User talk:Gligan/Archives/2007/June

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)