User talk:Gligan/Archives/2010/January

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem
Your recreated article Naval Battle of Kaliakra has been deleted, as it appears to have again added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. The problem with the article was explained to you above; after sufficient time for the matter to be addressed, it was duly deleted by an administrator. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted for copyright concerns. If you disagreed with the deletion, you had the option of speaking to the administrator who deleted it (User:CactusWriter, the first time) and, if he did not agree, seeking wider opinion at Deletion review. Republishing it as it was without addressing the copyright concerns is not appropriate.


 * Copyright infringement under the US law which governs Wikipedia is not limited to word-for-word copying, which is why when you place material here it must be completely restructured. Passages like "After the heavy defeats...the Turks were in desperate need for weapons, munitions and food supplies" follow far too closely on the source: "След поражението при Одрин и значителните материални загуби турската армия изпитвала голяма нужда от нова техника, боеприпаси и продоволствие." "Drakzi managed to hit the enemy ship in the beam and only the very calm sea saved Hamidiye from sinking." is also very closely drawn from "Крайцерът бил уцелен в носовата част...и само тихото море го спасило от потъване." Likewise, "The Bulgarian victory over significantly larger and stronger enemy made a serious morale and physical damage to the Ottoman navy" seems to be quite a close paraphrase of "Тази морска победа на българския флот над многократно превъзхождащ го противник нанесла сериозен морален и материален ущърб на турския флот."


 * When content violates copyright, we sometimes have no choice but to delete it. The contributor who detected the problem did not choose to rewrite, and the article was tagged to invite interested contributors to address the problem for a full two weeks before it was deleted.


 * You can certainly create a new article on this subject, but please be careful that the new article does not follow too closely on a source in any language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can restore those for you if you are planning on creating a new article and have done, since I presume you are.


 * Generally, I find it best as I said to restructure. It is harder to do it passage by passage than it is to rewrite a major portion of material at once, but I might have said, say, "The Ottoman Empire's supplies were dangerously limited after the battles in Lozengrad and Lule-Burgas". It does help to utilize multiple sources, so that you can draw some information from one and some from another without relying too heavily on any one source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Kardzhali DYK
I saw the article at DYK and reviewed it. It's good to go, but I'm worried about this primarysources tag. Aren't there any foreign references at least for the basic facts (date, outcome, location of battle)? I'd like to pass the article, but I'm not sure that it can be on DYK with a maintenance tag. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 08:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not find any passages or sentences that may be considered POV, it's all a very neutral description of the battle devoid of any praise whatsoever, and it does seem pretty difficult to find any western, what's left for Turkish, publications on that event. Perhaps you should contact User:Preslav and try to explain your difficulties. It's not too late to get the article to DYK, we just need to solve that tag problem :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 11:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I put the tag there because I felt that additional references highlighting the Turkish side of the story would be very welcome. I do think it's neutral, but there's no suitable tag that expresses that. Maybe we could contact WP:TURKEY and invite them to come with additional material? Too bad, by the way, that your article on the Naval Battle of Kaliakra was deleted; good to see you started working on it again! Preslav (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the tag seems reasonable and I perfectly understand your argumentation. It would be great if Turkish Wikipedians can contribute to the artilce. It would be great if we can solve this as soon as possible, though (today or tomorrow), because the article is awaiting approval at Template talk:Did you know and may be featured on the main page. Todor→Bozhinov 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've approved the article at DYK and posted over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey to see if they can help. Thanks, guys, for the assistance. Todor→Bozhinov 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, while I was searching for information of the battle in Erickson's book, I came across his complain that it was very difficult for him to find information on the Ottoman army in Turkish sources and that it was most difficult to collect information on the war in Turkey and Serbia. While he was researching, the Turks asked him why are you so interested in the army that lost or something of the sort. So I think it would be difficult even for the participants of WP:Turkey to help in that issue. In fact I think that in his book there is some information about the battle but the content of those pages is not free... --Gligan (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Serbia
Please refrain to add nationallistic unsourced content to historical articles of importance such. Nationalism is not welcomed. thanx. FkpCascais (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The page is experiencing a V Balkan War, with Albanians, and now Bulgarians (you, :) ) in full attack. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As you see, a Macedonian intervened, and he is quite neutral for the subject. Please, wy you changed to "Terrible Bulgarian nationalism". As Serb, I allways regarded you as "friends". FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then as a Serb with a Spanish girlfriend you must adore me! But, you´ll take away Kosovo and Vojvodina from me, just for case. Vojvodina? What a knife in the back. FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the Portuguese case, it pretty much is a 18th Spanish region, couse all the Spanish companies are present here. (as personal info:I´m a Belgrade born Serb, lived in Mexico, so learned to speak Spanish very young, then came to Portugal, where, because of already knowing Spanish, made my entire education in Spanish schools, I have Portuguese, Spanish, Serbian, and all foreigners here friends, usually go to Spain to visit old school collegues that now live there, and depending on future professional oportunities, I may go to live to Madrid, but I´ll allways have a home in Portugal and Belgrade, whatever happends. I´m in Lisbon since 1988, when Serbia,Yugoslavia, was way better than Portugal,back than. Since than, I don´t need to say nothing, you know the story). As for the eventual territorial changes for our two countries, we (both) can´t dream much, since we don´t have the religious beleve as the world leaders, writte different alphabet, and have too many enemies, we can only be smaller. In Macedonia case, there is only investment to be made there, and there is where we can compete, otherways, it´s not neither Serbian nor Bulgarian, but, more American. FkpCascais (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the article, I hope he are both satisfied with the outcome. We must admit we do have different interpretations about some issues, while only language presentation was my reason for not accepting other edits you´ve made. You were caught in an edit war (chek page history) and for me was just easier to return to initial point removing both yours (it was in middle) and other user edits. FkpCascais (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, but the situation there (Madrid, and Spain in general...) is also not so good now. The unnemployment is huge! My favourite place in Spain is Benalmadena a costal town near Marbella where all the cool Spanish people use to go, because Marbella is too turistic, and Benalmadena was still undiscouvered by the "people" or mass tourism. Another reason are the great golf courses that are near. P.S.:You said in your comment "we are just a little bit richer", it can´t apply to Serbia, because it´s way much poorer than in the 80´s. Yugoslav Serbia was way better. There was freedom to travel (to Yugoslav citizens wasn´t even required visas for majority of western countries) and had, limited throu, private property or companies. We had the EURO in 1976, Olympic winter games in 1984, the non-alignement was a very interesting initiative... Younger people (even in Serbia too) doesn´t know much of that. Almost all Serb families had a house on the Adriatic, going skiing was usual, travelling to Austrian or Swiss Alps, to Italy or Spain in summer, was "normal" to many Belgraders. I see you been to South Serbia (Niš and Leskovac), but you should have in mind that Belgrade and the northern part was and is way more richer (double, or even more). About the separatism, it was a huge error (for Serbia) not to allow to Croatia and Slovenia to be independent during the monarchic period. All the rest of the country was suposed to belong to Serbia (call me nationalist, but that is a fact). Even Yugoslavia was created so there wouldn´t be a "big" orthodox Kingdom of Serbia. Neither Vatican, Austria, Germany or Turkey, neither France and UK (with excuse of the possibility of that Serbia becoming a allied of Russia) wanted that, so a "neutral" Yugoslavia was imposed. About the Serbian-Bulgarian problem, it all begin when Serbia was not allowed to have direct access to see, so it had to be compensated with lands, part of current Macedonia, that were suposed to belong to Bulgaria. I know and recognise that. You have the maps on the page (Kingdom of Serbia) where you see that the Serbo-Bulgarian border was moved east, so that Albaian state was created. All current Eastern Macedonia was given to Serbia as compensation for taking Albania from Serbia. We could talk centuries about it, wright? FkpCascais (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I´m back. I´m angaging now in a "fight" because our language is now being decomposed now. Montenegrin, Bosnian, come on...
 * Hey, I forgot to tell you, I´ve been in Sofia once. Short time (one day) but it counts. Unfortunatelly, I didn´t saw much.
 * About our women (both, SRB/BUL) and food, you´re right. They are the best! FkpCascais (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Gligan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Slavcho Atanasov -

Medieval balkan countries
Bulgaria as other balkan countries had little population in medieval age. For comparison: Hungary+Croatia had 4million population in the 15th century, the total population of Balkan was also 4 million at the same time. The economy was always better in western type (catholic-protestant) countriea than economy of countries of balkan Orthodox civilization which caused higher inland revenues. It's no wonder that Balkan countries become vassal.

The orthodox countries hadn't stone/brick castle defense systems (except byzantine greeks), therefore it was easy to conquer them by a large successful battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Victory over Women and children in 895?
Decesive victory over Hungarians in 895 ? Where did you read that? You confused Bulgarians and te so-called Pechenegs. Read the Pechenegs article. They defeated Hungarian women and children when the warriors (all Hungarian men were varriors that time) fought in Bavaria Holy roman Empire. When Hungarian men arrived home from this western war, the lack of family children and forced them to leave their former emty country. Great Glorious victory over children and women.

Balkan had little population (4 million) Don't forget: The total population of Ottoman Empire (with African Asian European parts) was only 16 million in 1520. The balkan countries were wooden countries, because there were very few stone/brick boulding. 90% of the orthodox churhes was wooden churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to have a look in First Balkan War talk page --Factuarius (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hall
Regarding this, the exact quote from Hall is already inserted by Factuarius at the top of the paragraph. Hall, page 22, right? Hall nowhere says that The major battles of the First Balkan War were fought between the Bulgarians and the Ottomans in the plains of Thrace. Twisting his words like that and placing them at the bottom of the paragraph with the ref to page 22 is really not cool. Come now, be reasonable. Athenean (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Divisions
Hello Gligan! Well, I merely made the small changes in the ordinals according to WP:MILMOS. I hope it helps. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Alexikoua (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've been aware of the ongoing edit-warring in the articles on the Balkan Wars, but have consciously avoided being dragged into them. I am sorry, but I do not have the mood or time for a protracted edit-fight right now, particularly not with Factuarius. For what it's worth, I find the notion that the Bulgarian army's contribution was in someway not crucial as patently ridiculous. Even older Greek histories (which were not particularly pro-Bulgarian, or neutral for that matter) explicitly mention the fact that a) the Bulgarian army was the largest and best-equipped Balkan army and b) faced the most crucial front of the war. True, the Greek navy played a vital strategic role, but the main Ottoman forces were in Thrace, and Chataldja was reached by the Bulgarians. Anyway, I think that the debate has gotten too much out of hand. Personally, I would request an editprotection for a couple of weeks just to calm things down, and then perhaps an RfC. Constantine  ✍  07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise :). Sorry I can't be of more help. Regards, 09:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:2345686.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2345686.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)