User talk:Laveol/2008/August

Bulgarians
Hi Laveol, after disruptive behaviour from Monshuai, I prefer your arbitration in editting from this article, please! Regards! Jingby (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Misdirected warning
Hi, you just sent a warning towards SineBot rather than the intended target. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Gaida
Hey, could you uploaded a translated version of the image?  Balkan Fever not a fan? say so! 13:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, you mean if I'd upload a translated version? Well, I'll try and make one. -- L a v e o l  T 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I hope you like it. -- L a v e o l  T 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, Thanks :)  Balkan Fever not a fan? say so! 09:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...
You need to get a life. Go and report that. --Iobyo (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell him
So, FPS is here, tell him.--Raso mk (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology
To avoid to be labelled as „vandalism“ please when correcting other peoples interventions you HAVE to justify the changes. For this occasion, using presumed national feelings is wrong and specifying citizenship better defines belongings to a state. In Wikipedia all what implies subjective feelings, national tendencies or wishes is not favoured and unbiased and psychology-neutral terminology is preferred. I hope you will understand why insisting of “consciousness" is wrong. Cheers.Draganparis (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit-conflict) It is justified when properly sourced. I am really impressed that you label sourced edits as "vandalism" - keep up the ''good work. Oh, and I hope you're aware of WP:3RR cause you're about to breach it. -- L a v e o l  T 12:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that you did not quite understand where the problem is.


 * If somebody writes gibberish nothing will prevent me to correct him or her 10 times per day. Capisco? And you write gibberish, the sentence that you want to put just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!


 * The text is bad and this has nothing to do with nationalism that obviously troubles you. The members of a society which are grouped in separate associations or organised communities which satisfy criteria to be “states” and in fact represent states that are internationally recognised, have certain essential characteristics. One essential characteristics is that they have (inherit or acquire) citizenship, thereby they can enjoy all the rights and obligations of rightful citizens. The citizenships correspond with the state. On the other hand the “nation-hood”, i.e., nationality, as it is used in Europe, which is quite specific for the Europeans, may coincide, but may also be different from citizenship. It is true, we can not speculate about nationality if people do not by themselves declare to which nationality they want to belong. In addition, the sentence that you defend contains a contradiction. Let me explain.
 * In the statement that you want to keep, there is a problem of English language that may, in addition, imply nationalism. Here is the sentence which you want to keep and which is wrong:
 * “The vast majority of the Slavic population though has a Bulgarian national self-consciousness and a regional Macedonian identity similar to the Macedonian regional identity in Greek Macedonia.”
 * The sentence is grammatically wrong and structurally wrong, so it does not reveal clear meaning and must be corrected.
 * 1. When you say “though”, an affirmative, second sentence, which is separated with coma, must follow.
 * 2. also, it is obvious that if you speak of the “national self-consciousness” of the “Macedonians” in Bulgaria you speak about their “regional Macedonian identity”. This is simply a repetition that has to be avoided.
 * I do not denay that the Macedonian in Bulgaria could have, besides their Bulgarian passport and Bulgarian citisnship, double “nationa conciousness”, i.e. Bulgarian “regional identity” –and Macedonian “regional identity”. But if this is your intention, you must say so.
 * The referemce (5) where “national self-consciousness” is often used may help you understand what I mean. A corect semntence, where I proposed to use “citisenship” as only valid term that determins the members of a state, would be:
 * “The vast majority of the Slavic population, though has a Bulgarian citisenship, has regional Macedonian identity similar to the Macedonian regional identity in Greek Macedonia.”
 * Or, if you wish:
 * The vast majority of the Slavic population, though has a Bulgarian citisenship, has regional Macedonian national self-consciousness similar to the Macedonian regional identity in Greek Macedonia.[
 * So please do necessary corrections by yourself and spare me trouble to treat your writing as “vandalism” and introduce various other repressive measures.
 * Also, if you would avoid aggressive tone in your comments, this would help. SincerelyDraganparis (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're going to "introduce various other repressive measures" and say my tone's aggressive? Is this a some sort of joke? I think you're missing something here. What that report (the one used as a source) meant that these people are not only Bulgarian citizens (cause anybody can be just a citizen and be Armenian or Turkish or whatever) but they self-identify as ethnic Bulgarians on a national level and as Macedonians on a regional one (cause hey live in Macedonia). And that's that. I'll put a comma as I agree it is needed, but the rest is fine and according to the source. -- L a v e o l  T 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I did not want to be aggressive. In fact much better sentence would be:
 * Vast majority of the Slavic population, besides having Bulgarian citizenship, has regional Macedonian identity similar to the Macedonian regional identity of Aegean Macedonians in Greece.


 * But “national self-consciousness” and “regional identity” are the same thing! All you want to say is that they, although being Bulgarians (by citizenship), they have some other national belonging. Please ask somebody who has more experience with English. This has nothing to do with what you, in really unclear English, are trying to say. Please do not go fanatically over this small correction. I am NEITHER Macedonian, nor Greek, and neither Bulgarian but French - and have NOTHING to do with your nationalistic struggle. OK?Draganparis (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry again. So you want to say they have double national feelings. Well, if it is a fact, why don't you say so?Draganparis (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you still can't understand it - they are Bulgarians and feel like Bulgarians. It's like a guy from Paris he is French and he is Parisian at the same time. Being a Parisian is part of being French as is with the Macedonian stuff. Being Macedonian (in Bulgaria) is part of being a Bulgarian. We have Dobrujans etc in Bulgaria as well. It's not about citizenship but about self-consciousness - they feel Bulgarian. -- L a v e o l  T 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. It is nice discussing with you. I understand now. You want to say that the Bulgarian Macedonians are first Bulgarian and, while being Bulgarian, they feel Macedonian. Somehow “inside” Bulgarian” national feelings, they have more local feelings of being Macedonian. First of all, I think reading Ernest Gellner or Eric Hobsbawm (both books that I recomend have almost the same title –On nation and nationalism - you will find their books on the Internet) may help understand these complex problems. The “Problem of nation” has not been solved and careful use of related terms is needed to avoid conflicts and offending feelings of people. Here is what I think in some more details.
 * This what you say can be true only (1) if being Macedonian already presupposes being Bulgarian, “Bulgarian” being a higher category. The problem is very hard because there is a neighbouring state of Macedonia and its citizens claim to be a nation separate from Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian nations. They might have right to claim this because they have been there for about 1500 years, on the land that is "Macedonia" that had unprecedented history, they know that history and, while being certainly a mixture of Balkan peoples (mostly Slave, but also Greek, Ancient Macedonians, Paeones, Dardanes, Thracians and who knows which other Balkan tribes). However, (2) there is related example in the neighbourhood. Quite recently Montenegro was established as a state, but its citizens are obviously also of Serbian nationality, and there is no problem there, at least I think that this is so. (3) Or, to make the issue more complicated, being American citizen implies belonging to the American “nation”. At least it is claimed to be so. And my example. (4) I am a Parisian, Breton and French. Being French is superior over my being Breton and over my being from Paris. Now if Bretagne would be a state separate from France one day (what I might like, why not?), I will probably stop being French? Although, sincerely, I really do not know what to say…
 * You see, it is very hard and I think we better AVOID being too specific about this. This is why Americans say that they are a nation, although they have minorities of all kinds! who all say to be Americans! Whether this all make a coherent picture – I doubt and I think that we should leave it as it is since hundred years of attempts to solve that problem yielded no clear cut answer.
 * To conclude: the issue is hard and I think that at least in Europe, we should keep the “citizenship” and “nationality” separated if possible. They should NOT be used to break the countries apart or to impose someone’s will and violence over some people, or grab them into ones own “nation”.
 * Therefore I propose, if you think and if some census has shown (although I doubt it) that both national feelings exist (Bulgarian and Macedonian), that you add, after “Bulgarian citizenship”, the following: “and nationality”, or as you already put “Bulgarian self-consciousness”. OK? But keep the “citizenship" because this is only value-free expression that designates belonging to a certain state. Nasdravje!Draganparis (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, how to continue - see, this state of theirs is new. The population of what is now the Republic of Macedonia was Bulgarian up to WWI for sure. And then politics made the situation much more complicated. Now there is such a young state with nationalism fuelled by the recent creation of the state. They claim Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian and Serb territory on the base that it is a part of the region of Macedonia. But Macedonia is just a geographical term which hadn't been anything more than since Alexander The Great's time (and even then it was a Greek state, not a Slavic one). We don't need to say this people have Bulgarian citizenship cause the article already states that - see census. What we say, based on a study by the Helsinki committee, is that the people there feel Bulgarian, not only declare as such, and Macedonia, but only on a regional level. They're proud to be Bulgarian and so on. I'm understanding Greece's position more and more now. For the other people in the world when you say Macedonian it means ethnic, but for the people in Bulgaria and Greece, when you say it, you mean Bulgarian and Greek respectively. I had this trouble just the other day with ea friend talking about some "Macedonians" and it turned out they were actually Bulgarians. From now on we agreed on saying ethnic Macedonians so to distinguish the other type. So back to the study - it was written by the Helsinki committee which automatically means it hasn't got any nice things for Bulgaria in it. It cites some people I'd rather not meet in my whole life (not while it's dark, that is) and some really funny numbers. But it still says that the vast majority of the population feels Bulgarian on a national level and Macedonian on a regional (geographic) one. -- L a v e o l  T 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My last intervention.
 * I am sorry again but the thins are getting too complicated without real need. If you would say that these people have double national self-consciousness this would disclose all the facets of the problem, I would think.


 * Needless to say that what you presume about “Macedonia”, at least as territory (and territory HAS its people!) is quite wrong. You said: "The population of what is now the Republic of Macedonia was Bulgarian up to WWI for sure." I do not believe this. This must be based on hard evidence.


 * The last Macedonian state (Ancient Macedonia) disappeared with Roman empire establishing itself in the middle of 2nd century BC in these regions. BUT! But the Romans established a province of Macedonia; then Byzantium continued with Thema Macedonia, This is when the Slavs arrived, but which Slaves exactly? Bulgarian Slaves succumbed to the Turkmen tribes, but the language remained. The Serbian kingdom under Esthien Dusan reached even to Thessaloníki and was as south as Athens! Well, Ottoman empire took it all and established the (again a kind of province) vilayet Romelia (for the same region); the region after Balkan wars in 1914 was split between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece, large portions were taken by the Greece (Greek Makedonia) and Serbia (later Vardar banovina), and smaller territories by Bulgaria and Albania. After 1945 what was the Vardar banovina (up to 1929, when it was incorporated into Yugoslavia) was promoted in a federal state of Macedonia, part of Yugoslav federation. So these lands and provinces (provinces so a kind of “state”) have over 2000 years continuity.


 * Who are the people who are now there – is the other question which, if tried to form a base for the political solutions might risks to bring us into RACIAL argumentation. What is clear is that the majority of the population could be Slave, or at least Slave language is used in the region, much less in Greek Macedonia. And that, obviously, a great part of it is made up of old Roman population, and of old Balkan population. Who are they? Poeones, Dardanes, Thracian, Ancient Macedonians, and numbers of other people.


 * If we would add to this that the political solutions for the organization of the states must be based on justice and not racial grounds, I think that racial founding of argumentation must be dismissed. All what could be done is “ask the people what they feel and what they want”.


 * Since you and I are not going to be handling that issue on the diplomatic level, let us be modest and just describe the matters of facts which are, as far as I understand that these people are Bulgarian citizens, feeling to be Bulgarian and Macedonians nationals as well. This site is not for placing yours or your opponent’s political views, so let us stay neutral.


 * Thanks for discussing this with me. I would probably not have much more time to continue this discussion. Please make sure that in the text on Wikipedia pages a neutral, and not-nationalistic atmosphere predominates. If some extreme Macedonian ("FYROM") opinion would arrive, be calm and friendly and open minded for different point of view. This is only way Wikipedia will make a success. We all can help it become and stays a respectable source of information. Cheers. Draganparis (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Прашање
Лавеол што значи зборот стипца на бугарски? Објасни ми го... мерси--Raso mk (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alum-- L a v e o l  T 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Аха!!! Каменец :-) --Raso mk (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cokies
I'll try to not ruin the pages I edit. :)

The anonymous edits from yesterday are also mine (just saying). I'll try to update the wrestling section next, but at first glance it seems to be quite messed up; some wrestlers are missing (Venelin Venkov) and others are listed but do not compete (Alexander Kostadinov). I've been looking for a proper list of all wrestlers for some time now, but I can't find anything so far.

Oh, by the way, you are right about the American volleyball team leading; the strange thing is I just copied that from the main page... I guess the error propagated to other pages, too. Well, at least it's just the current standings and they will change.

П.П. Имам странното чувство че си българин и се чудя защо пиша на английски... :)

Alpha-Toxic (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ха-ха-ха-ха :) Well, it's a rule we've kinda adopted here. We don't write in other languages besides English cause someone might think we've got some sort of a conspiracy going on. As for the data - I use the official one - it has some mistakes in it, but since it's official this is what we need. I was thinking about writing the Gujdya case and expand the weight-lifting controversy, but I don't seem to have enough time. Cheers and happy editing :) -- L a v e o l  T 22:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Vlach-Bulgarian Empire
It's a fairly usual procedure on Wikipedia to take Britannica into account. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that explicitly use Britannica as a source, it is probably the most common source in all of Wikipedia. Here is a list to the articles sourcing them here. --Olahus (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, Laveol, how should we handle with this article? --Olahus (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

=Antigonid dynasty= O la la! Dear friend (I underestimated you!), Not only that "Alexander" is not a synonym for "Macedonia" but more important is that the Antigonid dynasty was "the last Macedonian dynasty" and is known in history as such. All Diadochi were politically "Macedonian" not only as dynasties but the state organization, military establishment and to great extent administrative structures were Macedonian. But the culture was - Hellenistic. If you want to change this kind of facts, you must have very, very strong (so not any one) ground for this, i.e., you MUST give very strong ACADEMIC reference. I discussed the danger of mixing of cultural and political terms and the risk of totalitarian political culture elsewhere in Wikipedia. Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:IlindenFlag svg.png
Hi, Laveol. How about this Image:IlindenFlag svg.png representing "Ilinden Flag", its "source" and its "copyright holder" Cukiger? Jingby (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags of the Republic of Macedonia
Hi, hou about recent development here, my compromises and macedonists edit - war? Jingby (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Laveol, see here; and then here: Jingby (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert parole
On reviewing the recent trainwreck on Flags of the Republic of Macedonia, I'm putting the lot of you on an ARBMAC revert parole. Not more than 1rv per 48h, on all articles, for the next 6 months, and you are strictly required to precede every revert with a meaningful explanation and attempt for discussion on the relevant talk page, allowing for a minimum of 3 hours for discussion before you revert. This goes for you, Jingiby, Cukiger and Mactruth, for the moment.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strangely, I do provide a thorough explanation every time I revert. I don't think the case is the same with those that don't wanna discuss simply cause they don't like me. -- L a v e o l  T 08:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)