User talk:Monshuai

Current Discussions

Bulgarian Empire
Hello, nice to meet you too! "Due to your recent edits and quoted comment above, I am under the impression that you are not familiar with Bulgar-Byzantine history. Bulgaria subjugated the Byzantine Empire on more than one occasion and it's was recognized as the "Saviour of Europe"." If you take a look at my userpage, you will see that Byzantine history is quite a specialty of mine, so I know what I am writing about. First, your use of the word "subjugate" is inappropriate. It means "conquer, impose political control over something". That never happened. Byzantium was at all times independent of Bulgaria, even if Byzantine rulers paid tribute to it occasionally. Byzantium also paid tribute to dozens other states to not invade its territory, it does not mean that it was "subjugated" by them (it is called "buying off"). As for Krum, Byzantium was defeated several times, yes, and not only by him, but fell never under any sort of control from or vassalage to Bulgaria. If anything, due to its superior cultural and economic power and prestige, it was always the senior partner in the Byzantine-Bulgarian relationship. As for the 2nd Arab siege, Bulgarian help was important, but remember a few things: First, the walls of Constantinople and Greek fire were the main elements that prevented the city's fall, just as they had been in the first and far longer siege, which had been won by the Byzantines without Bulgarian assistance. Second, and more important, if Bulgaria at that one point was indeed in the forefront of the fight against the Muslims, it was also the only time (until the Ottomans came along). Byzantium was at the forefront for practically its entire existence. Consequently, labelling a country which fought one (albeit important) battle as "Saviour of Europe" (which by itself is a heavily loaded, peacockish and best to be avoided moniker) when it was next door to another state which routinely "saved Europe" for 1000 years, is rather unjust. The lede must provide a balanced assessment of the entire period covered by the First Bulgarian Empire. Its role in the 2nd Arab Siege was important, but by no means represents the defining characteristic of the Bulgarian state, so that it should be so prominently emphasized. PS. so that there are no misapprehensions, I have nothing against Bulgaria or emphasizing its culture, history and achievements. It is just that in this particular case, the evidence does not support the rather sensational claims you make. Constantine  ✍  11:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PS2 I strongly suggest avoiding irony in your edit summaries, as well as tit-for-tat edits like this one. If you look closely, you'll see that the fall of the Byz. Empire to the Ottomans is amply mentioned in the lede, and that, contrary to the Bulgarian article, the lede does not open with a chronological summary, but with a definition of the Empire's nature (thus making the end date irrelevant to the opening sentence). Constantine  ✍  11:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Здравей! I see that you are interested in the medieval Bulgarian history and our relations with the Byzantines, so I may suggest you to take a look here and if you want to, continue to expand the article and even move it to your page if you think it would better. I also want to work on it but I am usually out of time and recently contribute mainly to topics on the Third Bulgarian State... Constantine had kindly sent me several non-Bulgarian books and articles in order to have better sources and citations in the article. So, if you have time and wish we may work together in the Bulgarian-Byzantine relations, especially having in mind that I am not very talented in writing :) Поздрави, --Gligan (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Ok, let's take your points one to one. The repulsion of the Arab siege is indeed a very defining, but also unique and unrepeated, moment in Bulgarian history. Now, all the things you mentioned do not indicate political control, except if one specifically wants to read that. Rather, they indicate a very close alliance between a Byzantine ruler and a strong and influential neighbour. There is no indication however anywhere that Tervel exercised any control over the Byzantine government, and indeed, as Caesar and son-in-law, in theory his position was subordinate to that of Justinian himself. If Tervel had continued to reside in Constantinople and/or issue dictates to Justinian which he then followed, then your assumptions would have a basis. Otherwise it is an original viewpoint. In more specific cases: " Tervel overthrew the then Byzantine Emperors Leontius and Tiberius III" not according to the history books, I am sorry to say. Leontius was overthrown by Tiberius, and Tiberius by Justinian and his supporters, with the aid of Tervel. But in all cases, it was a clearly intra-Byzantine affair. "the title Caeser", well, Manuel I Komnenos named Bela of Hungary as despotes and explicitly designated him as his heir. Does this mean imply Hungarian political control? You should know from university that awarding titles to foreigners was seen by the Byzantines as a form of control via flattery, as well as an act placing the awardee within a certain position in the supposed ecumenical hierarchy headed by the Roman emperor. As Caesar, Tervel doubtless stood at the top, but he was still (in Byzantine eyes) a barbarian prince who owed his fealty to the Roman emperor. "Justinian's daughter in marriage", while up till then unprecedented, it is not unique, and easily explicable by Justinian's need to secure his aid if he wanted to regain his throne. Again, nothing to do with tangible political control. "It was because after the Bulgarians defeated the Arabs, the Byzantines had no choice but to appease their saviours...", well, so what? The Byzantines bought off dozens of states in their history, through money, honours, territory or what not. And the very next day, the emperors sent ambassadors to stir up trouble in their rear. That is called diplomacy, not subjugation.
 * "Furthermore, since you do not place the disintegration and annexation of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Empire in the first sentence, I cannot for the life in me find a non-hypocritical/double standard reason why it should be in the first sentence in the intro of the First Bulgarian Empire article." well, aside from (again) warning you against an un-WP-like tit-for-tat attitude, let me explain how I see it: the Byz. Empire article, as I said before, has a different structure in its lede than the 1st. Bulg. Empire one. It does not open with a chronological review (which by necessity should include start and end dates & events) but rather a definition of the Empire's nature. Hence placing it there is out of context. THe fall is mentioned, well enough, as indeed it should be, in its proper place. In the Bulgarian article, you have the first paragraph providing what is, in essence, a chronological summary. Right now, it reads: "as a medieval state centered on the capital of Preslav, founded in the north-eastern Balkans[1][2] in c. 680 by Bulgars and ruled by hereditary Emperors.[3][4] At the height of its power it spread between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dnieper river in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic. It was succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire, established in 1185. The official name of the country since its very foundation was Bulgaria.[5]". There is no mention at all of when it ceased to exist... The impression one gets is that it ended in 1185 and was immediately succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire. Do you see my point?
 * As for my attitude towards Bulgaria, ask some of the other Bulgarian editors here, I do feel confident that their testimony will be in my favour :) Regards, Constantine  ✍  15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet 23 academic peer reviewed articles to be found at JSTOR counter your hypothesis. Helping install someone to power is in fact a conspicuous use of political control. Without Tervel, Justinian would not have risen to the throne. Finally, Tervel is indeed THE ONLY non Byzantine to be recognized as Caeser. Is there any other such awarding of the highest possible title? The history books, as you say, tell us that there isn't! Finally you have refrained from answering a question I asked before: Other than the Bulgarian Emperor Tervel and his large contingent of soldiers (upwards of 20,000), which other foreign head of state and his battalions marched through the streets of Constantinople? There is no one else, unless of course we fastforward to the 15th century when Constantinople falls to the Ottomans. So there you have it... PS: I am glad you do not have a prejudiced attitude towards Bulgarians. Indeed, humanity is not composed of simple national pawns. You, I and all other humans on this planet share the historical wealth of our species' aggragate achievements.--Monshuai (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, can I see these 23 articles? Also, don't take me wrong: no one disputes that Tervel was crucial to Justinian's retaking the throne. It's just that "political control" implies far more than that, it implies a sustained control over the Byzantine government. And there is no evidence of that. As for the Caesar argument, I already gave you a full reply, which you simply ignored. Certainly, Tervel's gaining that rank as exceptional, but aside from a very high honour, it does not necessarily translate into political power. The same with the parade. These things are indications of a very close relationship, which indeed existed, but not a "subjugation" of one state to the other. By the same token, and drawing my own conclusions, since a "Caesar" was still subordinate to the emperor, I could argue that Tervel submitted to Justinian. That is as patently nonsense as the argument for the other way round. Constantine  ✍  18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You certainly can view them. http://www.jstor.org Actually when you start reading through the relevant material you'll note that there are over 140 articles that elucidate what we're debating. A more general search yields even more text that can be incorporated in our holistic discussion of various political factors. The best ones incorporate game theory to interpret past dynamics. Have fun. :)--Monshuai (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know jstor. What I would like to see are the links to the specific articles that support your POV. I do not have the time to go randomly searching for them, unfortunately ;) Constantine  ✍  09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have the time to write as much as you do on Wikipedia, you also have the time to conduct an academic search. No free lunches in this world. ;) Monshuai (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, that is almost an insult. I don't expect free lunches, but I also won't do your work for you. The burden of proof for your claims lies on you, not me. I would expect it at least as common decency and courtesy: since you know the specific titles it would be but a moment's work to give them to me, whereas I would have to search for a needle in a haystack. Constantine  ✍  18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I should also feel offended that you refuse to do a simple search in JSTOR, rather than have me write up, or post each link individually. The former requires less work than the latter, and you as a person who is well read on academic materials (as you say) most certainly realizes that this is the world's premier e-library of the type of sources we're discussing. Surely you knew this, and most surely you've used JSTOR before... Right? There is another reason I want you to do this search yourself, and that is because it will allow you to synthesize a list of your own sources on the topic at hand, which by way of the stochastic processes at play within the subjective yet fluid frame of mind of anyone individual, will almost surely be at least partly different than my own. When you feel your list is complete it will be compared to the one I have already compiled. Thus, I'll have a chance to scrutinize your sources and subjective interpretations therein, just as you will likewise have a chance to do the same in regards to what I present. This will give me insight into your cognitive organization/categorization/manipulation of information, because the sources you compile and the conclusions you make based on them will partly reflect the organic growth of your unique knowledge that is itself a product of your deductive, abductive, inductive, analogical and fallacious reasoning. Don't you think it will be fun to have a chance to analyze me in much the same way?


 * No. I asked for a simple thing: the sources you claim support your position. The way WP usually works when this happens is that the party which supports these claims supplies them, and not that it tells the other user to go find them himself... That's cheeky to say the least. I very much want to read them and see whether they support your claims. Also, we are not here to create psychological or cognitive profiles of each other. You said "23 articles". That implies you know pretty well which these are, you have read them and can give at least the titles of a few of them. The fact that I have time to write here does not mean I have endless time on my hands to search the entire jstor database (to which I either way I have only very limited access). As I said, I won't do your work for you. Constantine  ✍  23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Second, I could be offended as well that you feel it is my responsibility to prove a point using said parameters, when in fact you haven't done so yourself and have thus far failed to prove the contrary. One polar entity cannot exist without its counter opposite (physics more often than not mirrors inter-human dynamics). Think about it, you want me to do something for you that you haven't done for me. In other words, so far we've had your POV (as we have my POV) and no peer reviewed academic sources to back your statements that speculate political control cannot be attributed to (a) forcing a state to pay tributes (net loss of valuable resources), (b) installing its emperor to throne, (c) saving that emperor's state from a third party and (d) holding it vulnerable to the whims of its foreign "saviour" who just so happens to have his entire army within the city walls of a competitor state's capital (home of its entire administration). Emperor Tervel could very well have officially taken the city at that point in time, but he made a calculated choice to continue to exert influence politically. A modern day equivalent is to suggest that the Soviet Union did not have political control over Hungary and the Czech Republic when it sent its tanks (during the 60s uprisings) to "save" these countries from the "evil" capitalists. Who installed these countries' governments? Who had a large armed contingent marching through the streets of their "sovereign" territory as supposed saviours? Who paid the modern day equivalent of tributes to whom?--Monshuai (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Really, comparing Byzantium and Bulgaria with the Eastern Block? Yes, the SU exercised political control, but also because it had a) troops permanently stationed in the Eastern Block countries, and b) because the Communist parties took their line from Moscow. There is no indication anywhere that Byzantine policy conformed to the dictates of Tervel, then or later. "to pay tributes (net loss of valuable resources)" check Byzantine history: tributes and subsidies were paid to many peoples besides the Bulgarians. Ask the Sassanid emperors or the Arab caliphs whether they also had political control over Byzantium to go along with these tributes. They'd be mightily surprised at your thesis. "installing its emperor to throne" no one disputes that Tervel gave crucial assistance. However, the point is, what does the emperor do after he gains thew throne? Justinian declared war on him in 708. So where does this translate into political control by Tervel? Since you like 20th-century analogues, was Lenin "under the political control" of the German Empire? "saving that emperor's state from a third party", well, also irrelevant. Good deed, no doubt, much appreciated, but so what? That is called an alliance, not "subjugation". "just so happens to have his entire army within the city walls" for how long? For a single parade? How does this indicate "political control"? This is not the Red Army occupying Eastern Europe for 40 years... "Emperor Tervel could very well have officially taken the city at that point in time" well, bad luck for him, he didn't. Period. Constantine  ✍  23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd love to ask the Sassanid emperors and the Arab caliphs the question you proposed. Do you have their email addresses? Now then, Justinian did declare war on Tervel in 708 and might I ask why and with what end result? :) Then you go on to say that they had an alliance... Now that's a contradiction! It was simply Justinian trying to escape a position of subordination/weakness/humility. Anyhow Tervel never asked for Justinian's help in anything, quite the opposite. In other words, Justinian's destiny was dependent on the calculated actions of Tervel, and not the other way around. Furthermore, every time Justinian attempted to reduce Bulgar influence he was swiftly placed back in a position of relative weakness.


 * Oh right. Pity you can't ask them, because obviously they would tell you that yes, receiving tribute from the Byzantines was tantamount to political control. Look. No one is disputing Tervel's role in setting up Justinian or his power relative to Byzantium at this time. What I onject to is the completely unsupported by any source (thus far) notion that he exercised actual control over the Byzantine government. "Justinian's destiny was dependent" well of course it was. All states' actions are dependent on the power and actions of their neighbours. Does this mean that all states are under their neighbours political control a la the Eastern Block states as you imply? Would Communist Poland or Eastern Germany have ever dreamed of declaring war on the Soviet Union for whatever reason?


 * As for your comment on Lenin, is that a joke? Lenin was indeed under the political control of the Germans. If I didn't know better I would think that you were trying to help me win this debate by setting up straw man arguments for me to efficiently debunk. As for Tervel's decision not to invade Constantinople once his troops were in the city, this again shows that he already had enough gains to not perceive it as necessary to do so. That's not "bad luck for him", as it has nothing to do with luck. It's called a conscious political decision that further solidified his prestige.--Monshuai (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, that's funny. So Lenin was actually carrying out German instructions when he set up his government and won the Civil War? Come on, it was an alliance of opportunity, and that is exactly what Tervel and Justinian did too. "It's called a conscious political decision that further solidified his prestige" indeed, but not his power, nor did it solidify in any way any sort of actual control over Byzantium. Again, rhetoric is fine,  but please give some sources that speak of "political control". Constantine   ✍  11:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you, why did Russia pull out of WWI and allow Germany to occupy vast portions of its former Tsarist empire? :) BTW, did you compile the list we talked about?--Monshuai (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

please discuss about ideas not about persons
Please don't insinuate racism or hypocrisy. Discuss the ideas that I present, don't make accusations or insinuations about me or my intentions. Please don't respond on my page. Thanks. man with one red shoe 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, when someone makes hypocritical and prejudiced comments it would be unethical not to respond. To do so would be the equivalent of allowing/encouraging that behaviour to continue. Second, your ideas have shifted multiple times from the onset of our discussion precisely because I have been able to debunk them effectively. One more thing, you are yet again hypocritical by writing on my page and yet telling me not to write on yours. How many more double standards do you have?
 * To everyone else who is curious about the above comments, please visit the Bulgaria article discussion page for more information.--Monshuai (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I reported you here Wikiquette_alerts Don't know if this will help with anything, but I'm tired of this shat. man with one red shoe 03:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Shat"? So now you're swearing on my user page?--Monshuai (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
This edit to First Bulgarian Empire is not acceptable. Regarding the stuff about Tervel being made caesar, there is a clear consensus on the talkpage that this stuff doesn't belong in the lead. Even other Bulgarian users have agreed to that. Second, most of your sources have no page number, and as such are meaningless. Third, Britannica is a tertiary source and as such may not be used. But most importantly, making such massive, non-consensual edits to the lead while a discussion is ongoing is extremely disruptive. I will not tolerate much more of this. Consider this your final warning. Athenean (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Below are the sources that support the edits I made. Remember these are all the academic sources that you've repeatedly removed, which is vandalism.


 * Here's what I wrote on the discussion page:


 * Athenean, the same standards are used in Wikipedia. Double standards are not welcome. Also, no one is going to confuse Bulgars with Bulgarians, as the two words mean something different all together. The Bulgars were an ancient group, the Bulgarians are a modern ehtnicity that is a composite of several ethnic groups. That said, if the ethnicity of the conquerer must be mentioned, then it is essential that the ethnicities of the conquered also be mentioned. After all, the First Bulgarian Empire was an amalgamation of Slav and Byzantine populaces who were ruled by the Bulgar elite until it was assimilated. Would you like the sources for this as well, as there are tens of them that I can paste here like I did before? :) Finally, removing academic sources is vandalism, which is something you've done several times. Doing so again will not work in your favour. ;) I will now re-incorporate these sources into the article:
 * 1)- (Hammond, 1976) Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas‎ - Page 67
 * 2)- (Ference, 1994) Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history‎ - Page 61
 * 3)- (Cramton, 1987) A short history of modern Bulgaria‎ - Page 2
 * 4)- (multiple authors, 1980) Academic American encyclopedia, Volume 10‎ - Page 556
 * 5)- (multiple authors, 1993) Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 1‎ - Page 750
 * 6)- (Medieval Academy of America, 1950) Speculum, Volume 25‎ - Page 529
 * 7)- (Setton, 1974) Europe and the Levant in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance‎ - Page 617
 * 8)- (Dobson et al, 2000) Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1‎ - Page 1581
 * 9)- (Shashi, 1992) Encyclopaedia of humanities and social sciences‎ - Page 1207
 * 10)- (Obolensky, 1994) Byzantium and the Slavs‎ - Page 9
 * 11)- (Stoyanov, 1994) The hidden tradition in Europe‎ - Page 109
 * 12)- (multiple authors, 1989) Library of Congress Classification Schedules D History General and Old World‎ - Page 181
 * 13)- (McCarty et al, 1999) Masks: Faces of Culture‎ - Page 133
 * -Monshuai (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the power of the First Bulgarian Empire here is what the "Encyclopaedia Britannica, A New Survey of Universal Knowledge, Volume 4 - page 37" has to say:
 * -"The national power (of the First Bulgarian Empire) reached its zenith under Simeon (893-927), a monarch distinguished in the arts of war and peace. In his reign, 'Bulgaria assumed rank among the civilized powers of earth.' His dominions extended from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, and from the borders of Thessaly to the Save and the Carpathians. Having become the most powerful monarch in Eastern Europe, Simeon assumed the style of 'Emperor and Autocrat of all the Bulgars and Greeks' (tsar i samodrzhetz usem Blgarom i Grkom), a title which was recognized by Pope Formosus."
 * --Monshuai (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added a number of other sources regarding other points of dispute.


 * With regard to the Bulgar conquerers being assimilated:
 * 14)- Graboïs, A. (1980). The illustrated encyclopedia of medieval civilization. New York: Mayflower Books., p. 148
 * 15)- The South Slav journal: 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. (1989). The South Slav journal, 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. London: the journal., p. 4
 * 16)- Ference, G. C. (1994). Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history. Detroit, MI: Gale Research., p. 61


 * With regard to Tervel being the first foreigner to receive the title Caeser:
 * 17)- Ostrogorski, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine state. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press., p. 143


 * Regarding the First Bulgarian Empire being a cultural centre of Slavic Europe:
 * 18)- Sedlar, J. W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. A History of East Central Europe, v. 3. Seattle: University of Washington Press., p. 426
 * 19)- Hussey, J. M. (1990). The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford history of the Christian Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press., p. 100
 * 20)- Encyclopaedia britannica: A new survey of universal knowledge., Volume 4, Part 4A. (2009). Chicago: Encyclopaedia britannica., p. 37
 * --Monshuai (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * --Monshuai (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you wrote in response:


 * This edit to First Bulgarian Empire is not acceptable and highly disruptive.  Regarding the stuff about Tervel being made caesar, there is a clear consensus on the talkpage that this stuff doesn't belong in the lead.  Even other Bulgarian users have agreed to that.  Second, most of the sources we are bombarded with have no page number, and as such are meaningless.  Third, Britannica is a tertiary source and as such should not really be used.  But most importantly, making such massive, non-consensual edits to the lead while a discussion is ongoing is extremely disruptive and needs to stop.  Athenean (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And I in turn replied:


 * I don't know if you have vision problems or can't read Arabic numerals, because all the sources I have provided do indeed have page numbers. I guess that shows us how accurate you are in your comments. Also the source regarding Tervel does indeed state that he is the first foreigner to get the title of Caeser. That is the condition for notability established in this discussion and elsewhere in Wikipedia. Finally, if there is disruptive behaviour it is by you. Since it seems that neutral admins will have to be involved due to your repeated transgressions, they will look at your edits, your removal of sources and double standards. The very same information that you believe should not be included in the First Bulgarian Empire article is the type of information you support in Greek articles. Wait and see, but don't tell me you weren't warned. ;)--Monshuai (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)\


 * PS: I also explained to you that if you insist on discussing the Bulgars as a seperate ethnic group, then information about the other ethnic groups must also be included. The only reason it even makes sense to discuss ethnic groups in the lede (which again is what YOU insist on) is if the role of the other ethnic groups is also included. Otherwise you are confusing the reader with partial information. After all, the empire affected and indeed involved more than one ethnic group. In summary, all sources on this particular matter state that the Bulgars conquered the territory from the Byzantine Empire and imposed themselves on what were populations formerly under Byzantine control. PERIOD. If you are still having trouble with this let me repeat, you cannot misinform the reader by selectively including a piece of detailed information at the expense of the overarching/general information of which it is a only one of a multitude of components. Therein, if ethnicity is included in the lede then it will be for all involved parties and their respective historical roles.--Monshuai (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

--Monshuai (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Thing //  Talk  //  Contribs  22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Was just about to post here myself. Athenean (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion concerning you has been moved to WP:AE. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria topic ban
This is to inform you that, for the reasons detailed at AE, based on the evicence presented on ANI and under the authority of WP:ARBMAC, you are indefinitely banned from the topic of Bulgaria (broadly construed, including Bulgarians, Bulgarian ancient history, ancient peoples on modern-day Bulgarian territory etc.); this topic ban includes all pages, notably articles, project and talk pages. I or any other uninvolved administrator may lift this ban, upon request, after no less than six months of entirely trouble-free editing on your part (with especially no trouble in the Balkans topic area). This sanction may be appealed as described at WP:ARBMAC.  Sandstein  22:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Constantinople 717-718
Your edit to this article in Jan 2010, added this sentence, "Upon victory, the Bulgarian khan Tervel was received in Constantinople as the saviour of the Byzantine Empire and bestowed the title Caesar by Justinian II.". Which is historically incorrect, seeing how Justinian II was DEAD in 711! Also, Khan Tervel was invested with the title Caesar for helping Justinian II regain his throne.In the future, please have a clearer understanding of history and timeline of events. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Да се знае
Здравейте приятели,

Искам да споделя с вас списък с редактори в уикипедия които организирано или не, с малки и големи стъпки се опитват да принизят българската история, като крайната цел е да докаже че видете ли няма връзка между Първото и Второто Българско царство, а ако това не може то поне да се принизят постиженията на тези царства и да се преувеличат несгодите им. Ако имате възможност наглеждайте тези потребители, те са тук постоянно и са непрекъснато активни:


 * Cplakidas – действа навсякъде и се опитва да принизи всичко Българско виж страницата Rus Invasion of Bulgaria и Byzantine Bulgarian Wars 970-1018
 * Dr.K – същия като Cplakidas, обикновенно действат заедно
 * Tourbillon – истински българомразец, съботира всичко Българско иска да премахне връзката между днешна България и старите царства, кирилицата не е Бългрска и прочее. Само вижте talk на страницата на България.
 * Future Perfect at Sunrise – същия като тourbillon
 * Chipmunkdavis – същия като тourbillon
 * Jingiby – същия като тourbillon

Разпрострянявайте този списък, за да се знаят тези.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)