User talk:Gligan/Archives/2008/January

Warning
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)

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)

Archiving
You can read about ways of archiving your talkpage here or you can try automatic archiving from Werdnabot like I do. Cheers. -- L a v e o l  T 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As for images I guess you mean one of those sites. If this is the case you have forgotten to put the relevant tags in. Like NGruev or cc-by-2.5 or cc-by-sa-1.0 with the proper attributes. -- L a v e o l  T 08:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When you click on cc-by-2.5 and cc-by-sa-1.0 you'll notice that there is a text explaining that you should include attribution details like this Input attribution details here. What you need to add there is the exact spot where you have taken the images from so that the original author of the work is mentioned. -- L a v e o l  T 08:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the page for you. (Copy-and-paste method). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * За да ти се архивира страницата автоматично, сложи следния код най-отгоре:

(без nowiki границите). Или пък вземи по-простия template от Werdnabot, както предлага Лавеол. age=30 са периода (в дни) на който искаш да се архивира.Lantonov (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help : ) --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban warning
I see you have been edit-warring extensively on, together with others. Under the terms of Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, I am hereby putting you on notice that you may be placed under a revert parole (1 rv per week) or similar restrictions if this edit-warring continues.

I also notice that you have done nothing to clean up your image uploads, despite numerous requests. You are therefore banned from any further image uploads until you can demonstrate a better understanding of our copyright policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, about those images marked as "alcoron", I asked you back in October and got no response. The first thing to do would be to provide the exact link to the site (if possible, to each original image), so we can check if they are indeed free. I'd also suggest you provide more info for the "Skylitzes" ones. I mean, I personally happen to know what the Madrid Skylitzes is, but others won't. I suggest for those you could say:

Summary
Image from the Madrid Skylitzes, depicting ...

Additionally providing a web source would still be good though. I just made that category now, by the way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then didn't know anything about uploading and I have seen that when Todor Bozhinov uploads an image, he usually puts "martyr" as a sign so I thought I can proceed that way and I put "alcoron". I will try to review my images but currently I am sick and I have exams... Thanks for showing me how should I proceed when uploading images. Best, --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you just give me the link to that "alcoron" site or whatever it is? Because now the images are tagged, they are likely to get deleted in a week from now if nothing is done about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But that is not a site, just a sign that I have uploaded them. However, I will try to find the site and will put it in your talk page. --Gligan (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That's bad, of course. That guy Nikola Gruev's site has nice images, but he says that they are all not for commercial re-use . So, unfortunately, we cannot use them. This is bad news, because Todor has apparently uploaded quite a number of them too. We'll have to delete the lot, unless you could contact Gruev and convince him to license them under cc-by-sa or GFDL.
 * Please note that I tagged quite a number more of your images besides the two that have the twinkle warning on your talk page, please check my contributions from this morning.
 * As for the page protection, it was obviously The Wrong Version (TM), as always. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a mistake many people make. We are not a commercial site, but our content must be free for others, including commercial sites, to re-use.
 * (copied from User talk:TodorBozhinov:) :P.S. In fact, I now see the page on bg-wiki that is linked from NGruev bg:Уикипедия:Разрешения за ползване на материали/Никола Груев. That page is confusing: It states there that he licensed them under GFDL, but only for use on Wikipedia. That's a contradiction in terms. If it's for Wikipedia only, it isn't the GFDL. I can't read the original mail by him that is included in that page, can you translate? It seems that when he wrote it he may not have been aware what the GFDL actually said. This looks like one unfortunate mess to clean up. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, reading the English wording on that page again, maybe I was a bit quick there. It says "other pictures for another purpose". Could you please clarify for me what the Bulgarian is saying, is Gruev really explicit about it that he's aware that once an image is on Wikipedia, it can be re-used anywhere else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Laveol explained it for me. Seems the Gruev stuff is okay after all. I'll add the tags to those airport images. Please be so kind and go through your other upload logs at your earliest convenience and add the remaining sources. I've added some info to the Skylitzes ones (I love those!); in that case the pd-art status is of course unproblematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, good luck! And thanks for the translations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vidin
Could you please explain this change? --Olahus (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please show me the link to the discussion with User:Mentatus, so I can read it? --Olahus (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Stop vandalising since the result of the poll is against your vandalisation. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. LightAnkhC|MSG 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vidin
The page Vidin has been protected from editing due to edit warring. Please discuss changes on the talk page; in the future, please consider the dispute resolution process. Note that further edit warring or three revert rule violations may be met with a block.

If you have questions or concerns, I would be happy to answer to them. - Revolving Bugbear  19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, but my opponent only reverted without discussion and I was annoyed. I know you are right. --Gligan (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the editing gets tough. I would suggest trying to find some common ground to work from, and starting there. There are also a great many editors who will be happy to assist the situation. (I generally am available for mediation but I am currently already involved in multiple cases.) The important thing is to keep your head about you and remember that it's no big deal.
 * Like I said, if I can do something for you, let me know. I'm here to help. - Revolving Bugbear  20:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I will keep it in mind and will ask you for help in such cases, thank you : ) --Gligan (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the article Rousse and, I have to say, this is not vandalism; it is a content dispute. Have you considered informal mediation? - Revolving Bugbear  17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He is obviously not here now but still, please keep an eye on that article and tell me whether I shall revert possible future vandalism myself or I shall wait for you or someone else to do that. Of course I can start discussion on that matter on Talk:Ruse. --Gligan (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye on the article. However, like I said, in my opinon this is not vandalism, it is a content dispute. Continued reversion would be inappropriate. I strongly suggest dispute resolution. - Revolving Bugbear  17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Battle of Serres
I can see that I am not the only one complaining about your aggressive editing that introduce non-neutral points of view. To respond to your questions: in battles between nations, the idea of "betrayal" is always questionable. Please cite relevant work before using this work. Feel free to reword the "liberated" word in other places as well. I think that the idea of "liberating" an area will always be subjective, given that some other controlling power has "lost the area". I am fine using the word "seized / conquested" instead of "liberated". Ipeirotis (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not understand that you are referring to Bulgarian strongholds. The article does not convey this impression. I would recommend to write in smaller sentences and avoid the use of pronouns. The use of "their strongholds and bases" was ambiguous. "Their" could refer both to Byzantines and Bulgarians. Also, refrain from reverting to a previous edition. I have made other changes to the article that are legitimate and are fixing typos, and you have reverted them. Ipeirotis (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Bulgars
Category:Bulgars, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –-Latebird (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Bulgaria
I saw that you were interested for medieval Bulgaria. Do you know some online book about this subject? --Vojvodaen (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'am studying history in Belgrade so I can find some books on bulgarian (I understand a little). Is Zlatarski history of medieval Bulgaria still good book on this subject.--Vojvodaen (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Zlatarski is always relevant. -- L a v e o l  T 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am working on the article Vasil Zlatarski. You might want to look at it. It is still unfinished and the text is very raw at the moment but what follows is a critical discussion of all volumes of his history. Lantonov (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Vojvodaen (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)