User talk:TodorBozhinov/Archive 11

Re:Theatre
Thank you for your reply, it was very clearifying! As you ask if there was anything more...yes. Can you tell me about the first proffessional Bulgarian actors and actresses on these theatres? It would be helpful just with a couple of names to google. --Aciram (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I would also like to know about some actors and actresses from the travelling theatre companies you mentioned before the theatres was founded. I'm very interested in theatre history, you see! :)--Aciram (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Neolithic

 * Todor take some time to acquaint yourself with the Neolithic cultures.Vinča culture  includes Bulgaria, so does Varna culture  and others like pointed out in my talk page.Not Thracians.

Megistias (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

 * From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
 * News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

7th mil. BC thracians
hi todor i dont see eye to eye much with megistias either but as you know theres a difference between continuity of material culture and language etc the first wave of indoeuropean speakers in the balkans according to the most accepted theories doesnt predate the 4th millennium bc for example so at best the thracian language started forming back then. the osprey book britannica cites is awful...and as mycenaeans and thracians states if im reading it right (its Fol right?) the 'thracians' cant really be thought to predate the 16th-11th century bc then theres the problem of what the dacians exactly where 'pre-thracians'...like the messapians might be 'pre-illyrian'...whose language didnt go through certain changes? Georgiev...im sure you know him...thought that certain changes separated the languages Russu (romanian) didnt87.202.8.126 (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Banya-palace.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Banya-palace.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Theodosius of Tarnovo
Много съм зле :):):) В статията за Търновската книжовна школа, съм объркал името и съм пропуснал е-то и така се е получил червен линк, който исках да попълня. Най-добре още сега слей статиите, просто добави от моята версия инфокутията, категориите и правилната връзка към Григорий от Синай. Поздрави! --Gligan (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

 * Opinion essay: White Barbarian
 * Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
 * Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
 * News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 03:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

French Church (Bucharest)
How are you, my good man? This past summer, I first set foot on Bulgarian soil - both in the Southern Dobruja stolen from Romania in 1940 (heh) and in Varna. Anyway, this article I link to is quite like some you have written (I say that as a compliment), and it's also up for DYK - shortly below this line. I wouldn't mind a nice "length, date verified; offline reference accepted on good faith" (if indeed you accept), and do let me know next time you have something that needs checking. (By the way, if you don't see the elusive rooster, neither do I, unless it's supposed to be the knob on the cross. Maybe it's in the back, but the source does say it (verifiability, not truth), and it's a very high-quality source - two thick, priceless volumes on every single church, synagogue and mosque in Bucharest, past and present.) - Biruitorul Talk 03:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Unfortunately I could only stay three hours in Varna before "canicular heat" and "heel pain" made the girl I was with force me to go back to Golden Sands, and I didn't even make it into the archaeological museum. However, what I did manage to see was all very interesting: the cathedral, the beach, the parks, the Navy headquarters, the theatre, and so forth. I must return for a longer stay - if only there were more bridges across the Danube! As for Dobruja, I think we need a new Internal Dobrujan Revolutionary Organisation, but run by Romanians this time - all 500 or so left there. The quest for the Queen's palace demands no less.
 * Oh, you can imagine my joy when I stumbled across such a resource. When I go into the religion section of a Romanian bookstore, I'm always disappointed because they only seem to have prayer books - which are of course useful, but I wish there were more on church architecture, history, and so forth. At some point, I'll write on the Bulgarian church in Bucharest: stay tuned.
 * As for DYK verification: well, yes, I imagine many people skip over hooks not related to US/UK/Western Europe. So it's good to have our own network of verifiers, and feel free to let me know if you need something. Best, Biruitorul Talk 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Zdravei
Idvam tuk da se zapoznaia s teb zashtoto chustvam che si edin ot zashtitelite na Bulgarskata natsia/istoria protiv subektivisma i predrasudatsite koito sushtestvuvat sreshto nea i funktsionirat da razrushat neinata identichnost i dostoinstvo. Mojesh li da prochetesh tazi beseda ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Vincent_Atanasoff ). Ima niakolko editors koito nerazreshavat pravilni promiani v statiata zashtoto imat negativni chustva kum men. Vsushtnost, v poslednite komentari se razbra che makar i niakoi ot neshtata koito sum kazal za John Atanasoff sa viarni, prosto zashtoto moiat stil na sporene e nepriaten drugite niama da priemat obektivni promiani v statiata. S drugi dumi, za da specheliat sreshto men (chovek koito ne im dopada) niama da razreshat Atanasoff da bude predstaven kato Bulgarian-American, i niama da se kazva che e purviat Amerikanets ot Bulgarski proizhod da se izdinge of nauchno-tehnologichnite sferi na America. Ne se samo che ne moralno, no tova sa sushto i dvoini standarti. Prosto niamam dumi. Znam che agresivno argumentiram i che tova ne e priatno za niakoi hora, no ne moga da priema che tova koeto drugi konstatirat kato ne pravilno povedenie na edin chovek oznachava che Atanasoff niama da bude predstaven po tochen nachin. Ako imash vreme te pomolvan da prochetesh vsichko koeto e napisano v besedata za da si napulno zapoznat sus situatsiata. Ako imash vuzmojnosta da si kajesh mnenieto i da pomognesh shte ti buda blagodaren. Mersi i do chuvane.--Monshuai (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained on the Atanasoff talk page, the operative guideline states that a biographical subject's ethnicity should not be emphasized in the lead unless it is important to the subject's notability.   American is a nationality for Atanasoff whereas Bulgarian American is an ethnicity.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Robert K S is as Monshuai puts doing every he can to keep the words Bulgarian American (B-A) out of the article. Atanasoff is the first B-A to invent a world changing invention. Monshuai is 100% correct.--Janelle4elle (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe his ethnicity is very important and should be emphasized in the lead. Needless to say, it is his origin beside his invention that has made him so well-known in Bulgaria. Bulgarians identify with him. Todor→Bozhinov 10:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bulgarians identify with him, but it is not this fact for which he is notable. It is the reverse.  Bulgarians identify with him because he is notable. Robert K S (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A person is not necessarily notable for one thing. From my perspective, he owes a major part of his notability to his descent. Todor→Bozhinov 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even from your perspective, i.e., the Bulgarian perspective, it is not his descent per se that makes him notable. It is his status as claimant to the first digital electronic computer.  His ethnicity may be a point of pride, but it is not germane to notability.  Monshuai has repeatedly argued for fairness in standards across articles.  Imagine if everything else about Atanasoff were the same except for his Bulgarian ethnicity.  Imagine if he had been born in the U.S. to a Turk or Greek or Serb instead.  Would you still take the same position of insistence that his ethnicity was relevant to his notability?  Or would you see him for what he was--a physicist and computer inventor whose accomplishments had little or nothing to do with the incidental country of his father's origin?  Would it not then be improper to give undue weight to his ethnicity?  Of course, the other problem here is that Atanasoff is not solely Bulgarian-American.  He's also whatever other ethnicities contributed by his mother (probably some English, judging by the surname Purdy).  Is it fully honest and fair to name one ethnicity in absence of the others? Robert K S (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that were he of Turkish, Greek or Serbian descent, that would be duly noted in the lead. National pride is in no way confined to Bulgaria, particularly with regard to Southeastern Europe. Let's look at it this way: we have a two-paragraph intro that summarizes the article. Which of those facts is more notable than his descent?
 * The year and name of a lawsuit?
 * That his father was an electrical engineer?
 * All the positions Atanasoff held? The decades when he was 'recognized'?


 * Clearly, him being Bulgarian American is at least as notable as (and in some cases more notable than) any of those facts.
 * The point is, the 'Bulgarian American' part fits perfectly in the intro and your desire to remove it seems puzzling to say the least. I'd much rather have him as a "Bulgarian American physicist" or an "American physicist of [paternal] Bulgarian descent" than as an "American physicist... The son of a Bulgarian immigrant who became an electrical engineer...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TodorBozhinov (talk • contribs) 2009-10-11T15:48:56
 * All of those things are more notable than his ethnicity, because those are the things for which he is noted.  At least you have acquiesced that it is national pride that is (improperly) motivating the inclusion of the ethnicity. Robert K S (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Todor Bozhinov has made good points and his assessment of the situation as an experienced Wikipedian is quite clear. He has acquiesced that "your desire to remove [the Bulgarian-American] portion is puzzling to say the least." This is also the view that others, myself included, have of you as well. In addition, if Atanasoff were as you say born in the US to a "Turk or Greek or Serb" we would all respectfully write that in the lead. We're not here to deny ethnicity of any person, nor deny his firsts as an XYZ-American. After all, unlike you, we do not use double standards in assessing what should or should not be in an article.--Monshuai (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You confuse "unbiased factual presentation of biographical material in the encyclopedia, free to the extent possible of ethnic boosterism" with "denial of ethnicity". I have never denied Atanasoff's ethnicity as a Bulgarian American; I have affirmed it repeatedly.  Instead, I have posited that his ethnicity is not germane to his notability.  Monshuai, you implicitly accept this position by failing to challenge as inherently flawed in its premise the hypothetical wherein Atanasoff is of different ethnicity: if his ethnicity were truly germane to his notability, you must have objected to the hypothetical by saying, "But Atanasoff could not have been Turkish American or Greek American or Serbian American.  Only a Bulgarian American could have done what Atanasoff did."  By recognizing that a man born in the U.S. to a Turk or Greek or Serb could also have invented a computer and testified in a trial and done the other things of note that Atanasoff did, you are affirming that his ethnicity wasn't what mattered--it isn't a central defining characteristic of what makes the man worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.  There is no double standard in my position here.  No ethnicity deserves mention as defining for a biographical individual in the article lead, except where the ethnicity is important to notability.  Try just for a moment to put "Bulgarian pride" away and see what you're doing the to encyclopedia by pressing this point.  You're turning it more into a vehicle for ethnic boosterism rather than into an unbiased presentation of information.  We don't want an encyclopedia where every article subject is "claimed" to one or more ethnicities (or in the extreme example to numerous ethnicities out of fairness to all the groups who want a claim).  We want a simple presentation that lists the relevant facts first, and gets into the details later in the article. Robert K S (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Robert, your argument is flawed once more. Let me clarify my reason(s) for saying so. Modern numerals (the ones used all over the world) are attributed to various peoples of East Indian and Arabian descent. However, had some other peoples created these numerals (ie: Turks or Greeks or Serbs [or anyone else for that matter]) then they would certainly be attributed to them instead. If you don't agree with both the former and the latter points whilst maintaining that you don't apply double standards, then please go to this article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals ) and change the lede there. After all, using your logic the modern number system currently used worldwide is not notable for being Hindu-Arabic. It is instead "only" notable for making modern mathematics and science possible. It is "only" notable for allowing humanity to gain a deeper understanding of its own backyard and of the greater universe. It is "only" notable for setting up the foundations that would lead to such wonders as differentials, integrals, algebra, chemistry, experimental physics, etc... Yet we both know that is not the entire story!--Monshuai (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're kidding, right? Numeral systems aren't biographical subjects and the WP:MOSBIO guideline doesn't apply.  Numeral systems aren't people and don't have ethnicities.  They're called "Arabic numerals" (or "Hindu-Arabic" or whatever) to distinguish them from Roman numerals, Egyptian numerals, Greek numerals, or what have you.  And these are the names for these systems, and not ones assigned by Wikipedia.  John Atanasoff's name wasn't "Bulgarian-American John Atanasoff". Robert K S (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No I'm not kidding. The example I showed you demonstrates that what you deem "not germane to notability" is included in ledes about all sorts of creations/inventions/discoveries. I have also stated that Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria is due to his being both Bulgarian-American and an inventor of a world changing invention. This notability cannot be discounted by you unless you decide to stereotype an entire country as being "boosterist".--Monshuai (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can you probably take this back to Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff? After all, it's my talk page and I get orange bars just a little bit too often. Thanks :) Todor→Bozhinov 08:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem Todor Bozhinov. My apologies for continuing this discussion on your talk page.--Monshuai (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Todor, since you are now a party in this issue, would you agree to a mediation? Robert K S (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you insist on that. I still fail to see why one additional word has sparked such a debate, but that might just be me. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
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. --Athenean (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Zdravei, znaesh li koi sa Bulgarskite administratori? Mersi.--Monshuai (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Thracians
Hey Todor Bozhinov, I was wondering if you know why the first sentence in the "Thracians" article includes the Ancient Greek spelling for their name? That certainly doesn't belong there.--Monshuai (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the name seems to be an exonym given by the Greeks: as the Thracians left very little in terms of writing, it can't be established whether they called themselves 'Thracians' or something else. If you read the intro, you'll know why the Ancient Greek spelling is given. Todor→Bozhinov 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read the intro (I have been involved with this article for over three years) and looked up the given source from the Romanian Thracologist Sorin Mihai Olteanu so I cannot confirm it. I also can't find any academic sources on the matter as none have been given regarding this specific claim in the article. Also the claims of the Romanian Thracologist are not supported by any other academics and the link given to his linguistic interpretations is broken. In addition, the word Greek is mentioned five times in the lede. I don't think that's appropriate for an article about the Thracians who were neither ethnically, nor linguistically Greek.--Monshuai (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I say you go ahead and introduce any changes you'd like to see, then just ping me if you'd like my opinion :) Todor→Bozhinov 08:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Expertise
Hello Todor. I found you using Category:User mk-N. The article Fazlagić Tower has two links to the Macedonian language Wikipedia. Could you determine which of these is the best interwiki link and remove the other? Thank you. --Danger (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there are two? I saw only one. It's right on the topic. -- L a v e o l  T 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Todor already took care of the problem, which involved a faulty template on the page. --Danger (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea
We are behind with giving out DYK awards. My idea is to give out some awards and deputise them to give out some more awards. Do you think that might work? Victuallers (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert war
Instead of trying to start a revert war, with a facade of a discussion where you falsley claim "per talk/discussion", why don't you have the discussion first? Have you even bothered to read my response yet (you couldn'thave at the time as I hadn't had a chance to make it)? Posting that edit again with such a claim in the summary when I have not even had a chance to read the talk page is really crass.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What seems to be the problem exactly? I fail to see why you're overreacting: you have called one revert, two days after a previous edit, an attempt "to start a revert war". By noting that the sentence was "removed again per [what I'm posting on the] talk [page]", I was merely saying that I'm posting my grounds on the talk page, which I did 15 minutes later. It was not my intention to imply that the matter has been discussed and settled. If this is what you thought I meant, then you probably shouldn't have assumed bad faith, seeing as English is not my native language.
 * In fact, I saw your reply on talk today, but I dismissed it as obviously invalid. I'm not arguing for the inclusion of Bulgaria in the sentence, I'm arguing against that nonsensical sentence's inclusion in the article. Whether you consider it important or not, the sentence is factually wrong and I believe I have proven this already.
 * Finally, I'd suggest that you take a break. Such language is unbecoming of an administrator. Even though you're not involved in the discussion as an admin, you're supposed to set some kind of example, and overreacting is by no means a good way to do that. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're presuming a lot here. I'm taking off my watch list since you prefer to act before discussing. — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish, but this is no way to sort things out. Todor→Bozhinov 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 C  anniba loki  17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Диалектални карти
Видях, че си правил голяма част от картите в българската секция, така че пействам това, което написах в Български диалекти, сигнализирай, ако проявяваш интерес или ако познаваш някой тук, който би проявил интерес:

Разполагам с Български диалектален атлас с над 350 цветни карти с изключително добро качество (картата на рефлекса на голямата носовка е правен по една от тях), вкл. карти на рефлексите на щ, жд, ятова гласна и пр. Ако някой има желание и може (понеже аз не мога) да преработи няколо карти, така че да могат да се ъплоуднат тук за свободно ползване, нека да даде някаква индикация тук - за да се свържем, да обменим координати и да му пратя. Най-важните карти ги имам сканирани, но мога допълнително да сканирам каквото си пожелаете:-) Освен за обща информация за българските диалекти, картите могат да се ползват и за да се докаже това, че дори и да се приеме съществуването на македонски език, то границите му са далеч на запад - повечето изоглоси минават през средата, а не по границите на географския регион Македония. Благодаря ви предварително. Tulll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC).


 * За съжаление не можах да намеря бутона:-(( Пиши ми на tulll@abv.bg, регистрирах си я отделно за този случай (за да не ми атакува някой обичайната поща). Ще я гледам редовно в следващите дни, че тук почти не влизам. Tulll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Vacha Reka
Hi, I know your Bulgarian so would know more than me but I understand this river to be called the Vucha Reka. I have never heard it pronounced Vacha Reka and the Bulgarian spelling and pronounciation is Vucha Reka also (Въча).

I am just writing this message as I dont want to alter the article and find I am wrong, it is just I know the Vu4a Reka well as it passes through the village of Yoakim Gruevo not far from my wifes Baba's house in Kozarsko and locally have never heard the name Vacha.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,

Guy

Koal4e (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.103.49 (talk)


 * Thanks for the heads up, Ill leave the article title/name as it is and when I can find further information to add to the article about the river Ill provide more detail.


 * Koal4e (talk) 08:32, 06 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Isihia-GreenAlbum.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Isihia-GreenAlbum.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Futurismo nicolaj-diulgheroff-luomo-razionale-1928.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Futurismo nicolaj-diulgheroff-luomo-razionale-1928.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

About Тemplate:Municipalities_of_Sofia
Isn't the correct term district, rather than municipality? The districts are part of the municipality, so to have municipalities in a municipality is kind of strange. (see http://sofia.bg/en/display.asp?ime=council). It is a rather common mistake, though, so let's not make Wikipedia a source for confusions :) And it is practise all over the articles about Sofia the districts to be called municipalities, so I say, we should move the pages and edit the articles. What do you think? Regards --Misho (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Диалектални карти 2
Здравей,

Може би не си видял съобщението ми или не си имал време. Пусни ми мейл, може и празен, на tulll@abv.bg и ще ти пратя това, което имам към момента. Оттам нататък - вече ти си решаваш съобразно твоето време и възможности:-))) Tulll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

Friedrich Kellner
I just sent you an email, but in case it does not get through to you, I thought I should write to you here, as well. I am hoping you can help me with the Friedrich Kellner article, to translate it into Bulgarian. I have a condensed version of the article that I can send to you (about 1500 words). Thank you, Scott --Rskellner (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Photograph
Hello Todor. I added an interesting, which is now added in the Vlado Chermozemski's article. I thought you'd be interested to see it. :) Best. --Relativefrequency (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it in a very old book, it's a true rarity. Todor, I'd like to consult you about something. May I have your email?--Relativefrequency (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not see the function you mentioned in the toolbox menu on the left side of your user page. What I see are seven functions, but the "E-mail this user" function is not displayed. Any hint?--Relativefrequency (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got it. Thanks. You may check your email now. I've sent you a reply.--Relativefrequency (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 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) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend, and a productive 2010. :) - Darwinek (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I wish you all the best in 2010! May all your dreams come true!--Relativefrequency (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny
You started an edit war and Laveol and Gligan continue it by mass reverting without a word and now you are coming saying not to edit warring. Nice. You guys thinking that you can say and doing anything you like because you are three. Well this is not how the historical issues are solved in WP, using brute force and trolling. But have your way. Now find a neutral ref for every POV word the article has in it. No nationalistic bullshits will be allowed anymore. In that article as well as in any other Bulgarian related historical article from now on. Better that way because it was time. Best, --Factuarius (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening me? Please answer by either 'yes' or 'no'. Todor→Bozhinov 16:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am telling you that for the rest of the year I will dedicate my WP:time to the Bulgarian-related articles because I believe I can help improving them. If it's necessary also the next, and the next, and the next, and the next. And if it's necessary also the next one. Best,--Factuarius (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your San Stefano map
It seems that this map is unacceptable to some editors due to the phrase "Liberated Bulgaria" in its description. Perhaps this description should be changed?

Mess
The article History of Bulgaria (1878–1946) and the two articles Principality of Bulgaria and Kingdom of Bulgaria seem to me to be focused on the same issue. Shouldn't we have only one article for Bulgaria between 1878 and 1946 despite the fact that its name changed from principality to kingdom with the same logic as the First Bulgarian State is one article although it became an empire from a khanate? Or we should we have separate articles for the principality and the kingdom but without History of Bulgaria (1878–1946)? What do you suggest? --Gligan (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, tough question. I like being able to link to Kingdom of Bulgaria as a name, much like I can link to Weimar Republic. We have to look for inspiration in other history articles, but if we have to get rid of something (only the article title, not the content), it would be History of Bulgaria (1878–1946). I don't think the current situation is a mess, though, so long as the articles stay focused on what they're supposed to be about. We have United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and at the same time we have Georgian era (1714–1830) and Victorian era (1837–1901), not forgetting the articles about each king and his reign, so why not?
 * First Bulgarian Empire is okay at the moment. It would be more difficult and controversial to split it into Bulgarian Khanate, First Bulgarian Empire... and First (?) Bulgarian Principality (Boris and Vladimir)? Surely, this is not something that is commonly done, not least because khanate was never the name of the entity and the principality period was brief. Todor→Bozhinov 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Turkey
Same nonsense, there are only 500 Bulgarians in Turkey you stil mention the 300 000 Turks. Article for speedy deletion.

Speedy deletion nomination of Bulgarians in Turkey
A tag has been placed on Bulgarians in Turkey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hittit (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you discuss the issues instead of going gung-ho for all-out deletion? There is no reason whatsoever to delete this article rather than improve it. Remember that your goal as a Wikipedian is to contribute, not to destroy. Todor→Bozhinov 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello TodorBozhinov! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Georgi Pirinski, Jr. -
 * 2) Francisco Martos -
 * 3) Georgi Vasilev (born 1946) -
 * 4) Mihail Aleksandrov (footballer) -
 * 5) Angel Chervenkov -
 * 6) Yvan Ylieff -
 * 7) Ruslan Maynov -

Battle of Kardzhali
Unfortunately I couldn't find other sources. I tried to find something in the books of Erickson and Hall but without success... --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Greek names of Bulgarian cities
I see that in the article about Kavarna, you told Athenean that Greek names are permitted in articles about Bulgarian cities. However, the same user has removed almost all Bulgarian names from the names of Greek cities. I find this highly hypocritical and I don't think he should be encouraged. Kostja (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who decides whether names are "permitted" or not. If the Greek name is used in literature (at least 10% of scholarly sources) or if Greek was spoken by the inhabitants, there's no reason not to include it. I'm opposed to the removal of foreign names from Bulgarian town articles just because someone doesn't like these. I'd suggest that you revert yourself, the Greek names are justifiably there.
 * On the other hand, every single place in Western Thrace and Aegean Macedonia where there was a Bulgarian-speaking population (be it Exarchists, "Philhellene" Patriarchists, Eastern Catholics or Muslims) should have the Bulgarian name inserted. Don't be shy about that. The large majority of Greek names of those places are new names imposed after the Balkan Wars, so when available, English sources would have used the Bulgarian name. Even if you can't find a reference to the place in English, the guidelines says that "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages".
 * Basically, inserting foreign names is not a matter of "if you don't allow ours, we won't allow yours". All relevant names are permitted and encouraged. And in this case, the notion of "relevant" is pretty broad.
 * So yeah, if you feel like it, be bold and insert the Bulgarian names absolutely everywhere you wish (but stick to the guidelines and use the Names section if there is one). The removal of foreign names, however, is unjustified and I honestly don't see why you consider it such a big deal. Todor→Bozhinov 08:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a bit of a difference: Places like Kastoria and Florina have multiple relevant foreign names (Bulgarian, Makedonskian, Albanian, Turkish, Aromanian), as well as interesting etymologies.  This is why they have separate Name sections, which in my opinion is the most elegant solution (as we did in Cape Kaliakra).  So I'll tell you what, for places with multiple relevant foreign names, if separate name sections are created for these articles, I would be ok with removing the foreign names  from the lead and put them there.  Athenean (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a big difference, and neither do the criteria. Places in Bulgaria also have multiple foreign names and interesting etymologies, so Name section are often created. Where available, Bulgarian names of Greek places should go to a name section, but when there is none, the lead is the suitable location per WP:NCGN. If history doesn't work for Pomorie or Sozopol, then why should it work for Veria? Todor→Bozhinov 09:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, as long as two things are kept in mind: The 10% rule, and neutral sourcing if you want to establish that Bulgarians inhabited a particular place. Athenean (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You reverted Alexandroupoli claiming that it was "founded" in 1925. Dedeagach was already a village in the 1850s. In the 1870s it must have already been a large village/town, as it was the starting point of a railway to Edirne, and in 1878 it was already a town. In 1900, it had a population 5,400: 555 Greek houses, 320 Turkish, 45 Bulgarian, 60 Armenian, 30 Jewish, 30 Roma, 30 of other nationalities and 15 Vlach. French military authorities counted 7,222 people in the town in 1920, after the Bulgarian occupation: 3,900 Bulgarians, 2,500 Greeks, 512 Armenians, 165 Jews, 195 Turks. Todor→Bozhinov 10:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, consider this. Prior to the renaming, Dedeagach was the dominant spelling, and not in the modern Turkish orthography. Todor→Bozhinov 10:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Did it for Burgas. But could you please put in a word with Gligan over this.  He seems not to be board. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Re Nesebar/Mesembria and Primorie/Anchialos, searches of Google books in Greek return nothing for "Νεσεμπαρ" and "Πριμοριε", but return hundreds of hits for "Μεσημβρία"  and "Αγχίαλος" , which strongly suggests the latter two are common Greek usage.  Ditto for Sozopol (I'd be very surprised if common Greek usage was "Σοζοπολ").  Athenean (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, nothing says that English usage means only Google Books. In fact, contemporary usage might be better determined by using plain Google search. Kostja (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Raw google searches overwhelmingly return hotel and travel sites and all manner of junk, see for yourself. In my experience, common usage always means common usage by reliable sources.  We are not interesting in travel reservation sites and commercial websites.  For the recent Macedonia naming dispute case WP:ARBMAC2, the mother of all naming disputes, it was universally agreed that common English usage would be established by looking at Google Books, Scholar, News and various Atlases.  Athenean (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, common usage is measured by how people usually call the city, and the best wait to check this online is Google hits. Scholarly usage is a very different thing that Google Books can only give you an idea of (due to the usually low number of results). I never mentioned Sozopol, but the Greek Wikipedia articles for Nesebar, Burgas and Pomorie are to be found at the Bulgarian names' respective transliterations, which suggests that these are the modern established names. As for Burgas, I didn't see Gligan's edit, of course I don't approve of it. The existence of a Greek community in that city in the past is out of any doubt, and the medieval name was Pyrgos no less. The current version of the lead is exactly as I'd like it to be. Todor→Bozhinov 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you searched for the transliteration of "Primorie", but the name is Pomorie. There's also Primorsko, you unwillingly created a portmanteau of the two :) Todor→Bozhinov 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is my impression that we are interested in common usage among reliable sources, which would be reflected in google books, whereas raw google searches may contain all kinds of junk. Scholarly usage would be reflected in Google Scholar, as Google books may contain non-scholarly material (guidebooks, etc...).  But even so, raw google search of Νεσέμπαρ, 307 hits, "Μεσήμβρια"  9410 hits.  "Πομοριε"  1730 hits (notice the large number of Hotels, this is what I'm talking about), Αγχιαλος  6860 hits.  Similarly for Sozopol, a raw google search returns mostly hotels (mainly in non-Greek pages).  Believe me, Σοζοπολ just sounds really jarring and weird in Greek, as much as ФИЛИППОУПОЛИС would in Bulgarian.  Even places like Sevastopol in Crimea are referred to as Σεβαστούπολις in current modern Greek usage. Re the Greek Wikipedia, that's an interesting story:  The place is run a by a clique of ultra-PC admins that enforces a radical policy of not mentioning places by their Greek names, and is not representative of common Greek usage.  A while back they even tried to move Κονσταντινούπολις to Ισταμπούλ for the sake of political correctness, though there was too much of an outcry over that one.  But for less-known places like these, they have their way.  This is why I am boycotting the Greek Wikipedia, among other reasons.  I generally find the atmosphere on the English wiki much more tolerant and philhellenic. Athenean (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:43853069.P5185637.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:43853069.P5185637.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Предложение за нови страници
Поздравления за упоритата ти работа в английската Уикипедия. За съжаление не знам английски език. Предлагам ти да преведеш страниците за кюстендилските села Соволяно и Горановци от българската Уикипедия. Качил съм за тях доста информация и снимки. Благодаря ти предварително. LeeKeoma (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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) 04:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyrillic
Hi! Would it be okay for you to insert the Cyrillic names of Vanya Gospodinova and Rumyana Chavdarova? Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I tried myself at Stefka Yordanova, did I get it right? Geschichte (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)