User talk:TodorBozhinov/Archive 4

See:
Talk:Bulgarian language --VKokielov 06:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia
That was excatly my point regarding Bulgarians but some people also insisted to say similar thing for Serbs aswell. As for Serbs most of them live in Kumanovo where locals speak Torlakian dialect (which is as we know transitional to Macedonian/Bulgarian) my conslusion is that probably those who declared Serbs and Macedonian speak same idiom but because of this "between" idiom or identity Serb-Macedonian divide is more of political then of ethno-genetic nature. This is ofcourse reffered to Kumanovo and region where Torlakian is spoken. Am I right? Luka Jačov 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As you said different nations in different countries but you have situation like this in one country or in one municipality does things should be noted. Do you agree with my change? Start discussion on Macedonia talk page i ll join right after you. Luka Jačov 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Those things are hard to source but nobody can contradict that certain amount of people declared cos of that reasons. Luka Jačov 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Македонци --> Македонци (Българи)
Pro4eti tova:
 * Г. ПЪРВАНОВ ПОДПИСА УКАЗ ЗА ПРИЗНАВАНЕ НА ГРАЖДАНСТВО НА ЕДИН ОТ НАЙ-ПОПУЛЯРНИТЕ ПОЛИТИЦИ В ЗАПАДНАТА НИ СЪСЕДКА
 * Експремиерът-депутат на Македония Любчо Георгиевски обяви: “Аз съм българин!” и получи гражданство, паспорт и регистрация в Благоевград, срути пирамидата от исторически фалшификации на Скопие.
 * Над 10 000 етнически българи чакат в момента за гражданство, 500 000 души се самоопределят в бившата югославска република за българи, безспорен факт е - над 1 000 000 имат кръвна връзка с България, президентът Киро Глигоров признал през 1941-1944 г. в Кюстендил, че е българин, после “забрави”.... :) --Asteraki 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bojana River
Hello Todor. Long time no hear. I have a question: how can I merge two talk pages? Talk:Bojana River and Talk:Buna/Bojana River? They are about the same subject, page was moved (and made total mess out of it, if you check the talk pages or history), so now only one of those two talk pages can be reached from the Bojana River page and I think it is important that both should be there. Greetings PajaBG 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, I know very well what he did. He was reverted by editors almost immediately but the talk page of the Buna/Bojana remained as such and wasn't reverted to Bojana talk page and I think some important stuff is said on that talk page. So I will have to copy-paste it? Can I do that as one section within the talk page, pointing out it's a talk page of the same page but while it was renamed? PajaBG 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th
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. --Michael Snow 05:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Congress of Berlin
Hello, I would welcome a third opinion on this issue. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your opinion in this topic, and it looks like everyone can come to an agreement. I'll have to remember this in future disagreements. Talk it over!
 * Auch, Sie sind ein Fan von Rammstein? Ich bin auch ein Fan von Rammstein, aber mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut, also ich verstehen nicht eine Menge ihre Lyriken. Tev 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Economy of the Republic of Ireland
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortuately I have no spare time at the moment to dedicate to wikipedia so i'll have to hope others can put some work in. Thanks. CGorman 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ivanko and Dobromir
[Copy:]

Hi! I came across your articles about Ivanko and Dobromir, two of the less known medieval Bulgarian rulers. What puzzles me is the terminology you've used to refer to them: 'leader of the Vlachs and Bulgarians'... the other articles about rulers of the Second Bulgarian Empire (including the earliest) use 'of Bulgaria', which is the established way to refer to them given the name of the realm they ruled over and the specific meaning of the word Vlach then (see Kaloyan of Bulgaria. Do you insist on the articles being named so, because I'd prefer them being 'of Bulgaria' to conform with all other ones. Todor→Bozhinov 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, Todor. I'm well aware of the political nature of this question: myself, I'm not very political! A novice Wikipedian at the time, I chose these headings (a) because I didn't feel sure that these two fellows were ever monarchs in the full sense; (b) because the only primary source I knew for them, Niketas Choniates, describes them consistently as Vlachs. I added 'Bulgarians' on my own authority, because we are talking about what is now Bulgaria, I felt it probable that Bulgarians were among their followers, I doubt whether Niketas always bothered to differentiate the two, and I am aware of arguments that Greek writers of this period may have avoided mentioning Bulgarians if they could find an alternative word. However, having looked again at Kaloyan of Bulgaria, I don't quite see what you mean by "the specific meaning of the word Vlach then". Specificity seems far to seek! Anyway, looking at the matter again now:
 * In the case of Dobromir, at a quick glance I don't see anything in Niketas to connect him with the Second Bulgarian Empire at all. Perhaps there is some other source I don't know? If there isn't, perhaps "leader of the Vlachs" alone is better since that is the term for which there is evidence?
 * In the case of Ivanko, yes, he killed Ivan Asen I so he's in the politics of the Empire. Yes, "Ivanko of Bulgaria" would do for him, wouldn't it, since the article can make clear that his known links (such as they are) are said in the original source to be Vlach.
 * Don't know if that helps. Looking forward to your reply Andrew Dalby 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As you suggested I have now moved Ivanko to Ivanko of Bulgaria. I have put Dobromir at Dobromir, Vlach leader and have slightly reworded both pages. I don't feel very strongly about this but the evidence known to me seems to pinpoint Dobromir so firmly as a Vlach (in spite of his Slavic name) that I felt this heading made more sense. Feel free to comment! Andrew Dalby 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to be awkward. Dobromir alone would be fine. I would also be happy to hear Ian Mladjov's view (I didn't know the I was an Ian!), but please, take the action that you think best and I will not object. Andrew Dalby 08:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology)
Hi Todor. Can you please find a source for the area of Blagovegrad? My Bulgarian is kinda rusty, you know... :N i k o S il v e r: 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, sorry Todor, maybe I didn't explain very well. By "area of Blagoevgrad" I meant the square kilometers (with my mathematical shit-for-brains). Ofcourse, what you found is much more important, because it justifies the completely unsourced note about the area. Thanks very much! I included both sources already, feel free to correct any mistakes. :N i k o S il v e r:  19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that one too. You're amazing! I even wish I made this misunderstanding on purpose! Instead of 1 source, I now got 3! :-) :N i k o S il v e r:  20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (terminology)
We're almost done for the FA status, but there is too little time to deal with some final opjections, mainly in citation. Your help is needed, see talk! :N i k o S il v e r: 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lyaskovets.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Lyaskovets.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anachronistic
Ottoman, Turkish. Why? Well, I'm not arguing. I'm asking. --VKokielov 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy
Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! &mdash; A.S. Damick talk contribs 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tsar
Hi Todor. There is an absurd discussion on the Bulgarian (and for that matter Russian) usage of the title "tsar" (with some contending that it is equivalent to "king" or else not fully imperial) on Talk:Tsar. You might find it interesting. I am about to abandon this whole insanity. Best, Imladjov 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


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. --Michael Snow 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Shopi
Well, I think that Shopi article should speak about entire Shopi population, meaning those that live in all 3 countries - Bulgaria, Macedonia and Serbia. I have one book about Shopi and Torlak population including a map where they live, and according to this map most of Shopi live in Bulgaria, thus most of the article should be about them, but those that live in Serbia and Macedonia should be also mentioned. I do not have time now to improve this article, but I do not think that categories should be removed. I will maybe try to improve article a little when I find time, but you can also change introduction part and you can write there something like that Shopi live in all 3 countries, and then it will not be problem that most of the article is about Shopi in Bulgaria. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

South Slavs
Well, maybe you can start culture section in that article if you want, and I might look to add more things there if I know them. Regarding origin of Serbs and Croats, see for example this map: http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0600.htm You can see where they lived in AD 600 (on this map they are shown as Sorbs and White Croats), and here you see where they were in AD 700: http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0700.htm And you still have part of original West Slavic serbs living in Germany (see: Sorbs). So, yes they originaly were West Slavs, but when they settled in Balkans they mixed with South Slavs and most of modern Serbs and Croats are in fact descendants of South Slavs that adopted Serb and Croat name for them. Regarding my sources, I will mention few more books in the reference section. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Regarding to your last question:
 * 1) Why you're denying and disregarding 10,566 people's right to self-declare the way they like in a free country?

Why do you have such a repulsive reaction in not accepting a compromise solution like I last modified it, e.g. Romanians (Vlachs). In many article it's like that and I don't see a reason for not having alse like that in the case of Bulgaria :). Cheers, -- Eliade 13:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I proposed you a compromise solution unless you'll accept it or else I will get the issue further on dispute resolution. Don't try to say that "your" Vlachs are not "our" Vlachs. Is this in the spirit of good faith and neutrality? No, this is certainly not. Yes, your reactions are so repulsive and impulsive so that I think you missed any NPOV here. How can you judge and be tollerant when you accuse the other like you just did? Is this so hard for you to accept it? It will stay like that, i.e. Romanians (Vlachs), you'll accept it or else I will go to mediation/dispute resolution process. -- Eliade 14:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you don't own them. Don't use it as pejorative term anymore. It's quite sure that Vlachs are Romanians and don't try to ignore this thing any more from now on. I'm not accusing and threatening you, but you may consider as an option the dispute process if you don't accept the compromise. That's the way it works here, this isn't something new here. Now, regarding to your last assertions, if are only cognate and not the same why not all declare that are different? This is because people like you are trying to hide the real truth about them. You try to kill any relation with Romanians, as if they are not Romanians. I'm asking you this: do you think that you know better than them? If just a single wants to say he's romanian, he would have the right to say it loud. Now, since there is a large majority that agree that Vlachs are Romanians then we'll use this compromise solution, i.e. Romanians (Vlachs). They speak Vlach (Romanian). Respect their right to self-determination and their declaration that are romanians. So, your point of saying that now they are not cognate is redundant since there is a large majority of them who declare Romanians. If there isn't any relation why should they declare as such? :) Don't forget about the EU recomandations regarding the minority rights in Bulgaria and the fact that Vlachs must be recognized as Romanians.-- Eliade 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't push it, 'cause you'll support the consequences. I'm ready for a dispute resolution if you don't accept the compromise version like in other articles: i.e. Romanians (Vlachs). Cheers, -- Eliade 15:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

forget correct numbers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Bulgaria according to this link the population of Sofia is not 1.2 but 1.1 million inhabitants. Cheers, -- Eliade 16:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Todor, no, I'm not trying to do that, as may seen annoying but you did that first with my edit on Central Europe. Have you forgotten already? Now is the question, how reliable are the sources with estimations from 2006? -- Eliade 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, how reliable are the sources. Have you an official link? Provide them all please. -- Eliade 17:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR
Hi, Todor. Can you drop in to FAR and give us your appraisal of the progress on articles you've nominated for review? Featured article review/Economy of the Republic of Ireland, Featured article review/Lego, and Featured article review/Lastovo. Thanks, Sandy 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Todor. I haven't checked in on each of the reviews yet today, but we are just putting out notices to make sure that nominators are following up on the articles nominated.  If you've already followed up on those, please ignore me :-)   Sandy 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply
I thought you understood and we finally reached a compromise. Don't forget I'm willing to pass through a mediation/dispute process if you're not willing to accept the alternative name of it. You will loose since Wikipedia accepts alternative names. I think all have been said now. -- Eliade 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC
If you don't try the minumum of compromise I will be forced by you to start an RfC against your impulsive not willing to accept the compromise: Romanians (Vlachs). -- Eliade 10:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all Todor. Simply for an RfC I need to prove that I tried to make an compromise which you fail to accept it. Now, I have all the arguments to start a winning RfC against your not willing to accept the compromise solution as in other articles: Romanians (Vlachs). -- Eliade 12:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a very low tollerance towards minorities http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pleven&action=history This will not bring you any succes, you will not be Admin ever. You'll fail and you'll loose your support. Instead of having friends here you make only enemies. Let's discuss and let me convince you to drop it and accept my formulation: Romanians (Vlachs). What do you say? Cheers, -- Eliade 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you want to diminish even those 252 Vlachs from your province. How many of them were forced not to declare as Vlachs/Romanians? Real statistics indicate at least 5 times of the official results. Because there are people like you who wants to hide the real truth.-- Eliade 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Put an end of it Todor. There are at least 3 Users that don't agree with you. I did try to speak with you very nice, now why are you dissapointing me? Don't you find my proposal as a compromise solution for you? Why is it so difficult for you to accept it? Have I touched your feelings? -- Eliade 15:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Private channel
Check it.  /FunkyFly.talk_  16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may discuss all you want. An RfC against you is on the way. You should accept it or support the consequences. -- Eliade 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eliade
Yes, I noticed you had reported him. I'll continue to monitor what's happening. --Guinnog 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bochkovo
Dear Todor, on Eastern Orthodox Church you placed a very beautiful photo of Bulgarian monastery. Thanks a lot. Do you have any photos of Bachkovo Monastery? Thanks in advance. Ldingley 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Todor, thanks a lot. You should really be proud of such magnificent monasteries. Those photos are amazing. Its my dream to visit both monasteries. I visited many churches and monasteries in Georgia and Armenia. Thanks again Todor! All the best. Ldingley 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Tobor, Bulgarians have very old and interesting History. I was studying the period about Bulgarian resistance against Byzantine hegemony (especially of Basil II), and killing of 15,000 Bulgarians by the treacherous Byzantine generals. Bochkovo is a typical Georgian church and probably Bakuriani (the architect) celebrated the glory of Georgian Christianity in design of the monastery. He actually forbade Greeks to enter his monastery due to the reason that Greeks tend to destroy what is not Greek. Georgians have very old churches and most of them have autocephalous architecture from Byzantians or Slavs. Byzantine emperors always tried to destroy Georgian churches and force Georgian kings to build only Byzantine stile. However, I can clearly see huge Byzantine influence on Bulgarian churches (exam. Nevsky Church in Sofia). When Basil killed 15,000 Bulgarians, he then invaded Tao (eastern Georgian province) to fight fellow orthodox Georgians. I never understood that. We should also add Bulgarian icons to the Eastern Orthodox Church article. Thanks. Ldingley 18:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Todor, I knew about the blinding of the Bulgarians. It was very treacherous indeed. You should read this article Byzantine-Georgian wars. Bochkovo’s architect Bakuriani was a count in Georgia. He traveled to Bulgaria in order to build monastery there under the request of Georgian King. I don’t know many things from his biography but I can find out from sources. Bochkovo’s location is very beautiful. We should have a least one bulgarian icon in the orthodox article. The only ones I see there are Russian. Ldingley 19:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Todor, Please review Eastern Orthodox Church. I change the photo of Rila. If you dont like it, please change it back. Thanks Ldingley 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I purchase many photos (I do journalistic work in E. Europe). Those which are purchased by me are my property and I can release their rights. The author was not indicated by the seller (as it is their right). I have about 120 photos of Bulgaria, which are copyrighted to me and only I can release them under the contract which I have with the seller company (gettimages, eye of Georgia, etc). Ldingley 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC against you
I started an RfC against your general behaviour here in Wikipedia. -- Eliade 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "bad words", "worked in a provocative way". My my, such talented description.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dont think you should worry about it. Its obviously made up and unsourced. Does not stand scrutiny.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


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 03:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Todor
I am not a sockpuppet of ElevatedStork. Please remove the sockpuppet tag from my page. Rater 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What was what? Simply, ElevatedStork sent me a message in my old account, but I forgot my password. So I created a new account. But I am not ElevatedStork, neither ElevatedStork is me. Rater 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Todor
Dear Todor, I've just examined your contributions and some of your excellent articles, and I'm just curious - how come you're not an admin yet? I feel you have the right approach, attitude and understanding for the mop. What can I do to convince you to take a ride on the Mopping rollescoaster? ;) Big hugs,  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Map of Bulgaria
Hi, Todor. There's a problem with Image:Bulgaria-(893-927)-TsarSimeon-byTodorBozhinov.png: it seems that it's just a nationalist map with little to do with the reality. I find it very hard to believe that Tsar Simeon actually ruled that huge territory. He might had some incursions in that land, but that does not mean that it was part of the Bulgarian Empire.

I googled for sources and only found a similar map on a far-right Bulgarian site: http://www.bgns.net/site/images/stories/history/karti/2-14.jpg Do you have any actual sources to support that map ?bogdan 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nikola Gruev's gallery and WP:EL
See here. If I'm wrong, I'll stop. Also, please be careful with some reversions, as they may have included other links that are in at least one case quite malicious. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)  21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)  21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Map
My basic idea with that map was to show only municipalities where South Slavs are majority in Romania. Of course, another map could be made showing the percent of South Slavic groups in each of the municipalities (or counties) of Romania (like it was made for Hungarians for example), but it is little bigger job, and by my opinion, it is not much important to show municipalities where South Slavs are not majority, no matter how large minority they are there, but minority is only minority. Alternatively, another map could be made showing all settlements (villages and towns) with South Slavic minority in Romania. I could be interested to draw that map, but currently I do not have enough data about this, because I have only data about ethnic composition of municipalities, not of settlements. The point is that if Denta municipality have 18.98% Bulgarians, we should not create a map showing Denta municipality, but map showing village in that municipality where Bulgarians are majority (if that is a case here, of course). As I said, I do not have data about settlement populations, but if you have that data, you can list all settlements where Bulgarians are majority in "Banat Bulgarians" article. Later, we can make a map of these settlements, of course. PANONIAN  (talk)  23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I guess you are right: I would have thought there were more, but apparently the communities have nothing of the presence they used to have. The Divers bulletin mentions some localities with Orthodox Bulgarian presence, but also points out that it is a significant fact that Bulgarians nowadays form part of the 0.55% non-Romanian population (!) of (get this) Sighetu Marmaţiei... I mean, just how low is is their presence in other places for this to be significant? I would have though that somewhere in Northern Dobruja they account for more, that there would have been more in Bucharest... It's onlt 2,000 people for the entire Romania but Banat. I am kinda bewildered, actually... Dahn 12:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Romania
The Bulgarians living near Bucharest came in the early 19th century, fleeing from the Turks, but they eventually were assimilated. According to the 2002 census, in Ilfov County there were only 27 Bulgarians, of which 12 spoke natively Bulgarian. (in Bucharest, there were 370 Bulgarians, of which 301 spoke natively Bulgarian).

As for the Romanian Dobruja, the Bulgarians moved to Bulgaria during the population exchange, so currently there are only 135 Bulgarians. (See Dobruja) bogdan 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th


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 05:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

About your contributions


Здравей! Сега виждам колко много труд хвърляш, и колко хубави статии на български теми си написал и/или превел! Браво и продължавай в същия дух! С поздрав! --5ko 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Честито и от мен :) и да си носиш заслужената награда със здраве --Cameltrader 10:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Edit on Geography of Bulgaria
(I am wiritng in English Since my comments concern the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Bulgaria in the English Wikipedia )

Hi Todor, First of all I would like to express my respect and gratitude to your work contributed here. I wish however to dispute the edit that you have done on the Geograph of Bulgaria page delering the external references I added to the article yesterday to professionally compiled and unique information on Bulgaria, which cover very closely and precisely the subject.

The information that I linked is not commericial in its nature and the fact that it is part of a commercial site does not make it inelibible for Wikipedia?

If you think that the articles linked lack merit can you please give us some additional explanations. Adding an extranal resource to an articles is not SPAM by itself. And in this case I think it will contribute Wiki Readers more than the recepient site.

Best wishes Vesselin

ARticle
Here is the article I had mentioned on Bulgarian reactions to history I find the news item more interesting than the comment Politis 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms' resizing
How do you plan to do that? I was just thinking about adding a fixed 135px width. --Cameltrader 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, you changed the template, now I saw it. :) --Cameltrader 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, we would use SVG or something and forget about scaling. I'll do some more experimenting (in a separate temporary template) - I hope we can get something out of thumbs. And just for comparison - the general "City Infobox" template uses a 100px width. The German one uses 135px, which I mistook for the standard. --Cameltrader 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A size paramter looks like our only choice now. I found no way to fix the height of an image - only the width can be set, but I still hope I can achieve a effect. And you're right - we need a "max height", not a fixed height.


 * I'm sleepy, I'll continue into this tomorrow. --Cameltrader 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use my temporary Template:Infobox Town BG Test for tests, let's not clutter up the history with small reverts. --Cameltrader 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nestinarstvo
Hi, anastenari is αναστενάρι in the Greek alphabet. Also, we have an article on it at the Greek Wikipedia: el:Αναστενάρια. --Telex 10:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, have you seen the Macedonistic map at the bottom of this page? I know that what it says about Bulgaria and Greece is complete bollocks, but they are also presenting areas which their own census found an ethnic Albanian majority as being ethnically Macedonian! --Telex 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also like the sharp boundaries of Blagoevgrad oblast. You would think there is a wall separating it from the rest of Bulgaria. Of course, that is due to the fact that according to Republican historians, Blagoevgrad province has historically had the purest Macedonian population.    /FunkyFly.talk_  14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think i made a mistake, when referring to this custom as been alive in Kozani. i mixed it with the ritual of kladaria:p (a similar one). anyway, all the sources i found agree with yours, that it was brought in northern Greece by the Greeks of eastern Rumelia. The letter u showed me is very enlightening;). it says that the villages they came from are Costi and Brodilovo (from the area of Sozopole) and Vasiliko, Mitsiouri, Grammatiko and Mourtsovo (i am not sure what the names are in Bulgarian), and that they came in Greece in 3 waves in 1914, 1918 and 1923. it goes on saying that it first begun during the Iconoclasm period. according to the sources i found, the custom revives before Easter(Saracosti), on 15th August (to honour Theotokos), on 20th May (the night before the day of St. Constantine and St. Helen) and as this source says, also the day of St. Athanasius (18th January). Some say that its origins are not only Thracian, but that it also has Bacchic (Dionysus) origins, perhaps referring to the ecstasy of those who take part in it. in any case it really is a custom showing the common heritage of Greeks and Bulgarians;). i think that the names used to call it, also have common origin... i will move the greek name to the top of the article (if its ok with u) and write it in plural (since this is how the ritual is called. Ciao --Hectorian 17:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info and the links! The design indeed seems a bit Gothic, or at least central-northern European, but not Balkan! I could assosiate the name with a greek root: anastenaria been the plural form of anastenari from modern greek ana+stenazo (ανά+στενάζω) which in turns comes from the ancient greek ανά+στενόω-ω. the Bulgarian name nestinarstvo seems quite similar, i think (i am not sure if it is pronounced the way it it written in the latin alphabet, though)... Concerning the dialect of the Greeks in the region, it could be, as u say, quite distinct from the dialect of the cities, since many modern greek dialects have varying degrees of intellegibility with standard greek and with one another. but, without been an expert on the subject, i do not think that it was as distinct as Pontic Greek or Cappadocian Greek, since it was spoken so close to Constantinoupoli and to the Greek mainland... btw, check your email. Regards --Hectorian 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
Do you have any idea what the Turkish name for Dzhanka is? As Turks are the major ethinc group there, I think it should be mentioned in the article. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good! Perhaps you can expand a little on the Apriltsi article ;-). By the way, I though it was simply called 'Balkan'. A Bulgarian friend went on holidays there and she said, 'I went to the Balkan'. Politis 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * to (Todor) Ok, thanks for the help! :) &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


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 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Help needed in indentify hoaxing
Hi. At Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, there is some concern that an editor has been adding information about non-existent Bulgarian telvision programmes. Would you take a minute to look at it? Jkelly 23:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind... apparantly these have been speedied. Jkelly 23:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Year links
I see you often remove year links. Do you have an idea what the preferred style is for years "Before the Common Era"? Are there any user settings which would work (or might work if implemented some day) when the year is ? E.g. some may prefer BC, others &mdash; BCE. The Manual of Style doesn't discuss this. --Cameltrader 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


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 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Keep up the good work! --Srikeit (Talk 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK
...and another --Srikeit (Talk 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


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 06:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Balkh and "byal"
Actually, the claim was about Bulgaria and places around it. I found that interesting: the source traces the migration of Proto-Bulgarians by places with such names (look at the maps). Anyway, I don't insist on including this. It mentions touchable topics such as Aryan/Turkic origin, and may be just bullshit. --Cameltrader 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (terminology)
...you know the drill! :-) •N i k o S il v e r•  10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pipeline
I will. It's in the pipeline:) Cretanforever

Signpost updated for September 5th.


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 06:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

индже войвода
Hi Todor, Thanks for you comments on this AfD. As I don't read Bulgarian, I'm afraid there's nothing else I can add to the article. Would it be possible for you to expand it a little (e.g. by translating the brief biography in the link I put into the article?).

I think a small amount of reliable text would really improve the article!

Regards, Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   01:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it's good know that someone who knows what they are doing has worked on the page. I was editing very much in the dark in a subject I know nothing about, in a language I don't speak which uses a script that I can just about transliterate.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   13:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Renewal efforts of the Ohrid Archbishopric
I am sorry you find the “creation of mine” disgusting. As for Macedodnistic-sounding, I can not help it, much of the articles are various quotes. Obviously you don’t like them but this is not “my creation”. As for non-existent Slavic Macedonian ethnic group in the 19th century, I will answer you with Gologanov’s quote : “there were no Greeks and Serbs, nor Bulgarians in Macedonia. The country was inhabited by Macedonians, who are ethnically distinct from the other three Balkan peoples’”. Now why is so difficult for Bulgarians to accept the fact that there were people like him it’s beyond me, really it’s your problem. As for the historians: feel free to find contributions from non Macedonian historians, even Bulgarian one, if it so anti-Bulgarian in your view. Much of the documents can be found in the archive of Vatican, before you start disputing the validity of the documents, especially corespondence with the Pope and bishups. Overall, you disapoint me, for some reason I thought you were slightly more moderate and analytical. BTW, Ohrid Church is not claimed that was Macedonian. In fact I’d let FF to put Bulgarian adjective, even thoug Ohrid A. was as Bulgarian as you are Mongolian – all of the high clergy was Greek, jurisdiction over South Italy, Venice, almost entire Balkan (at its peak), etc. --Cigor 03:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, you have problem with:

1. if the stuff really happened; 2. if 1 is true than T.G was not right completelly, rather he was in minority. 3. Ohrid Church is much older than 11th century, nor it was Bulgarian. But even if it was, it's really irelevant: obviously T.G. considered it as Macedonian. Maybe he was wrong there but it is the idea that counts. Everybody knows that Byzantines were not Romans, yet this is how they called themselves.

Like I said I don't see problem with 3. As for 1&2 if you want to make it better find some opinion from other historians, I am sure there is some Bugarian historian that covered that part. Redirecting to MOC makes no sense. --Cigor 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Note on adding full Eastern Orthodox Project to your watchlist
This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: Since the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:


 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy - The main Project page
 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Intro - The introduction to the Project text, in the top box
 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Scope - Goals of the project text
 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Subsections - Listing of Project sub-areas
 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Tasks - Main listing of pages, etc., needing work
 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Templates - Listing of Project templates
 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Participants - Listing of members
 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Related - Listing of areas related to Project
 * WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Notes - Notes on Project

If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. &mdash; Antonios Aigyptos talk  09:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Belgrade reaction
Hi, I know perfectly well that the Slavic name Belgrade was mentioned in a letter exchange between the Bulgarian czar and the Pope in 878 A.D. The other thing I know perfectly well is that Belgrade was settled by a Serbian populous back in 630 A.D., invited by Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius. Belgrade was not to become a part of the Serbian state until te 12/13th century, that's a fact, however there are several facts to be considered. Serbs have settled the Balkans before the Bulgarians, and their first stop on the Balkan soil was the Roman Singidunum, one that they have named the "White City". That town, previously destroyed by the Avar invasion, was the first permanent Serbian settlement on the peninsula. This population however was small and insignificant since the city was in ruins, and it didn't have a big perspective taking that it was a border town towards the "barbaric Central Europe". Serbs were aiming for the Dalmatia province, settling also the Thessalonikki/Macedonia etc.

Of course that Bulgarian czar would call the city Beligrad if it was under Bulgarian occupation, that's perfectly normal! I'm also aware of the city's status as Alba Bulgarica for the same reason. However, for the Serbs Belgrade was ALWAYS Beograd, and the capital of Serbia for 600 years now was always known by that name. Serbs and Bulgarians have always been distinct nations, Bulgarians formed by the Slavic and Turkic roots and Serbs beeing at the time predominantly Slavic (or slavicised, for that matter). The fact is that Beograd was and is a Serbian version of the city's name, while the Bulgarian form is Beligrad (just as f.e. Skopie is Bulgarian and Skoplje is Serbian form of the city's name). User:NeroN_BG

Volume 2
-First of all, my sources are De Administrando Imperio and Einhard, Frankish contamporary historian (to start with at least). Upon their arrival to the Balkans Serbs were invited to settle in the Salonica (Thessaloniki) province, however they have mostly colonised Dalmatia. De administrando imperio proves this

-Second, you are contradicting your own claims. If the Slavs were indeed a 'same South Slavic group'- which by the way does not implicate the same ethnic counciosness- how come the Draguvites could be "Bulgarian", not to mention that at the time Bulgars were hundreds of miles away across the Danube, before the end of the 7th century that is...??(plus, Bulgars are not a Slavic race unlike today's Bulgarians who claim a predominant Slavic ancestry, as you know)..

To cut the long story short, you are right when you say that Bulgarian Belgrade was Beligrad; the letter from 878 A.D. proves that fact. However what it doesn't prove is that the Bulgarians have named the city Belgrade. The letter simply implies that Bulgarian occupied Belgrade (Beligrad) needs a new bishop, nothing else. You need to understand this: by simply using the name Belgrade instead of Singidunum in their correspondance it is quite obvious that the Slavic name has already taken grounds, a.k.a., that there is no more confusion about the city's name, meaning that it must have been changed for some time before the occupation. Simply, the letter proves the Slavic name, but it doesn't prove that the Bulgarians have named it. Had it been otherwise Bulgarians would have probably printed out an official document stating that the city has been renamed by them. Bulgarians are responsible for chronicling the city's Slavic name, but there are no proofs that they were the ones who named it Belgrade. User:NeroN_BG

Greco-Bulgarian relations
Hi, after seeing the article Greco-Armenian relations, I thought that a Greco-Bulgarian relations article would be handy. As the former article is based on primarily one source (the Greek Foreign Ministry), which includes the same data on Bulgaria, it shouldn't be too hard. The problematic issue would be how are we supposed to cover the "History" of the relations? How far back should we go and in how much detail? Greek-Bulgarian interactions haven't always been sweet (e.g. the Second Balkan War, the Bulgarian occupation of parts of northern Greece during WWII). Do you think it would be worth it starting such an article? --Telex 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If I can give my completely uninvited opinion, it would be a great idea, and certainly would be a nice opinion. As for the history, I would advice to start with 1878, when both modern states had been formed. I'm not sure inserting in this article the medieval relations would be such a great idea; instead, a Byzantine-Bulgarian relations would be really nice. Just my two cents, and sorry for intruding.--Aldux 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Todor
Hi, please see my response to Talk:Macedonia (terminology). Are you sure this was the source you were looking for? •N i k o S il v e r• 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


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 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Architecture of Veliko Tarnovo
Hi Todor, Firstly, As I know, this architecture is under patent of Turkey. It's so normal being one of these buildings in former Ottoman Empire countries. If you view the period before Ottoman Empire of Bulgaria, you'll see that there is no these architecture. I don't know about Bulgarian history but at least I know that this style buildings of Veliko Tarnovo made in Ottoman period.

Regarding Turkic people's architecture, you should know about climate; Central Asia's climate is continental which is very cold( -20/-30) in winter time and very hot (~30 to ~+45) in summer but the building is made by wooden. If you build one of them in Central Asia, It won't be firm. Like you can't build Norwegian style buildings in Africa. - Zaparojdik 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's really not Greek architecture, these houses belong to Turkish riches in Bulgaria and as same as in Veliko Tarnovo, See; Greek Revival architecture 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is this Ottomans? Are them another nation? :) They're Turkish of course. It's what that mades me hate Bulgarians to say Turks in Bulgaria are Islamized Balkanians. If you don't know let me tell you; The Turks in Bulgaria arrived to Konya from Turkmenistan and Genetic Genology proclaims that they have Turkic gens where from Central Asia.

Anyway,you says Kolyu Ficheto built the houses but he just re-build. Cause I said wooden is not firm at all. 20:10, 12 September (UTC)


 * I meant to say Bulgarian government's architects rebuilt Turkish architecture building cause of the wooden, that reverted it as stone buildings. Like in Veliko Tarnovo, they all rebuilt at the communist period of Bulgaria. Several non-Turkish populous persons in Ottoman Empire don't change the "Ottoman" people. "Ottoman" is a tribe name of Turkic peoples. Like Bulgarian version Sakskoburgovski has Austrian-Spanish origin but president of Bulgaria, you see? ;) "The Turks in Bulgaria are Turks as much as those in Turkey, and no one claims they aren't." This is really a lie, here some Turks who came from there and they says that Bulgarians always tried to assimilate them. (changing name etc) My neighbour tells me; Bulgarians says to Turks that Turks were Bulgarians.


 * Whatever, we couldn't agree, so it will be more true don't write nothing about origin of "turkish-greek-bulgarian and more" :) architecture buildings. I think there is no Greek in eastern Turkey but like all of Turkey there are these buildings. Sincerely - Zaparojdik 20:40, 12 Septmeber 2006 (UTC)


 * For no more discuss, it will be right "Samovodska Charshiya Street in the Old Town" write under the picture. Meantime how you create your own picture in Genova. I mean others cloudy except you. LOL See ya! - Zaparojdik 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hihihi :) I'm try to learn it cause of my friend, his parents came here from there. I'm fully understand crillic letters but can speak a few words in Bulgarian, Здравей, как се? добре дошъл.. eheh LOL -Zaparojdik 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just started it...
OK, I've just started Greco-Bulgarian relations. Just thought you should know, in case you didn't have anything to do and wanted to help expand an article ;-) --Telex 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement
Todore, I disagree with the revert to Old Church Slavonic. Slavonic = slavonski, from Slavonia. Slavic = slavenski, from Slavs. Google hits aren't always good measure. Of course that it will be more hits on Slavonic, than on Slavic, because Britannica and Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia use word "Slavonic". But they are wrong . Those who wrote those articles aren't Slavs, '''they don't make difference between Slav, slava, Slava, Slavko, slavuj, Slave, slave (verb, 3.pers.pl. of "slaviti"), slave (noun, 1.pers.pl. of "slava"), slavlje, slovo, Slovio, slavica, Slavica, Slavic, Slavonic, Slavia, Slavonia, Slovenia, Slovakia. ''' These words sound all the same for non-Slavic speaker, but for the Slavs it should be clear that these aren't the same things. So, don't intend to allow to non-Slavic scientists to mutilate Slavic words. "Slavonic" is an older form of "Slavic" which has been preserved in the name "Old Church Slavonic". This proofs nothing. It only shows how old this mistake is (in English literature). This mistake in fact contains two mistakes: At least, you're a Slav. You're supposed to know and hear the difference. Maybe you've never heard for Slavonia (northeastern part of Croatia), but here, in Croatia, when a person reads word "Slavonic", he thinks on Slavonia, not on Slavs at all. I hope I've explained you the matter. Kubura 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * it points to wrong direction (Slavonia, instead on Slavs) and
 * it is the example of uncorrect adjective formation (where does that -on comes from?); the -ic is being added on the root, not -onic. How would sound: "Balkanonic nation of Bulgaria", "angelonic face", "Germanonic origin", "cyrillonic letters", "galvanonic cell", "hermetonic seal"....

These links speak for themselves: - Google search for Church Slavonic (271,000 hits) - Google search for Church Slavic ( 1,950,000 hits) Suddenly, we have a change of ratios and numbers here. I'm still saying, the naming of an Slavic language as "Slavonic" is wrong and uncorrect. Possibly this wrong use (Slavonic instead of Slavic) comes from an obsolete scientific terminology for starocrkvenoslavenski. Have in mind the Google results that I've presented you. Now the Wikipedia's naming convention turns the other way. Kubura 00:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your "Slavonic" assistence with User:Kubura. One question - what's that deletion tag on your user page? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Aleksandr Burago
Could you check the page? The author requires some assistance. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've changed the first name of Cpt. Burago to Aleksandr. --BACbKA 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)