата статия. Todor→Bozhinov 12:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Такова, да ти кажа, не отдавай прекалено значение на тия чужди имена в статии за български населени места, имат си право хората. Наистина са владяли Южна Добруджа, пък макар и за кратко... подхождай по-меко: в статии за чужди градове рядко махат български имена, независимо че от Средновековието не сме имали власт върху тях, виж например Hârşova, Giurgiu, Kırklareli. За села и градове в Банат, където има банатски българи, също имаме споменати банатски български имена: Dudeştii Vechi, Sânnicolau Mare, Timişoara. Отнасяй се по-либерално, като изброяваме и чужди варианти на името (където ги има) само добавяме полезна информация към Уикипедия. Разбира се, трябва да спазваме и някакви логични граници, но без излишна ограниченост. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ммм, откажи се от тия карти, те са в Уикипедия, значи не са авторитетен източник (правил ги е някой потребител като нас). Не е добре да се опитваш да си потвърждаваш тезите с карти, които си намерил тук. Извади някой надежден източник, където се казва, че тази част от Добруджа е била под българска власт от еди кога си до еди кога си, и проблеми няма да имаш. И карта става, стига да е от някоя авторитетна историческа публикация.
 * Потребител може да бъде блокиран временно за нарушаване на WP:3RR (над 3 връщания за 24 часа). Преброй ги внимателно и докладвай в WP:AN3. Ако обаче и ти си нарушил правилото, и ти ще бъдеш блокиран. А предупреждение можеш да му пратиш и сам още сега, с 3RR на дискусионната му страница.
 * А, и между другото, като добавяш имена на български, прави го с име, изглежда по-добре, ботовете го разпознават и връзката си е към Bulgarian language. Todor→Bozhinov 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's your proofAnonimu 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those maps don't prove nothing. As long you can't bring documents, archeological, epigraphical or numismatic proofs, you can't prove that. Map making is very permissive when it cames to mapping something that nobody can bring proof for. This is a general trait in Eastern Europe. That's why Hungarian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian and Greek maps will never match. Because most of the time there are no documents to prove or to disprove one or another interpretation. So no, maps(especially those found on the internet) don't make good sources.Anonimu 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the rule for adding a name of a place/town/region in another language should be: Of course, as a rule of thumb, all the edits should be referenced and verifiable. All the other names should go as exonyms to the corresponding articles (see for example List of European exonyms). Mentatus 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * a significant minority lives or lived there
 * the place/town/region had OFFICIALLY that name

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


 * We don't write names just because they were used by somebody in the middleages. If you want to add named used in medieval Bulgarian documents, go and add them in the article about Bulgarian exonims. Anyway, except for turnu magurele, all other names are cyrillic renditions of the romanian name. And unlike the romanian rendition of the names in southern dobrudja, there's no proof they were used during the bulgarian rule in the region.Anonimu 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, mentatus and todor agreed to put bulgarian names if we could find documents contemporany to bulgarian rule mentioning them.Anonimu 12:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two problems: 1. The fact that those cities existed during Bulgarian rule. 2. The fact that they were called that way during Bulgarian rule.. If the Bulgarian names used for those cities today are different from those used in late middle ages, how can you prove that those late-medieval names were the same with the early-medieval ones? It's not "my logic". It's "the logic", opposed to your protochronism. Turnu Magurele was called Turnu (Turris in western sources)... Magurele is a very late adition (modern era), so that the reader or the listener doesn't think the the speaker refers to the other Turnu (Severin). I say no, unless you bring some documents proving the existence of those cities and the use of those specific names during the Bulgarian rule.Anonimu
 * Anonimu, I think you're crossing the line a bit. We already agreed &mdash; we have the historic Romanian names in articles for Bulgarian places, and we have the Bulgarian names in articles for Romanian places if those were under Romanian or Bulgarian rule respectively. Instead of being intentionally petty, allow us to have our names when you've already had yours, even in areas you've never ruled or where you've never had a minority (like around Vidin, where bilingual, mostly Bulgarian-identifying population lives). You see, I can be petty about Vidin too, but we've agreed that the Romanian name should stay. Todor→Bozhinov 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you can prove that those cities existed under Bulgarian rule, it's spurious to talk about "Romanian places under Bulgarian rule". Who cares they identify as Bulgarian? Would you preffer "old Romanian and Bulgarian Vlach name"? And remember Michael the Brave briefly occupied Vidin in the 1590s. Anyway, only you've agreed, since gligan deleted the old Romanian name every time i tried to add it. Anonimu 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If they had a name, then they existed, yes. I would prefer "historic name: Vlach and Romanian: Diiu", that's for sure, but I'm not complaining. "Who cares they identify as Bulgarian" is very ignorant and offensive, you're disregarding these people's clear non-Romanian self-identification. And no, Michael the Brave didn't occupy Vidin, these were just brief incursions.
 * Since their names are mentioned only in the period when Wallachia was independent or under hungarian/turkish suzeranity, you can't say nothing about their existence during the Bulgarian rule. And about what they think of themselves, it would be nice if we had the hungarian criterias for defining nationality (self-identification + nationality + affinity with cultural values&traditions + mother tongue + language spoken with family and friends + mother tongue spoken outside the family). But there was a period, varrying from few hours to few days when Michael, the ruler of Wallachia, virtually ruled the city =>Wallachian(Romanian) rule over the city ;)Anonimu 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gligan won't stop removing your names unless you stop removing our names, I'm pretty sure about that. And he would do this not without reason. Todor→Bozhinov 18:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that thing about the names, especially because we have some from the time of Ivan Alexander, when Wallachia was at least de facto a vassal. The actual rule of Michael over Vidin is pretty doubtful too, ruling a city is a bit different from just invading, conquering and going on, but anyway. Was it officially called Diiu in those few hours/days you claim it was ruled by Wallachia? Or was it called that way before Michael conquered it (thus non-officially), or after he lost it (thus non-officially)? :) See, I can be petty too. So quit that silly thing and let us have our names! :) Todor→Bozhinov 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find documents, i have nothing against. You still have to prove me Wallachia (and Dobrotici btw) was vassal of Ivan Alexander (and anyway, de facto doesn't count too much). I know that it wasn't a proper rule (i.e. one that would qualify for the first criterium), but anyway my intention was to include "Diiu" in the second criterium. But nevertheless, there was a Wallachian rule over Vidin ;) Anonimu 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't exactly rule, as I said. As for the vassalage, I consulted Ian Mladjov of the University of Michigan and he provided some handy references, which I've included in the article. Anyway, here's the original sources which this is based on:
 * a "charter" of Radu I (co-ruler of Vladislav I) from 1371: (Miletich, p. 47)

Тѡго радї, ц а р ю А л е ѯ а н д р е,  варе ктȍ ти e вамеш въ Рѹокеръ, да мѹ запрѣтиш да ѹзимат вамѫ, що e закон. А инако да не смѣетъ ѹчинит. И кои либо щет битъ вамеш под Дѫбовнцѫ, и тои та(ко)ждере да имъ ѹзимат.
 * In other words, he addresses Alexander as "tsar" and requests that Alexander tells his own customs official (вамеш, vameş) in Rucăr and Dâmboviţa (border towns of Wallachia) to collect toll taxes.
 * A letter of Louis I of Hungary to the lord of Padova of September 1377 refers to Radu as "Rodanu, principe di Bulgaria infidele", or "infidel prince of Bulgaria". Todor→Bozhinov 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but those references are from Bulgarian authors, and i have the right to have my doubts about their objectivity. Could you translate the whole fragment (a bulgarian friend told me it's not very easy for a bulgarian to understand old slavonic, but you could try to translate it more accurately). About the second reference, it doesn't say too much. we have hungarian documents about moldavian princes calling them prince of cumania, so it's not uncommon. Anonimu 12:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you dispute original sources, then I can't do anything about that, I can't change history to suit you. And you didn't seem to dispute the objectivity of Miletich when his opinion was of use to you. Anyway, Miletich doesn't even have to say anything here, his paper just provides a recording of an original source. Todor→Bozhinov 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't dispute that document. I just said Bakalov and Koledarov might have followed an agenda. About the document quoted by Miletich, i just wanted a translation (i'd never contest Miletich, except the cases when he contradicts himself, but here is not the case)Anonimu 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not Moldovans or Macedonians to follow an agenda :) Basically, there's nothing else special in the document, Radu only flaunts how great he is, how he rules by the grace of God over all of the "Hungaro-Vlach lands", and how the laws of his ancestors shall be preserved under his own rule. Then he goes on to appeal to John Alex to tell his officials in the towns mentioned to collect taxes according to these laws, and if anyone collects taxes against the law, then that would be "great evil" or something. Of course, the language is very antiquated and I couldn't make out many of the minor details, so perhaps you should find someone with good knowledge of Old Church Slavonic to translate it for you, if you'd like some great detail. Todor→Bozhinov 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I was thinking much the same thing about dividing up the battles of the Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars.

The main sections could be:

1. A group for the early battles before the Siege of Serdica.

2. Khan Krum's battles

3. Simeon I's battles

4. The various battles involving Samuil and Basil II

5. Then we could have a section for the battles of the Second Bulgarian Empire.

I'm not really sure where the battle of Ostrovo would go, though.

How does this sound? Crispus 01:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good that we seem to be in agreement. I made the changes, and added in a few breaks ( 's) so that it would take up less space. Depending on where new battles are added, the breaks can be switched around. Crispus 20:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Battle of Southern Buh
Hi! What's the source which says that the battle between Simeon and the Magyars in 896 took place at the Southern Buh? I'm currently trying to write an FA-quality article on Simeon (User:TodorBozhinov/Simeon I of Bulgaria) and I'm using a variety of sources (although part of them are somewhat older) and none of them says anything of the exact location. Also, if you've got any more reference which can be added to the article, I'm open to suggestions :) Regards, Todor→Bozhinov 12:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Да, това за Буг и Днепър и аз го намирам на някои места, но все пак е "между", освен това става въпрос за цялата територия на маджарите. Явно немската хроника ни е надеждата :) Ще се радвам, ако успееш да намериш и други източници за Симеон, а и за битката.
 * Относно програмата: ами за картата за Иван Александър ползвах CorelDRAW 11, защото исках да е изцяло векторна (предимстовото на този формат е, че не се пикселизира при увеличаване). Не мисля, че се работи чак толкова сложно с тази програма, но ще имаш нужда да я поразучиш. Todor→Bozhinov 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Здрасти! Хубаво си се разстърсил. Наистина, доста източници поизнамерих. Имаш ли възможност да представиш цитат и страница от Фулденските летописи (Annales Fuldenses), така че да мога да ги ползвам като източник? Благодаря! Todor→Bozhinov 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Значи все пак не пише, че битката е била при Южен Буг? Наистина целта ми е страницата за Симеон да стане избрана статия, но преди това трябва да мине през WP:Peer review за коментари, ще ми се да я прегледат един-двама англоезични, за да проверят дали е добре езиково, а и да поседи просто така една-две седмици, да я поогледам малко по малко и да коригирам където е нужно. Има време, но целта си е FA, можеш да си сигурен :) И то не просто FA, ами наистина да бъде една от най-добрите статии в Уикипедия. Todor→Bozhinov 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Страницата за Пловдив
Привет. Видях че си променял страницата за Пловдив на няколко пъти и те моля за помощ. Някой постоянно добавя следния линк към страницата: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/plovdiv.htm. Аз го махнах на няколко пъти преди около месец,, но някой го добавя постоянно. Очеизвадно е че голяма част от написаното в линка са пълни глупости, но човека е доста упорит и настоява линка да остане... Аз не съм редактирал никога преди в Уикипедия, и просто се чудя дали може на въпросния човек да му се забрани да променя страницата.

Поздрав Иван. Cnn lies 03:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cnn lies (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi
Hello Gligan! I saw your user page and your interests seems pretty pertinent. Thank you sustaining non-union of Romania and Moldova. I just want to asked one more thing. Are you a Bulgarian of Romanian or partial Romanian origin? Gligan is a Romanian name so is for that i asked you. Please repply me here, because im currently blocked. Thx Arthur 15 April 2007


 * Greetings! I am of only Bulgarian origin: ) In fact, in Bulgarian language "gligan" means wild boar, which is a very funny animal [[Image:Smile.gif|20px]]. Do you share some of my interests? --Gligan 20:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! Wild boar, interesting i wasn't thinking that. Yes of course I'm totally against the union of Romania and Moldova (btw i'm Romanian) cuz you know very well, Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, and there's a huge difference between the two, so I think that a possible union could affect heavly the Romanian economy. More, Moldova is dominated by russians, and even if romanians are a majority. How about your opinions. user:NorbertArthur

Well, I think that Romania is large enough and does not need any more territories; what is more, the new territories bear many problems with them.Your points are very wise: ) This unification will ruin both economies, the Moldovan which is anyway ruined and the Romanian which is recoverring fast. And what do you think of a unification between Bulgaria and Macedonia? --Gligan 08:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, how you said, the Romanian economy is one of the fastest grewing in EU. But if you go let's say 15 years ago, you were not able to compare Bulgaria with Romania. Bulgarians had almost everything, not like us, Ceausescu was not even giving light to us. Even now there are some elements that I heard Bulgaria is ahead Romania. Personally I think that both countries are at same level, of what I saw. Well the Unification of Bulgaria and and Macedonia is not a bad idea. But you know very well that Macedonia has now a lot of economic and ethnic problems, and the standard of living if much below the bulgarian one. The good points are that Bulgaria could "recuperate" its lost territories and on the demographic line it would eliminate the current Bulgaria's demographic crisis. Btw can you explain how there's really demographic crisis in Bulgaria? Regards, Arthur 16th April 2007

Самуил
Здрасти пак! Виждам, че правиш разни страшно добри неща със статията за Самуил. Можеш да разчиташ на мен за всякакви поправки, езикови и технически, за да докараме и тази статия до статут на избрана &mdash; заслужава си. Статията е започнала да придобива страхотен вид, а източниците са в нужния впечатляващ брой, така че според мен ще има реални шансове. Само мисля, че ще е по-добре докато е работна версия да работиш по нея в личното си пространство (в момента заема място като отделна статия): ако искаш, ще я преместя там вместо теб, а пък после да си я сложиш на Samuil of Bulgaria.

P.S. Все пак в края гледай да оставиш Other theories секцията от сегашната статия и даже да добавиш към нея, ако знаеш нещо по въпроса &mdash; по WP:Undue weight не бива да даваме на такива алтернативни теории прекалено много място, но пък си заслужава да се упомене, че в Република Македония гледат на нещата по... хм... алтернативен начин. Todor→Bozhinov 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ще направя родословие, хронология и карта &mdash; не бери грижа, само дано да намеря по-скоро време, защото не винаги успявам :) В случая си заслужава. Също ще прегледам статията за език и стил, и цитата ще пробвам да преведа, ще потърся и за английски източници (освен Fine и Runciman трябва да има доста, а и други автори). Накрая ще помолим и някой с майчин език английски да я провери допълнително, за да сме убедени, че всичко е наред... все пак целта е ясна &mdash; FA! :) Todor→Bozhinov 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Готово, вече е на User:Gligan/Samuil of Bulgaria. Кажи ми когато общо взето си попривършил с цялата статия, за да мога да я прегледам в що-годе готов вид. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Захванах се, ще отнеме известно време, но ще се получи страхотна статия. Не съм сигурен доколко може да се пише за култура и религия точно в този период, но определено ще добавя Family и Timeline, а ако се поровя и Legacy and popular culture. Абе ще го измислим :) Относно теориите, аз мисля, че заслужават поне споменаване, но според указанията не бива да им се отрежда прекалено много място. Както и да е, сигурно е, че един ден като я докараме до FA и се появи на главната страница ще има ужасно количество вандализъм. Ако въобще мине през FA, защото знае ли човек, да не вземат бракята да се организират и да гласуват масово против... Да не дава Господ подобни изцепки, понеже ако се случи нещо подобно кандидатурата веднагически отива на кино, защото статията няма да е стабилна и ще трябва дълго да обясняваме за неутралността. Todor→Bozhinov 16:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Здравей, общо-взето попрегледах статията, достатъчно, за да я преместя в главното пространство (вече е на Samuil of Bulgaria). Остава да я погледнат за грешки и други хора, да се поразровим за още разни дреболии, да направя Family, Timeline и карта и бавно да поемем по пътя към FA :) Между другото, би ли добавил и бележки под линия в долната част на Disaster at Kleidion, там има цял параграф и нещо без такива, а са нужни. Благодаря! :) Todor→Bozhinov 17:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ами... то всъщност няма голяма разлика, все пак съвременните разработки се базират на Скилица и Кекавмен. Както прецениш, а може и двете &mdash; не вреди :) Аз съм се заел с картата, а скоро ще се пробвам и с родословието и хронологията. Todor→Bozhinov 11:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Флота
Здрасти, ами няма никакъв проблем, можеш да ми я пратиш на пощата (todor точка bozhinov на gmail точка com). Наистина, оригиналите не са кой-знае какво произведение на изкуството, но по-добра илюстрация фактически няма :) Ако искаш мога пък аз да ги прерисувам с някоя по-свястна програма за графика (например CorelDRAW), а да оставя на теб разширението на статията? Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian-Byzanthine Wars
Hi! Sorry if I'm late, but I hadn't looked your message. Yours is a good idea, and I think I'm going to do it in italian Wikipedia. I thank you for advice. Greetings! Alexander VIII 14:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

- Глиган трябва да знаеш че много хора уважават това което правиш! Полезен си на много Българи на всякаъде по света и много хора те уважават! Казвам ти го защото повечето хора сигурно забравят да го направят - БЛАГОДАРЯ! Продължавай в същия дух!

Благодаря! Радвам се, че съм полезен по някакъв начин на Българския народ. Ще се опитам да продължа така: ) --Gligan 08:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC) -

Пиринска Македония
Авторът е толкова объркан, че и сам не си знае позицията и какво иска. Промили са му мозъка тотално, какво да ти кажа. Просто връщай на пренасочване към Blagoevgrad Province и ще се откаже &mdash; "статията" е някакъв набързо скалъпен абсурд. Todor→Bozhinov 08:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Simeon and 912/927
Good catch. My mistake. :) Thanks. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Снимки
Здравей! Снимките така дадени нещо не успявам да ги намеря :( Би ли ги изредил с ID-то на страницата (например на тази е 27151133, пише го в самия URL адрес). Наистина жалко, че не е имало още информация за флота, дано се намери някъде. Todor→Bozhinov 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Готов си &mdash; виж ги най-горе в Commons:User:Martyr/gallery. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Нещо като примерно Sofia Province ли? Ще се заловя след малко, наистина ще е полезно. Иначе, за да се ползват от всички проекти на Уикимедия, снимките трябва да са качени в Общомедия (Commons). Ако са качени само в дадена Уикипедия, могат да се употребяват само в нея. Todor→Bozhinov 14:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Municipalities of Sofia :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

re
Hi dear Gligan i'm an italian user who desperate search a menthor... Do you speak italian? Yours Flavio/Wiki pest 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much enough yours Flavio/Wiki pest 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for writing the article Lucovit treasure. Unfortunately, it doesn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, and has, as a result, been marked for deletion. However, please do not be disheartened by what may or may not happen to your first article, if indeed it is deleted - please continue to edit Wikipedia and add articles which conform with the inclusion criteria. For help, see Help:Contents. To find out what will probably be deleted, see Criteria for speedy deletion and What Wikipedia is not. Thanks, and if you have any questions, please ask them on my user talk page. To do this, click on my name (just after this sentence) and click discussion at the top and then the (+) button at the top. G1 gg  y  !  12:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick question
Why do you oppose the union of Romania and Moldova? My sketchy understanding of Eastern European politics is that Moldova is generally in favour of unification, which is more than can be said of the unification of Ireland, where more than 50% of people in the North would be strongly against. — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 02:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucovit treasure
Sorry, I thought the article seemed inappropriate. Upon closer inspection, it seems OK, but you should still add hangon instead of removing the CSD.

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Средновековие
Здравей, не се сещам за такова знаме или герб, но виж, в coat of arms of Bulgaria има хубава колекция от ранни гербове. Забелязах, че има проблем с картата, ще видя какво мога да направя... нещо SVG-то прави проблеми. Схеми по принцип не се правят трудно, зависи от самата им сложност и детайлност, но стига да има вече готова схема, по която да се водиш, не е голяма философия :) Кажи какво има за правене, мога да се заема, но сигурно ще се позабавя с изработката. Todor→Bozhinov 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ivan, Asen and Dobrotitsa
As long as you cannot provide a reliable source about Dobrotica being a Bulgarian noble, that is WP:OR and also POV. Asan and Ivan were vlachs in all documents. They were entitled Emperor of Vlachs an Bulgars. Ionitsa Kaloyan entitled himself emperor of bulgarians only a few times and Ivan Asen II entitlend himself emperor of bulgarians and vlachs only 3 times (the rest of the documents show him only emperor of bulgarians). The historians concluded that the Vlach characteristic of the leadership of the Second Vlach-Bulgarian Empire faded out in time. --Alex:Dan 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not accept empty phrases without sources to sustain them. As long as Kaloyan is king/emperor of Bulgarians and Vlachs, and as long as he is part of Romanian History books and studies, then the Romanian form of his name (with reliable source) remains. Stop vandalising articles just because you don't like Romanian there. --Alex:Dan 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources that Vladislav and Dan were vassals of the Bulgarian Czar... Yes. But I doubt. Vladislav was a vassal of Hungarian king.--Alex:Dan 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Voivods
"Cyrillic means nothing, one without knowledge of history would think that they have something to do with Serbia"

But they have everything to do with Serbia - they ruled in the territory of present-day Serbia and therefore Cyrillic name reflect both, Bulgarian and Serbian name for them. So, what is problem? PANONIAN 09:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not same as with Simeon I - he was ruler of Bulgaria, while these voivods were local rulers of Banat, Bačka and Syrmia and in Serbian literature they are often called Slavic voivods instead Bulgarian voivods. It is fact that they are much more important for history of Serbia than for history of Bulgaria. And it is irrelevant who ruled over Vojvodina in varios parts of the history - important thing is that local Slavs that lived in Vojvodina for all these centuries spoke exactly same language as Serbs spoke today, therefore I added Cyrillic name in their language, not in modern Serbian. PANONIAN  09:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * History of Serbia include history of its entire present-day territory and therefore the question what were borders of Serbia in the 9th century is irrelevant. And I repeat: I did not wrotte these names in Serbian or Bulgarian Cyrillic, but in (universal) Slavic Cyrillic. Besides this, modern Bulgarian language developed in the 16th century and official language used by Slavic inhabitants of the Balkans was Old Church Slavonic, which mean that term "Bulgarian language" is anachronistic if we speak about 9th-11th century. PANONIAN  21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Old Church Slavonic was official language of medieval Bulgarian state and that have nothing with question which language was spoken by local Slavs in Vojvodina. In another words, if you speak about medieval Bulgaria, then we can use either official language of the country (Old Church Slavonic) either language spoken by local inhabitants and in the case of Vojvodina neither of the two was not Bulgarian. Also, if these voivods were Bulgars (instead of Slavs) by origin, they you forgot one simple fact that their native language in that case also was not that what is today called Bulgarian. Description "Cyrillic" is quite enough for all these articles because such description is most accurate and most neutral and I used it to prevent this dispute. And since when name of the language is that what "show the country these people served"? Besides, these voivods rather served themselves (Ahtum and Sermon were completelly independent rulers), thus the question what they "died for" is a question for long discussion. PANONIAN  20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No Gligan, local Slavs in Vojvodina spoke Serbo-Croatian dialect, which is proved by historical data and toponyms (some Slavs living in northern part of Vojvodina in fact spoke Slovak dialects because linguistic border between Serbo-Croatian Slavs and Slovak Slavs was in northern Vojvodina in that time). And the question where Serbian or Bulgarian states were in that time is completelly irrelevant for linguistic question - anyway these Slavs in fact were neither Serbs or Bulgarians, they were closely related to modern Šokci and therefore were closer to Serbs than to Bulgarians. Regarding questions whether "you will change the names of all Serbian feudal lords after the fall of Dushan's Empire to Cyrillic", I certainly will not stop you to do this. Regarding Ahtum, no he did not died in war between "his province with Hungarian state" but in war between "his state with Hungarian state" - just check this map which show him as independent ruler: http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1000.htm PANONIAN  20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, when you do not like what you see in the source that I presented to you then you claim that it is inaccurate. Please... There are other sources of course that claim same thing, for example book "Istorija Mađara" (Beograd, 2002), also claim that Ajtonj (Ahtum) was independent ruler (Of course I believe that you do not want that I raise the question whether Ahtum was ally of Bulgarian or Macedonian Empire). Fact that currently Bulgarian editors on Wikipedia are more numerous than Macedonian ones does not mean that such situation will last forever and one day the truth about medieval Macedonian Empire will be written. Also, about Ahtum, other source (Banatska rapsodija, Novi Sad, 2001) claim that capital of Ahtum was on river Mures and that he was Hungarian vassal in one period. In another words, I do not dispute that what somebody wrotte on Samuil page about Ahtum might be correct, but that might be just what happened before Ahtum became independent and before he had his capital city on river Mures. History is a linear thing, not a statical one, and there is a constant change in it. PANONIAN  21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, I made a compromise version of these articles where all relevant meanings of Cyrillic script (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian...) are written. In the historical context neither of the 3 meanings would be valid, but since modern sources written in these languages mention those persons, we can add reference to these languages simply as reference to modern sources that mention them. I also added Macedonian/Serbian view about character of empire of Samuil (together with Bulgarian one), so we can have more NPOV articles. PANONIAN  16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:55161663.sP1229373.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:55161663.sP1229373.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian tsars
Здрасти, номинирах Самуил за добра статия, сега остава някой да прегледа номинацията. Статията е много над изискванията за добра, единственият проблем може да е езиково-стилов (засега никой с майчин език английски не я е проверил), по тази причина и все още не сме я докарали до номинация за избрана статия. Оправих също и картата :) Между другото, да ти се намират някакви източници за Иван Асен II? По всичко личи, че той ще е следващата ми мишена след известно време: виж какво съм насъбрал в Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria. Ако имаш желание и време, ще се радвам на малко помощ ;) Тя статията в момента е добре написана, но трябва да се допълни и да се сложат бележки под линия, и то обилно. Todor→Bozhinov 14:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria map
По принцип няма проблем, но ще ми е нужна вече готова карта като източник, на който да се позовавам. Това дали е достатъчно точно? Todor→Bozhinov 10:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Bulgarian uprising of Peter Delyan (1040-1041).svg. Със сигурност не е кой-знае колко точна, но пък едва ли и по изворите може да се определи добре докъде се простира въстанието. Ако имаш някакви забележки, казвай :) Todor→Bozhinov 11:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria
Здравей! Идеята е хубава, но ми се струва, че за портал и проект ще е по-добре да е по-широка като тема, например История на България. Техничесики или по какъвто и да е начин е напълно възможно и осъществимо... дано се намерят и други, които да подкрепят този замисъл. Нямам администраторски права, за да защитя страницата, но винаги можеш да се оплачеш на WP:ANB/I. Todor→Bozhinov 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Самуил
Здравей! Ето дървото, надявам се да е близо до това което си имал пред вид:

Оставям на теб да избереш подходящото му място в статията. --Cameltrader 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rulers
Regarding Roman emperors, the fact that they were born in Sirmuim or ruled from Sirmium means that they have certain direct connection to Vojvodina and therefore I added them there. Contrary to this, these Bulgarian emperors were neither born in Vojvodina neither had their capital on its territory (if any of these Bulgarian emperors was born in Vojvodina, I would not object that we include him). Also, I changed introduction part of "Rulers of Vojvodina" article, so that it now also mention "other rulers of larger political units that had specific local ties to territory of present-day Vojvodina", which would cover these Roman emperors. Regarding joining question, perhaps you should more worry that Bulgaria do not join again to Turkey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png PANONIAN  14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
Regarding one of your Userboxes; "This user supports the unification of Bulgarian and the Republic of Macedonia". I kindly ask you to remove it as it supports an irredentist ideology and further provokes assimilation of other ethnic groups in an extremist sense. Thanks. Frightner 02:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles about battles
Yes, I think that they should be nominated for Featured Article after I fix the grammar, which hopefully will be sometime today. I will tell you when that is done, and you can nominate it then. I really don't follow the Featured Article process very much, so I can't say whether it will have easy success, but I think it is worth a try. I haven't contributed much to our coverage of the Byzantine Empire and Middle Ages topics, but I am very interested in these topics and will help whenever I can, although I have a limited time on Wikipedia lately. Thanks. Academic Challenger 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Theophylactus Botaniates
I think its great that you are doing articles like these, which fill in many of the gaps in WP., But please--could you give a source for each of them--there are some people around with nothing better to do than to try to delete articles without sources. DGG (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New article
Един потребител от една съседна много приятна ... хммм... страна направи статия, която мисля, че доста ще ти хареса. Знам, че ти си побитките и т.н., а аз към момента се чудя откъде да зачекна темата, защото е доста болезнена за братята. -- L a v e o l  T 14:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ами то направо да не знаеш откъде да го започнеш - точно така е - по-голямата част са посрещнали армията ни като совободители и т.н. А борбата наистина е била по-скоро в контекста на антифашистката борба в цялата страна. Сайта, който са сложили като източник си е забавен направо, няма какво да го коментираме даже. Ще трябва да се съгласуваме. Значи аз предполагам, че утре ако ми остане време ще го започна отнякъде с източници от нета май-малкото. Има достатъчно цели книги по въпроса публикувани в мрежата пък вече за книжните издания ще видим. Аз принципно имам дневника на Богдан Филов подръка и ако намеря нещо интересно в него ще го сложа. -- L a v e o l  T 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Нашия Jingiby беше блокиран заради 3RR, а македонеца Frightner писа на сърбина TheFEARGod да му помогне да избегне 3RR. В резултат сърбина изтри всичко свързано с факта, че Македония (както и Сърбия) е освободена от българската армия и наблъска някакъв черногорски партизански командир, който се биел срещу "българския окупатор". Не мога да се намеся, защото имам предупреждение от някакъв "администратор" за POV и следващия път ще ме блокира. Lantonov 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not ask him for help because he is Serbian assuming he will side with me, I asked him for help because he is the only member of WikiProject Military history that I know and he has previous experience in Macedonian related conflicts. Frightner 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The same reason why I contacted Gligan - military history of the region :) -- L a v e o l  T 16:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcription of Serbian/Bulgarian name for Despotes
Last January, you added the text "деспот, despot, feminine деспотица, despotina." Shouldn't the transcription of деспотица be despoti ts a (not despoti n a)? I assume this was just a typo, right? Richwales 04:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:800px-Boris II.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:800px-Boris II.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Samuil of Bulgaria
Здравей, не видях, че Laveol вече е върнал и всъщност насляпо съм върнал към вандализма... извинявай :) Споко, не съм минал на тъмната страна :P Todor→Bozhinov 11:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Герб на късносредновековна България
Драги Глиган, моите уважения, обаче това изображение



не е и не може да бъде третирано като "Coat of arms of late medieval Bulgaria 1595". То всъщност никога не е било документирано като герб на български владетел, ами е свободна импровизация на тема герб на несъществуващото в края на 16 век българско царство, включена в илирския (тоест западнобалкански) гербовник на Корйенич-Неорич, виж статията Coat of arms of Bulgaria. Ако искаш да използваш релевантно хералдическо изображение за Второто българско царство, решението би бил гербът на цар Иван Шишман:



Хералдиката притежава строго установени правила и практики, нека не си съчиняваме нови, анахронични или неисторически. Поздрав! - Jackanapes 09:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Съгласен съм с теб. За съжаление нямам софтуер за .svg файлове, а и не се занимавам професионално с подобни неща. Мога да направя нещо най-много такова. Удовлетворява ли те? - Jackanapes 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Имам още един вариант. Виж и него. Изчистих "арабизиращите" детайли на щита. Този може би изглежда повече "историчен" и е контрастен при намаляване. - Jackanapes 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ъплоудвам.



Прилично изглежда. - Jackanapes 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Заради непредизвестеното замествне на моето изображение със снимка на прерисуване (!) на герб от германски гербовник от втората половина на 15 век, който е анахроничен и неточен по отношение на епохата на цар Иван Шишман, направих модификация на един по-късен герб според цветовете, описани от арабския очевидец:


 * [[Image:Coat_of_Arms_of_Bulgaria_during_the reign_of_Tsar_Ivan_Shishman.png|100px]]


 * Надявам се, че ще те удовлетвори. Поздрави, Dimitar Navorski 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

EU
Although your image of the Bulgarian national park was you added to the EU article was beautiful, I removed it. The reason is twofold. First there are already enough images in the EU article. Second, we are trying to write an article about EU which is more than just a summary of the members. As you may have seen the coastline image has a caption reflecting the importance of coastlines for most EU members states, thus taking it beyond the specific coastline example. I hope this explain why your picture was removed from the EU article. Arnoutf 09:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

According to National Liberation War of Macedonia
Глигане, заключиха заради анонимни Фироми Uhrana и National Liberation War of Macedonia в неприятна ситуация! Ако можеш да направиш нещо ще съм ти благодарен !Jingby 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Гръцки националист
Поставих една снимка от Карнегиевата комисия в Hellenization защото ме ядоса факта, че погърчването е представено изцяло в добра светлина докато побългаряването Bulgarisation е очернено включително от гърците. веднага го махна и в моята страница започна да ме заплашва. Какво ще кажеш, имал ли си вземане-даване с този и струва ли си да се заяждам с него? Lantonov 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Пак нещо
Здравей, тук можеш да видиш всички картинки, които си качвал в английската Уикипедия. Ако не съм те разбрал правилно, поясни ;) За Скилица наистина не знам, но сякаш червеният цар ми прилича на Крум. Все пак не ми се предоверявай :) Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 09:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Още карти
Здравей, за съжаление в момента нямам много време за Уикипедия, но ако намеря достатъчно ще се опитам да направя някоя карта. Наистина ще е добре, ако имаме повече, но направата отнема поне няколко часа :( Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 15:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Kilkis
1) Just by saying that the landscape around Kilkis is flat, you prove that you have no idea what you are talking about, so please study a bit, perhaps visit Kilkis (there is a great monument for the battle on top of a very non-flat mountain) and try again. And a "strategic retreat" followed by a humiliating concession of territory is otherwise known as a defeat. Or did Hitler "strategically retreat" from Stalingrad? Regards, sys &lt; in 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:235721.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:235721.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:235721.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:235721.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anchialo
Здравей. Зачетох статията за битката при Ахелой в английската уикипедия. Видях, че ти си вписал данни за броя на загиналите българи, а освен това си вмъкнал бележка под линия към една статия на Чолпанов за битката. Не знам кой е писал, че византийците са били 110 000, а българите - 70 000. Според мен нямало е как да се съберат, да се въоръжат, да се изхранят и да се командват по време на бой (през Х век!) толкова хора. Не съм сигурен дали полето край Поморие може да ги побере ;))

Поставих в статията бележки за липса на източници. Ако можеш, намери някой достоверен автор. Според мен няма такъв и цифрите трябва да бъдат изтрити. Друг вариант е да се посочи Чолпанов, който твърди за 62 000 ромеи срещу 60 000 на Симеон и се позовава на източник. От ромеите са избягали 2 000, т. е. загубите им (убити и пленени) са 60 хил. Българите са понесли тежки загуби, но колко - не знаем.Dobrin 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Panagyurishte Treasure.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Panagyurishte Treasure.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is 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. Daggerstab 16:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 09:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads
Hello, you recently uploaded a number of images, all with the edit summary of "alcoron". Can you please clarify what that means, and what the source of these images is? They are obviously not all self-made, so we need a source and some evidence of the GFDL release you claim to have for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:BG Soldiers.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:BG Soldiers.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 05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

reference in Bulgaria
The reference you added to Bulgaria (http://www.mfa.government.bg/history_of_Bulgaria/83.html) doesn't seem to resolve. I was curious to check this out. Martijn Faassen 21:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To make this more clear: the site doesn't seem to be available for me. my browser does not let me connect to www.mfa.government.bg at all (www.government.bg, yes) 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn faassen (talk • contribs)


 * The site simply doesn't connect for me. No matter; I'll try again another day. Martijn Faassen 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Yoan Kukuzel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yoan Kukuzel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 14:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yoan Kukuzel.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Yoan Kukuzel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Georgi 1 Terter-Teodor Svetoslav-coppery.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Georgi 1 Terter-Teodor Svetoslav-coppery.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- STBotI (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Message on my talk page
I am seriously sorry for the error that I made. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ( Talk to Me  ) 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Турската пропаганда
На страницата на Пловдивския музей намерих данни от преброяването на Източна Румелия през 1880:

Територия на Източна Румелия : 35 901 кв.км Население на Източна Румелия : 815 946 души

От тях – 573 560 - българи 174 700 - турци и българомохамедани 42 654 -  гърци 19 549 -  цигани 4 177  -  евреи 1 306 -  арменци В областта живеят още много чужди поданици - австрийци, чехи, маджари, французи, италианци и др.

На този сайт: намерих книгата Населението въ Княжество България по трите първи преброявания. Отъ М.К. Сарафовъ Translated Title: The population in the Kingdom of Bulgaria according to the first three censuses. Publication: Periodical Journal of the Bulgarian Literary Society in Sredets (44/1894) Author Name: Sarafov, Mihail Konstantinov; Language: Bulgarian Subject: Sociology / Social Sciences Issue: 44/1894 Page Range: 201-246 No. of Pages: 46 File size: 3032 KB Download Fee: 4 Euro (€)

Но ми иска парола (4 евро :)) за да я сваля. Първото преброяване в Княжеството е направено една година по-късно - през 1881. Lantonov (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ivan Shishman-coin-coppery.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ivan Shishman-coin-coppery.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ivan Sracimir-coin-silver.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ivan Sracimir-coin-silver.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ioan Terter-coin- coppery 2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ioan Terter-coin- coppery 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ioan Terter-coin- coppery.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ioan Terter-coin- coppery.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iakov Svetoslav-coin- coppery.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Iakov Svetoslav-coin- coppery.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Semantron
Hello. Is this object still used in Bulgaria? If so, do include Bulgaria in the list of countries at the top, and the Bulgarian name as well, if you can. Thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you for the clarification; I also put in an explanatory phrase regarding its decline in Bulgaria. Biruitorul (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Статии
Ще опитам да ги номинирам. Във всеки случай, занаятието ще бъде много по-полезно и разумно, отколкото да се карам с разни турски, македонски и гръцки националисти, както правя напоследък. Lantonov (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Здравей отново. В статията Featured article candidates я има номинационната процедура. Общо взето трябва да са изпълнени и одобрени критериите по насложените тагове в дискусията. Погледнах набързо Battle of Anchialus и там има проблем с цифрите. Някой е насложил въпроси за цитати при числеността на армиите. Това е доста сериозен проблем. Зарових се в интернет и на това място намерих пространна дискусия относно възможните числа на тази битка. За съжаление никой не дава по-сериозен цитат за една или друга цифра. Така, че ще търся още.

Battle of Kleidon е още твърде къса и има много малък увод. Последното е проблем, който може да се реши бързо с едно или две обмислени изречения. Освен това трябва да се сложат още източници и да се понапълни малко. Добре е това, че няма POV тагове. Общо взето за такива решителни битки гърците се заяждат много.

За Battle of Pliska нещата са ми ясни. Има какво да се поизчопли още малко и ще я номинирам. Тя беше рецензирана за В клас и с още малко усилия мисля че ще стане GA или FA. Lantonov (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:55161478.sP1229321.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:55161478.sP1229321.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 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:IMG 5564.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 5564.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 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)