User talk:Gligan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:25, 15 February 2010

This is Gligan's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Archives:

1 (- Jan 2008)

Ban warning

I also notice that you have done nothing to clean up your image uploads, despite numerous requests. You are therefore banned from any further image uploads until you can demonstrate a better understanding of our copyright policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, about those images marked as "alcoron", I asked you back in October and got no response. The first thing to do would be to provide the exact link to the site (if possible, to each original image), so we can check if they are indeed free. I'd also suggest you provide more info for the "Skylitzes" ones. I mean, I personally happen to know what the Madrid Skylitzes is, but others won't. I suggest for those you could say:

==Summary==
Image from the [[Madrid Skylitzes]], depicting ...
[[Category:Madrid Skylitzes images]]

Additionally providing a web source would still be good though. I just made that category now, by the way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then didn't know anything about uploading and I have seen that when Todor Bozhinov uploads an image, he usually puts "martyr" as a sign so I thought I can proceed that way and I put "alcoron". I will try to review my images but currently I am sick and I have exams... Thanks for showing me how should I proceed when uploading images. Best, --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just give me the link to that "alcoron" site or whatever it is? Because now the images are tagged, they are likely to get deleted in a week from now if nothing is done about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not a site, just a sign that I have uploaded them. However, I will try to find the site and will put it in your talk page. --Gligan (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That's bad, of course. That guy Nikola Gruev's site has nice images, but he says that they are all not for commercial re-use ([1]). So, unfortunately, we cannot use them. This is bad news, because Todor has apparently uploaded quite a number of them too. We'll have to delete the lot, unless you could contact Gruev and convince him to license them under cc-by-sa or GFDL.

Please note that I tagged quite a number more of your images besides the two that have the twinkle warning on your talk page, please check my contributions from this morning.

As for the page protection, it was obviously The Wrong Version (TM), as always. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a mistake many people make. We are not a commercial site, but our content must be free for others, including commercial sites, to re-use.

(copied from User talk:TodorBozhinov:) :P.S. In fact, I now see the page on bg-wiki that is linked from {{NGruev}} bg:Уикипедия:Разрешения за ползване на материали/Никола Груев. That page is confusing: It states there that he licensed them under GFDL, but only for use on Wikipedia. That's a contradiction in terms. If it's for Wikipedia only, it isn't the GFDL. I can't read the original mail by him that is included in that page, can you translate? It seems that when he wrote it he may not have been aware what the GFDL actually said. This looks like one unfortunate mess to clean up. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, reading the English wording on that page again, maybe I was a bit quick there. It says "other pictures for another purpose". Could you please clarify for me what the Bulgarian is saying, is Gruev really explicit about it that he's aware that once an image is on Wikipedia, it can be re-used anywhere else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Laveol explained it for me. Seems the Gruev stuff is okay after all. I'll add the tags to those airport images. Please be so kind and go through your other upload logs at your earliest convenience and add the remaining sources. I've added some info to the Skylitzes ones (I love those!); in that case the pd-art status is of course unproblematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good luck! And thanks for the translations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

You can read about ways of archiving your talkpage here or you can try automatic archiving from Werdnabot like I do. Cheers. --Laveol ^T 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for images I guess you mean one of those sites. If this is the case you have forgotten to put the relevant tags in. Like {{NGruev}} or {{cc-by-2.5}} or {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} with the proper attributes. --Laveol ^T 08:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you click on {{cc-by-2.5}} and {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} you'll notice that there is a text explaining that you should include attribution details like this {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}. What you need to add there is the exact spot where you have taken the images from so that the original author of the work is mentioned. --Laveol ^T 08:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived the page for you. (Copy-and-paste method). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

За да ти се архивира страницата автоматично, сложи следния код най-отгоре:

{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=30|target=./Archive {{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=Werdnabot|botlink=User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto}}{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}

(без nowiki границите). Или пък вземи по-простия template от Werdnabot, както предлага Лавеол. age=30 са периода (в дни) на който искаш да се архивира.Lantonov (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the help : ) --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vidin

Could you please explain this change? --Olahus (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me the link to the discussion with User:Mentatus, so I can read it? --Olahus (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Stop vandalising since the result of the poll is against your vandalisation. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vidin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. LightAnkhC|MSG 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image

Sure thing! I've restored it and given you some extra time to source it. east.718 at 19:09, January 22, 2008

Vidin

The page Vidin has been protected from editing due to edit warring. Please discuss changes on the talk page; in the future, please consider the dispute resolution process. Note that further edit warring or three revert rule violations may be met with a block.

If you have questions or concerns, I would be happy to answer to them. - Revolving Bugbear 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, but my opponent only reverted without discussion and I was annoyed. I know you are right. --Gligan (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the editing gets tough. I would suggest trying to find some common ground to work from, and starting there. There are also a great many editors who will be happy to assist the situation. (I generally am available for mediation but I am currently already involved in multiple cases.) The important thing is to keep your head about you and remember that it's no big deal.

Like I said, if I can do something for you, let me know. I'm here to help. - Revolving Bugbear 20:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I will keep it in mind and will ask you for help in such cases, thank you : ) --Gligan (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the article Rousse and, I have to say, this is not vandalism; it is a content dispute. Have you considered informal mediation? - Revolving Bugbear 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is obviously not here now but still, please keep an eye on that article and tell me whether I shall revert possible future vandalism myself or I shall wait for you or someone else to do that. Of course I can start discussion on that matter on Talk:Ruse. --Gligan (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the article. However, like I said, in my opinon this is not vandalism, it is a content dispute. Continued reversion would be inappropriate. I strongly suggest dispute resolution. - Revolving Bugbear 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Serres

I can see that I am not the only one complaining about your aggressive editing that introduce non-neutral points of view. To respond to your questions: in battles between nations, the idea of "betrayal" is always questionable. Please cite relevant work before using this work. Feel free to reword the "liberated" word in other places as well. I think that the idea of "liberating" an area will always be subjective, given that some other controlling power has "lost the area". I am fine using the word "seized / conquested" instead of "liberated". Ipeirotis (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not understand that you are referring to Bulgarian strongholds. The article does not convey this impression. I would recommend to write in smaller sentences and avoid the use of pronouns. The use of "their strongholds and bases" was ambiguous. "Their" could refer both to Byzantines and Bulgarians. Also, refrain from reverting to a previous edition. I have made other changes to the article that are legitimate and are fixing typos, and you have reverted them. Ipeirotis (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of the three revert rule at Rousse. Note that neither of you is vandalizing the article, as each of you claims, and both of you are revert warring and editing disruptively. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Revolving Bugbear 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Bulgars

Category:Bulgars, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –-Latebird (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Bulgaria

I saw that you were interested for medieval Bulgaria. Do you know some online book about this subject? --Vojvodaen (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'am studying history in Belgrade so I can find some books on bulgarian (I understand a little). Is Zlatarski history of medieval Bulgaria still good book on this subject.--Vojvodaen (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatarski is always relevant. --Laveol ^T 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article Vasil Zlatarski. You might want to look at it. It is still unfinished and the text is very raw at the moment but what follows is a critical discussion of all volumes of his history. Lantonov (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Vojvodaen (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in Bulgaria

I note that you reverted a section of the article without discussion: I also note that you were warned that you could be placed on parole concerning edit-warring on the same subject. I declined a vandalism report on the deletion, since it's not vandalism but a content dispute. Please do not simply delete content without discussion, or use the terms of the proposed parole to carry on a slow-motion edit war. Acroterion _(talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gligan is a repeat offender. As soon as his ban ended he went ahead and replaced the entire Ottoman rule section in Bulgaria (which was the original cause for his banishment.) Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you finally cut it with the false accusations and personal attacks. Did you even see what Gligan tried to do on the article. And yes, it was an admin that helped him work it out. --Laveol ^T 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked you to stop acting as if you were Gligan's representative. An emerging pattern is that you come to the defense of this user in a number of different articles which makes me suspect the two user accounts might be somehow related. Gligan was not even aware that he was banned from uploading images before. I also read that some user accounts originating in Bulgaria were determined to operate on a 24 hour basis out of IP adresses out of Bulgaria. I am getting suspicious. Is it a coincidence that you always come to the defense of this user? He could certainly speak for himself.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nostradamus1

Since he is getting really impolite and offensive, I've opened a case about him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Nostradamus1's behaviour. --Laveol ^T 11:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:55161736.sP1229386.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:55161736.sP1229386.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turks_in_Bulgaria#Medieval_Turkic_Peoples_of_Bulgaria

What is your problem? Why do you remove this part rapidly? --Ilhanli (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images (reminder)

Gligan, can I remind you that there are still a lot of images you uploaded that have no proper source and licensing information? I'd ask you again to go through them all and either mark them as deletable or add full info. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:P1070745.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:P1070745.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Zemenski manastir 09.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Zemenski manastir 09.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:300px-Solidus-Nicephorus I 04.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:300px-Solidus-Nicephorus I 04.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Madara-rider-gruev (closer look) 1.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Madara-rider-gruev (closer look) 1.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Att-4530f2b0d0708riza.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Att-4530f2b0d0708riza.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Coin Ivan Shishman-1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Coin Ivan Shishman-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:30 Asen I.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:30 Asen I.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Monetttd-1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Monetttd-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Mediation

I included you in the list of users for formal mediation. You can indicate your agreement or disagreement to participate.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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) 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Turks in Bulgaria.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 04:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Cumans

No problem for me, please find a reference to it, then you can restore it. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other names beside it have references for example, that kind of reference will work. --Chapultepec (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stupid"?

Don't call me stupid, dickhead. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, calm down, it's only a newly-added unfinished <ref>. You can apply {{Template:Inuse}} while doing major edits to let other users know that you are not finished yet. --Cameltrader (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Great job on Battle of Kleidon :) --Laveol ^T 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Macedonians in Bulgaria

YOu have restored Laveol's edit on macedonians in bulgaria when it has been made clear that the article is waiting an administrative check. It clearly states 'please leave until fut per. checks the page', please follow these guidelines P m kocovski (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't say such a thing - he had to look on Fut.Perf's talkpage to see. --Laveol ^T 23:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Plovdiv_flag-1-.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Plovdiv_flag-1-.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU≈talk 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Wow, big thanks for the award. И Христос воскресе :)--Laveol ^T 14:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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) 00:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians

Since you're hear, could you please revert the page Bulgarians. It was sort of vandalised by a user, but I'm out of reverts. (Just a note - I'm not recruiting you in any way - I just want the proper version restored). --Laveol ^T 20:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) And cheers. --Laveol ^T 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome : ) --Gligan (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel

Good luck with your exams. But the page hasn't really changed that much since February, and not all of the changes are beneficial. (Tell Risker that French apparition is normally appearance in English.) It would be much more than a week's work to fix it. I'm glad to see that someone (you, if I read the diffs correctly) has consulted Ostrogorsky; but he is only the first of several more recent works which you should not only look at but absorb. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my sumpathies. You really should not do that; but if you are going to make an effort, I can consult Ostrogorsky for you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian authors in translation, I remind you, are perfectly acceptable; the difficulty with Zlatarski is that he hasn't been translated (and that some work has been done since his death). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the translation if you can (Google Books is good for this); if not, cite chapter and page of the original and title of the translation, and I'll try to run it down. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatarski simply needs support from a modern source in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done

I just wanted to say well done and thank you for the work you have done on here. I have done a little work on a few pages about Bulgaria (mainly about Plovdiv) and have noticed the time and effort you have put in to make sure all the Bulgarian pages are factually correct.

I am English myself but my wife is Bulgarian and we travel back to Bulgaria about three times a year. I do love Bulgaria very much :) Koal4e 18:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulgaria in World War I

The problem was that the second parameter of Tnavbar-collapsible, which should normally be subst:PAGENAME, pointed to a different template (a copy/paste leftover, maybe). I'll get back for the flags and colours later. Btw, I favour discussions in English because of WP:TPG#Good_practice, but feel free to write in Bulgarian if you prefer. --Cameltrader (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:General Kiselov.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Gligan!
We thank you for uploading Image:General Kiselov.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PrirodaBG.jpg

Hello. Please add to the description of Image:PrirodaBG.jpg links to the images in Commons that you have used to create it. Thank you. --Daggerstab (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulgarian Empire

A nice idea for the template, but I think it should be better divided in two template: one for the First Bulgarian Empire and one for the Second Bulgarian Empire. The topics don't intersect much and the template is already getting very large. bogdan (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-31 List of Turkic states and empires

I, along with another editor, have taken the case. It is now open. Feel free to come over and comment. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 20:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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) 00:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Forest Strandzha.jpg

It currently says, on Flickr, that the image is all rights reserved. Are you the author of the image? If so, why have you not changed the license on Flickr? J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read Bulgarian? Does the uploader there claim to be the author? It looks to me like someone just assumed every image on Flickr was free. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the sourcing and the licensing - everything looks fine now. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Самуил

Здравей и съжалявам за закъснелия отговор, напоследък не съм много активен. Ще погледна статията по-подробно, когато имам време, иначе разбира се, че ще гласувам за нея, само кажи когато я пуснеш :) Поздрави, Todor →Bozhinov 09:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baba vida12.jpg

Just to let you know that you uploaded the image under the wrong license. I've fixed it for you now, but just in case you upload anything else from that batch of photos, it's cc-by-2.5, not GFDL. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed I messaged you the other day- I'm not stalking you, I'm just doing a lot of new image patrolling! J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Like a photo of a painting? Generally, no, as that would be a derivative work, so still under the copyright of the original artist/photographer, but if the photo is out of copyright for whatever reason (or its use would fall under [[WP:NFCC|our non-free content criteria) then yes. Could you be a little more specific? J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurgh, that's a grey area. If it's in a public place, there's something called a right of panorama, whereby you can freely take pictures in a public place, but to be honest, I'm not sure how far that extends. Try asking at media copyright questions. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Bulgarian Army

Hello! The article is quite good, if in need of a few more copyedits. One major thing that bothers me is the way you have listed the sources and citations used. For instance, you say "Cantacuzenos, I, p. 429. 19", but this is of no help to anyone trying to verify this. Which Catacuzenos is this, which work do you mean, which edition is it, what language, etc.? Especially when you use medieval authors, page numbers are simply insufficient, since they differ in every edition. You should concentrate and present your sources clearly in the "References" section. For an example on what I mean by "clear presentation" of sources & citations, check the Roman-Persian Wars article. Another thing, I would try to find a few more English sources (perhaps through Google Books), which are easier accessible to the average reader of this article, and, generally, more neutral.

Also, you should avoid repeating information: since you have created a separate "tactics" section, limit all tactical descriptions there, removing them from the "history" section. For instance, the use of the feigned flight tactic is mentioned thoroughly in the section on the 7th-8th century. You should take this down to the Tactics section. Indeed, most of the 7th-8th century section concerns structure, armament & tactics, and not history per se. Just limit the history section to a brief summary of campaigns and major battles, their outcome and impact, political and major social or religious developments, etc. If I may suggest, take a look at the Byzantine navy page, which presents a quite clear distinction between history and organizational matters. Furthermore, there is too little information on the battles that led to the Ottoman conquest. The same actually also applies to the section on the 7th-8th century: it is taken up by organizational matters, with too little actual history. You might also want to include a short introduction to the Bulgars, as most readers won't be familiar who they were or where they came from. And a few maps are also more than necessary, so that they'll be able to actually put the cities mentioned in the article in a geographical context. I'll try to help, but as my university exams are coming up, I don't know how much time I'll have (probably too little). Also, it's always a good idea to submit it for a Peer Review. Cheers and best regards, Constantine ✍ 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wishes! :) Constantine ✍ 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Приветствие

Здравей! Чрез тази уикипедия допринасяш за популяризирането на някои интересни български факти, но българската уикипедия понякога изостава спрямо това. Затова по-добре пиши и там ако видиш, че нещо го няма. Поздрави Николов (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar

Hi. I was wondering if you have any interest in the immediate postwar history of Bulgaria. Certainly Nikola Petkov deserves a 5-6 good paragraphs at least, plus something on the 1945 and '46 elections, and perhaps the monarchy referendum. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - thank you! Personally, I find the 1944-48 years quite depressing too (abolition of the Romanian (and indeed Bulgarian and Yugoslav) monarchy (other than Greece, the last three Orthodox monarchies), confirmed losses of Bessarabia and, though you surely disagree, Southern Dobrogea, imposition of Stalinism), but they also make for an interesting study. For example, I suppose Romania and Bulgaria were doomed to become Communist, while Czechoslovakia (perhaps Hungary too) was not - but because the Communists were so much better organised then their opponents, and the country had Soviet troops on its soil, they eventually came out on top. Anyway, people like Petkov or Iuliu Maniu deserve our deep admiration for at least trying, but nobly failing, to stop the descent into terror. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I did not know that about the two Dimitrovs. In all fairness, I will say that of the territories Romania lost in 1940, the Romanian case was the weakest for Southern Dobrogea. I suppose we enjoyed the additional beaches ;) It's definitely an open, and interesting, question the way things could have gone after the war. The Americans could have, but didn't, take Prague in early 1945. Then again, the Soviets held Eastern Austria until 1955 but left, and they could very easily have turned Finland into a dictatorship, but chose not to. But the Communists did have broad popular support in the Czech lands, plus the Soviet troops there; and Hungary had been a Nazi satellite, so that didn't do them any good after the war either. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vagueness

Hello, the vagueness I was referring to is that the prior sentence doesn't specify if the list of military ranks is in ascending/descending/random order, that's all. Thanks - Mr0t1633 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of the European Union

Hi. Unfortunately I reverted your edits because I was reverting a Bonaparte sock. Could you please restore them yourself? I didn't want to mess them up. Khoikhoi 23:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power plants

Good job with those Bulgarian power plants. Interesied in Bulgarian film? We need to develop Bulgarian films of the 1980s etc like Bulgarian films of the 1960s ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On to it - at the moment a user stops playing with Bulgaria-related articles I'll go to BG films of the 1970s and to the 80s then. It takes too much time dealing with him and his friend. Btw I asked a user to look at the list and tell me what it needs - he said references. Where am I supposed to get references? --Laveol ^T 10:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi. The 60s list looks brilliant, I know you have been busy. I will try and start a few films myself when I have time. References? Mmm you could leave an imdb external links at the end of each film to like it to imdb. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oks, I got the impression he meant some other references. I couldn't find any besides the encyclopaedia. As for the films' articles - I've found pictures for some recently and plan to create a couple of articles on films and actors. --Laveol ^T 10:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Laveol will do that job much better ;-) my knowledge of cinema is very limited - to my mind I can't even tell the names of ten actors - both Bulgarian and foreign :-) --Gligan (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - I don't know that much either :) I'm just using the sources. Any help anywhere would be welcome. Mail? Cheers. --Laveol ^T 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map is brilliant, please add it in. Thanks for your hardwork. Tourskin (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great map :). Just a little note - could you upload the images you create to Commons directly? That way it could be used in all Wikiprojects and it won't need subsequent move to Commons. I've uploaded it there as well [2], but I haven't figured out the whole "Moving to Commons" stuff yet. I'll give it little read and see what the transferring rules are. If you don't have time to deal with Commons, I'll simply move them there. Thanks :) --Laveol ^T 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian-Serbian Wars (medieval)

I've put an "Under construction" tag on the article. There was an user making ... unjustified edits to it and I saw you've left Samuil's campaigns with just a header so I thought you'd be still working on it. Cheers :) --Laveol ^T 00:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Forest Strandzha.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Forest Strandzha.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC) --Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. With Flickr it's a frequent misunderstanding. Those can be under quite different copyright status, depending on the choice of the photographer. You always need to check what it says for each individual image, it's near the bottom right of the screen on the flickr page (saying "all rights reserved" or "some rights reserved"). But in this instance, your misunderstanding seems to have been mainly that you thought the uploader on bg-wiki was actually the photographer and was giving it a valid license there, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, then, could you do me a favour and propose it for deletion on bg-wiki too?

There's also:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way what happens if the author once had another tag, allowing the use of the image on Wikipedia, but has changed it subsequently?--Laveol ^T 11:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oltenia map

File:Terratransalpina.png

"The Banate of Severin was founded in the 1230s as a territory of Hungary, the first ban, Luke, being mentioned in 1233. In 1247, King Béla IV of Hungary allowed the Knights Hospitaller to settle in Severin to defend the Hungarian borders against the invaders. A diploma gives them Severin and other possessions pertaining to it, including the "knyazates of John and Farkas", but excluding the voivodate of Litovoi, which was to be left to the Vlachs who were holding it. They were also allowed to use the land beyond the Olt River ("Cumania"), with the exception of the Vlach voivodate of Seneslau, which had similar rights like Litovoi.

The Knights Hospitallers probably failed in their mission, as only a few years later, they disappeared from the region. In the meantime, Litovoi increased his power, rebelling in 1272 against the Hungarian King Ladislaus IV wanting to gain the territory of the Banate of Severin, an important strategic point. The king sent George, son of Simon, to fight against Litovoi, killing him in battle and capturing his brother, Bărbat, bringing him to the royal court. Bărbat became Litovoi's successor, ruling his voivodate between 1285 and 1288."

So in 1261, in Oltenia, apart from the Banate of Severin, there were only hungarian vassals: Litovoi, and probably John and Farkas, if they survived until then. I am not aware of a Bulgarian conquest of Oltenia in this period--Alex:Dan (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. But one common error of the various historical maps is to consider Oltenia=Banate of Severin. Here you have a map with the approximate eastern border of Banate of Severin. --Alex:Dan (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try it a little bit later. It's rather difficult because the map is pretty small. --Alex:Dan (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Please see User_talk:Xavexgoem#I_am_abroad.2C_away_from_home . --07fan (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Image:12_Telerig.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:12_Telerig.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 12:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albania

Hi. You may have noticed that user "Taulant23" has been removing Bulgarians and Serbians from the list of nations that have ruled over the present-day territory of Albania. This is an ongoing problem. You have provided one source providing evidence that Bulgaria was present there and I have provided three sources demonstrating Serbia's former presence. My sources are quite neutral and include political maps, a paragraph from a Montenegrin gov't website, and a book by Alan Dundes where Vuk Karadžić is cited. The vandal has not provided any counter evidence that could cast doubt on our sources and explains his reverting us only by saying "STOP UR POV". I am unfamiliar with starting administrative intervention on vandalism cases and would appreciate it if you could help me out here by contacting a wikipedia acquaintance of sufficient ability to intervene in the matter. Thank you. Off topic now... Why do you support the independence of Vojvodina? Your stance on FYROM+Bulgaria and independence of Wales and Scotland suggests that you desire to see unity and self-determination for all peoples. I don't see how supporting the fragmentation of Serbia(without Kosovo) resonates with your other supported causes. Anyway, just something I find a bit odd. You don't have to respond to that last bit. Its irrelevant to the matter at hand. Again, thanks for your help.

The vandal is: --Taulant23 (talk)

I am - Gkmx (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. There has been actually quite an extensive dialogue in the discussion page for the Albania article where I along with two other users have been debating/discussing the legitimacy of the addition of Bulgarians and Serbians to the list. One of the users has agreed with me (this one actually was willing to look through the sources and reason clearly). The other user (the vandal) has not been willing to give a factually based reason as to why Serbs and Bulgarians are being removed from the list. I'll give it a try to speak with the vandal personally again. I'm sorry if the Vojvodina question was too personal. Though, if you do want to let me know your reasoning for your position, my email is 'gkmxjm@gmail.com'. Its really just curiosity on my part. Regards, Gkmx (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:183_BG.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:183_BG.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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) 18:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Привет отново!

Искам да те попитам какво мислиш за един въпрос в българската уикипедия, но тука не мога да разясня толкова голяма тема виж ми профила там. --Николов (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tikvesh Uprising

Hi, since you are a member of Wikiproject Bulgaria, can you please put a logo of the project on the page of the Tikvesh Uprising? Thank you. Chief White Halfoat (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gligan

Offending?? What question about the cultural marks about Greeks, Romans and Ottoman’s should I loose my time explained to you. Are you crazy? You would tell me that there is no cultural mark that Greeks have left in Albania? If you don’t know this, why you really revise in here. Maybe we can come in a compromise by adding that Albania was overruled by these people(Serbs,Bulgarians etc etc) but there is not such a think as cultural and ruins in Albania from Bulgaria or Serbia.--Taulant23 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) p.s.I have nothing with Bulgarians.[reply]

OK,I will double check on it.As a cultural mark you would describe a church too?--Taulant23 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unification

You support what???--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You live in dream as your country!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dreamer, this (Perhaps your only chance is your government to admit the falsification of historical documents (which as you know began even before the Serbian and then Yugoslav occupation), remove the still-existing Serbian influence and join Bulgaria before it is too late.) is not offensive for you? And I do not think anything about this topic, I am sure thet this is the dream of every BG and because of thet I do not get it how you people can live with thet idea when we are different nation? I do not get it this BG idea, making one nation Bulgarian. It is the same as if I consider and claim BG as Serbian territory and nation. LOL --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know why! You should stop reading BG books and BG authors. It causes dangerous effects and with reading only BG books, it will be very difficult to accept the reality. The Macedonians were never BG and I ensure you thet none of the ethnic Macedonian (even the most stupid one) were never even thought thet they are BG. And MK and BG were never one country, MK was occupied from BG, we destroy every single Фашист. Awake from thet San Stefano dream! Also, Macedonian's origin is from here, while the BG are from Asia, it is a fact.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the personal attacks. Another reference to the Tatar nonsense and you're going to the noticeboard...again. Stop attacking other contributors, but look into your own words first. --Laveol ^T 13:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bla, bla, bla... Where did you read Tatar?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that you're saying it, but not with the exact same words. I told you to stop making references to it. We all know what it means. And we're not guys from the east or the south either. I suggest you take a short break for the rest of the day for example. It seems you have got into too much disputes for a day and the way you're going they're not gonna end. Just close wikipedia and come back tomorrow. This is a friendly advice - I just think you'll get into more trouble if you continue. --Laveol ^T 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks doctor! --MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the sarcasm already. --Laveol ^T 17:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian revolutionary organiZations

Hi, I tried to move the page Bulgarian revoloutionary organisations to a page with the correct spelling, i.e Bulgarian revolutionary organizations (s -> z), but I can't move it according to the wiki standarts, described in Help:Moving a page. I can't find a 'move' tab?? Can you move pages in Wikepedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief White Halfoat (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria World War I

You created Bulgaria in World War I, there is already a page that similar Bulgaria during World War I. Why don't you mix 2 articles together? Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Att-4530fb8827831l_zv.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Att-4530fb8827831l_zv.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel of Bulgaria

Hi, Thanks for you note regarding this article. I had a look through it and made some pretty minor changes where I could. It made a good read and a good article. However I personally don't think it is quite ready for Featured Article status. There are still some sentences such as 'From 980 to 997, he was a general for Roman I of Bulgaria, the second surviving son of Emperor Peter I of Bulgaria, and co-ruled with him, as Roman bestowed him command of the army and the real authority.' which sounded rather poor but I was not sure how to fix them (I'm not the greatest wordsmith myself!). I also noted in the infobox that it has a caption 'Anthropological reconstruction of Samuil's face' but no image. Without an image there and a relevant caption I doubt it would be featured. You could try again for good article status first but suggest getting a more experienced copyeditor to go through the article first. Davewild (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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) 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlach-Bulgarian Empire

It's a fairly usual procedure on Wikipedia to take Britannica into account. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that explicitly use Britannica as a source, it is probably the most common source in all of Wikipedia. Here is a list to the articles sourcing them here [5]. --Olahus (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we can discuss about it in our talk pages. I have patience. --Olahus (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking here about how this state is calle today. I give you some othe rexamples: fromer states who were called "Romania" do have also an other title (see Latin Empire or Byzantine Empire). So where is the problem? What you propose me is just a invitation to an original research. I didn't request the renaming of the article, but only an additional mention from a reliable source. --Olahus (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Ruse: why did you also remove the Turkish denomination? --Olahus (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You invite me to accept an original research. This state is sometime called as The Vlach-Bulgarian Empire and I gave you a reliable source: Encyclopaedia Britannica. I didn't ask for a renaming of the article, but only for a mention about how it is sometimes called today.

Concerning Ruse: Bucharest never belonged to the Ottoman Empire, but to Walachia and Walachia was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, not a part of him. The official language was Romanian, not Turkish. Walachia ceded only Giurgiu, Bucharest and Turnu Măgurele to the Ottoman Empire (and, as you can see, the Turkish demonimation is recorded there). And how should I add the Bulgarian name of Bucharest (does Bucharest habe a Bulgarian name?) as long as the city was mentioned for the first time in 1459, long after the Bulgarian domination over present-day Wallachia? --Olahus (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You can mention in the article that the denomination Vlach-Bulgarian Empire was invented by the Romanians in the 19th century when Bulgaria was still under Ottoman rule - with references, of course.

The Wallachian Principality was officialy a vasal state of the Ottoman Empire, this status was always recognized by the Ottoman Empire himself and it did never change. Wallachia was never an Ottoman Pashaluk because it kept it's statality. Although Wallachia belonged once to the Bulgarian Empire, Bucharest didn't exist on that time, so the Bulgarian demonination for Bucharest was never official (and also not the Turkish denomination, because the Turkish language was never official in the Wallachian Principality. The Turks were nor even allowed to settle in Wallachia). The Old Bulgarian language was never official in Wallachia, but it has the status of a lingua franca (a status which is not identical with the one of an official language), as in some other orthodox countries too. I don't insist to mention also the Romanian denomination in Ruse, finally there is not even a Romanian (Vlach) population living there, but I don't see a good reason to exclude the Turkish denomination.

I will look for some mapy about Bulgaria and Spain too, if you want to. No problems. I have also many other old maps of Bulgaria, like the southern continuation of this map. --Olahus (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can add this sentence: Very rarely, the state is called called "The Vlach-Bulgarian Empire" even though this denonimation is anachronistic because the state was never called like this during its existence. In this case, persons like me could be prevented to make some wrong edits. I also requested the changing of the name of the article in the Romanian Wikipedia.

Concerning Ruse, e.g. for Edirne the Bulgarian (Slavic) denomination is also mentioned, while for Thessaloniki ... the Greek nationalism seems to be simply too strong.

I uploaded this map now, which is, as I said, the southern continuation of this map. I have also some other maps of Bulgaria available, but unfortunately the time is missing me ... Concerning the drawn maps: I draw my maps exclusively with Microsoft Paint (no joke!) and it works pretty good. The secret is: never save your maps edited with Microsoft Paint in an ".jpg"-format. Always save the file as a bitmap (.bmp), then open this bitmap with an other program (Irfan view, Adobe photoshop, Acd See, Corel Draw or some other prefessional program) and save the file as a jpeg from this professional program. --Olahus (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuil

Здравей, и аз се радвам, че мога да намеря повече време за Уики засега. Мисля, че статията изглежда много добре, има потенциал, но има и какво да се върши още... утре ще поизчистя и ще видя дали ще може без сериозни проблеми да издържи на кандидатурата. Това, което ми се набива от пръв поглед, е лошото форматиране във Family и това, че към края се насъбират много късички секции (Aftermath, Legacy, Family, Grave, Nomenclature), които трябва да се обединят в най-много две. Също, илюстрациите от Скилица сякаш са множко или може би трябва да се попренаредят... примерно, тъпо е, че имаме една илюстрация и под нея изрезка от нея :) Отделно имаме и три доста подобни илюстрации на воюващи армии една под друга, от които можем да се лишим от поне една. Откъм източници си железен, то е ясно, а утре ще мина пак граматиката и правописа, въпреки че все пак и моят английски не е идеален :S

Накратко, утре ще я прегледам най-подробно и ако успея да изчистя всичко направо я пускам; ако не, ще ти пиша. Поздрави, Todor →Bozhinov 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Еми, добре... минах я пак, доста неща оправих, оказа се, че има нужда от още работа. Ще те помоля да си прегледаш пак цитирането на източниците, защото е хубаво, когато се дава пълна информация, да се прави с {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} и т.н., а в статията по-малко от половината цитати ползват тези форматирания и може да бъде ползвано като възражение. Също, когато вече веднъж е споменат източникът и нататък просто си го цитираш пак, или давай само автора, или и името (примерно ако има повече от едно издание от него цитирано) + страницата, винаги с точка накрая и интервал между "p./pp." и числото. Доста такива графични проблеми трябваше да оправям, а са много досадни :P Като цяло форматът на цитатите все още е в пълен хаос, според мен трябва да се оправи това първо преди да я пускаме където и да е. Todor →Bozhinov 12:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Бих ти препоръчал или да ги оставиш на кирилица, или да ги транслитерираш, едно от двете. Не мисля, че преводът е удачен, а и не съм виждал много да се прави. В моите избрани статии съм транслитерирал, и то по научния стандарт, не по официалния, но честно казано повече си ги оставям на кирилица вече. Така и така, който иска да ги чете ще трябва да знае български :P Поздрави, Todor →Bozhinov 20:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desislava

Hmmm... you have removed that article as insignificant but can you tell me the significance of Rory Kavanagh, Vasil Boev and a number of other footballers or athletes from all over the world who are only locally known a very few people? --Gligan (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I'm not familiar with that article. Can you please specify the exact article title? Stifle (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I don't understand of computers and don't know how to use that wizard. The article was Desislava of Bulgaria which you have redirected to Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria ([6]). If you want to, move my answer to my talk page and we might discuss the matter only there. --Gligan (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Wikipedia guidelines on biographies state that non-notable relatives of notable people should be mentioned in the article about the notable person. As Desislava does not seem notable on her own, I have redirected that page as you indicated. Feel free to write about her in a section of Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange rules... A footballer in Cameroon professional football league in an insignificant local club could deserve an article but a princess - not. I understand that there is lack of information concerning Desislava but I think that there are a lot of articles with such content "The person X was a King of the country Y" or "The battle of X took place in 1291 AD between the army of Z and the army of Y"... That is why I wanted the article to be restored. However, I have no intention to argue if it is against the rules. --Gligan (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can feel free to nominate other articles for deletion if you don't feel they meet the criteria for inclusion. The instructions on how to do so are at WP:DELPRO. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 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) 23:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Balkans and Asia Minor 1207.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Balkans and Asia Minor 1207.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravei

Zdrasti , az sym nov vyv wikipedia , i ne znam kak da operiram sys vsi4ki pravomo6tiq i t.n. :). Ta , zatova 6te pomolq teb - v "list of 30 bloodiest battles" lipsva bitkata pri aheloi :( , a tq trqbva da e v top 3. Ta , ne znam dali moje6 da napravi6 ne6to , no ako moje6 - pls deistvai :). email-a mi e zawowa@abv.bg . 4ao za sega :). ako ima6 nqkakvi novini - pi6i mi :) Vezu (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 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) 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cy Young Award

Hey there, do you mind checking out this FLC and leaving comments? Thanks, iMatthew (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi there!

If you follow the reference at the Orphey Hydro Power Plant article you will find a site that has a few energy info on many countries including Bulgaria. Cheers! Mario1987 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

At Battle of Kosovo (1915) you have been the major contributor over the two year history of the article. Unfortunately, there are still no references cited for the statements made. Please give some attention to providing evidence for the statements made so that the article is verifiable. If you need help with the mechanics of citation, just say what you know about the source on the article talk page and someone can help out. Cheers!LeadSongDog (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oreshak.jpg

Please provide the source page of images you find on Flickr, so that the license can be verified. In this case, you actually added the wrong tag- cc-by-sa-2.0 is very different from cc-by-3.0. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:BG BYZ.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:BG BYZ.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 [[ Talk:Image:BG BYZ.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Bulgarian municipality templates

Hi there! I've recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulgaria/Municipal templates in a drive to build a detailed guide to Bulgaria by municipality by adding villages, notable landmarks, people and culture from each municipality. Please follow Template:Smolyan as a guideline and help get Bulgaria covered in detail in this way. I am creating the bones of the templates first but I will need help placing the notable articles into each new municipality template and then of course starting the missing articles we have for each of them in abundance. Feel free to start adding links to all of the others like Template:Smolyan. Thankyou and I hope people will see their potential for building a more detailed guide to Bulgaria! Count Blofeld 14:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks! My thoughts exactly. I would categorise them as Category:Cities, towns and villages in Plovdin Province or Category:Villages in Plovdin Province though by world convention. Don't worry when I come to stub them I'll sort out that. I've done most countries this way.

Anyway infrastructually these templates will have great importance to build and connect content on here in the future. Notable churches, rivers, mountains etc can be added to each one where relevant and help build a detailed guide to Bulgaria by given municipal area. It will take a while to do but it will be massively better off afterwards I promise. Count Blofeld 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well most of them are villages of course so that would make sense. Part of the reaosn I've shown an interest in Bulgaria is 1. There is population and basic data available on reliable websites as a start 2. I've noticed a lot of good content which can be transwikied from Bulgarian wikipedia even on smaller villages which gives me faith they will be expanded 3.Bulgaria is a stunning looking country and I want to see it covered in more detail with images of all these beautiful villages and churches! Count Blofeld 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Balkan countryside is stunning, I love countries like Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria all across to Turkey and Greece. I saw some of it on By Any Means which showed parts of Bulgaria from the train you'd normally never see elsewhere and I was astounded how lush the countryside was. Charlie Boorman compared it to the countryside in parts of the Lake District and rural Scotland. Anyway the 259 templates have been created. I missed the quarters of Sofia as yet until a later date as I gathered they are smaller neighborhoods of the city rather than municipalities but I'd imagine have potential content but we can come to that later. I've been looking for a bot for some time, there are people who have the abililty to run them but won't unfortunately. Man power required! Yes I will be using Guide Bulgaria which is exactly the source I was talking about. Now lets get cracking! Count Blofeld 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S I'll also create the new categories by province tomorrow as we agreed upon. Count Blofeld 20:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh one more thing. Article you know of which you know have resourceful content on Bulgarian wikipedia but are poor stubs on here please add a {{Expand Bulgarian}} to the top of the lacking article or section to go on record for getting it into english. It is part of a drive from all the main wikipedias to get good content into english to fill out our stubs and undeveloped english language articles on the same subject. E.g here. Thanks and good luck for your studies! Count Blofeld 20:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi me again. You know that you can add a pin map to mountain boxes now too? It displays a mountain. See my alteration to Dzhengal. Happy editing! Count Blofeld 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your;re making good progress, I'll be working on Bulgaria more starting from this coming week The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 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) 16:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 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) 03:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!

For moving the "Dospat Dam" page to "Dospat Reservoir"! Trying to understand its name took me way more time and effort than it was "worth" and I never really could persuade myself that "dam" was the correct name. Maybe the problem originally arose because Bulgarian usage is язовир for BOTH the wall (стена) and the lake, but in English it was just very confusing to see both called "dam"! In any case, thank you immensely.

— Martha (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I've made a request for a translation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bulgaria#Help_needed_with_translation that would help develop the article about Dobruja, to which you have contributed in the past. Please have a look.Baltaci (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 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) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 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) 22:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations 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 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: refs

Ok, but please add a translation for the references that are there LetsdrinkTea 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities

Hi Gligan! How did the exams go? Whenever I have time I'll gradually help copy the list of villages into the templates. I'll keo you updated what I have done. I'm working through a region at a time but the Bulgarian village site is very slow and strains my computer!! Keep in contact anyway as soon enough we will have these templates built up and when I have time will work towards starting them sometime time. If you could also continue your work on building the templates I'd be very grateful. Cheers Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to restart the project. Since I needed a computer-readable (or at least a partially readable) list of villages to format them automagically, I used the list at this Bulgarian site ) so I hope that list is OK. I used the transliteration model you left on my talk page, ordered them according to the English alphabet, and then I made MS Excel autodetect duplicates and format the ones found accordingly. However, I have no easy mean to check whether a similar name already exist as a Wikipedia article, so someone needs to check every bluelink in the templates and modify the link if it points in a wrong way. By now I've finished the municipalities in Silistra and Razgrad province. I'll also repair Shumen and Varna. Could you please check them and see if there's any problem?Baltaci (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria on Spanish.

I've started with this due to some project i had to do. I've made the spanish version on Baba Vida's article. But i wonder if i could have some more architectural information on it, both for the wiki project and for my own project. Do you know where to find some reliable sources?

I'll keep on working translating to spanish, so if you have any suggestion on an article you would like to see translated "a la lengua de Cervantes" let me know.

Komalantz (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 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) 02:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kresna

Hello Gligan! Long time no see :) I am afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. We have had an extensive and sometimes heated debate on the subject. The fact is that both sides claim victory. IMO, the Greek army was indeed in a bad position and rather exhausted, but had not yet been defeated. As of the armistice, it was actually launching local counter-attacks. We cannot claim a victory for either side when neither army collapsed, retreated or surrendered. Sure, to the Bulgarians, it may have been a moral victory, since the Greek advance was stopped, but on the field, it was a stalemate. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 10:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would agree with you, except: a strategic victory implies a reversal of the fortunes of the war. Bulgaria had been de facto defeated before Kresna ever started, because Romania had intervened in the war and was closing on Sofia. And Venizelos was urging the King to accept the armistice days before he actually did. I won't say that Kresna was a Greek victory, it wasn't (except insofar that a successful resistance to superior forces is a "success"), and it certainly is due to the battle that Constantine agreed to the cease-fire. As for the Bulgarians, it was a sort of "feel-good" success since Constantine would have preferred to sign the armistice as conqueror in Sofia, but not really a major reversal... IMO it would be best to leave the infobox as it is and focus on expanding the article. Infoboxes are notoriously imprecise summaries, and if we want the nuances of the battle properly captured, it is best done within the main article. Constantine ✍ 10:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bfilov.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bfilov.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 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) 22:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria

Why did you remove the sentences dealing with the flight of ethnic Turks from Bulgaria in the 1980s? I would prefer to handle this situation via talk page than edit warring. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian villages

Hi. Thanks for the heads up on disambiguating Bulgarian village names. Prior to my creating the new articles, I saw some existing ones in the format "Banya (Pazardzhik Province)". It wasn't until later than I noticed others using the format "Banya, Pazardzhik Province". That actually seems to agree with the the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) #Disambiguation, so I will use that format in the future. -- Zyxw (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boboshevo churches

Hi, I've been trying to add coordinates to the series of articles you started on churches around Boboshevo, but Google maps in this area is too vague to recognise any of them. Assuming you know the area, could you help me find them? You can find a list here [7] (they're all under C). Thanks! Preslav (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed you've been there, but apparently you know as much as I about their exact location. I think it's better to leave them without coordinates until someone comes along that can put them right on top of the church roof... Preslav (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rila Monastery - Boby Dimitrov.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Rila Monastery - Boby Dimitrov.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [8], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Картинка

Погрижих се за картинките в секция "Икономика", а и като цяло преработих информацията, макар че има още работа. От тия картинки по-готини не можах да намеря :) - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 19:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising of Ivaylo

Hello Gligan! Nice new article. Generally, it reads good, I made relatively few copyedits. A couple of points I'd like to see improved (time on my part is rather short, I am afraid): a) the exact nature of the rebellion ought to be further researched (best in a separate paragraph). I know that Marxist historiography (which I guess will have influenced modern Bulgarian views as well) treats it as a "peasant revolt", but a bit more elaboration on its "social" aspects and the arguments on the revolt's nature would be good to have. b) the conditions in Bulgaria that led to this revolt, esp. the feudalization hinted at. Since this process also occurred in Byzantium shortly after, and since culturally and socially both states were very much alike it would be interesting to see if there are any parallels as well. As for English-language sources, I can only suggest Fine's The Late Medieval Balkans. I am afraid I don't know of any other source that treats Ivaylo's revolt in any detail. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi! I really believe that this map (of Standfort) [[9]], in 1st Balkan Wars is a bit out of reality. What do you believe?Villick (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Theodosius of Tarnovo

Видях те какво си направил, случват се такива недоглеждания :) Статийката е още от времето, когато се занимавах с Иван Александър. Слях си сега, просто се нямах време сутринта. Todor →Bozhinov 14:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Treaty of 815

On October 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Treaty of 815, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:1632120.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:1632120.jpg, which you've sourced to Paulo Mateus. 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org, 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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. Sherool (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine-Bulgarian relations

Hello Gligan! It is a very interesting idea, which will also hopefully allow us to go into a bit more depth than is usual here, analyzing influence in religion, culture, society etc. A good title would be simply "Relations between the Byzantine Empire and Bulgaria", which is ample enough to cover every possible aspect. Such an article is indeed fertile ground for a collaboration, but, unfortunately, time is the one thing I don't really have right now due to RL concerns. If you are willing to start it, I promise to help as much as I can, with sources, copyediting and counsel. If you want, send me an email, and I'll send you some English sources you'll no doubt find useful. As for the battle, most English-language writers largely cover it in a few short sentences: the siege of Serdica is mentioned, then the retreat and the ambush, and some comments given on its importance, i.e. the restoration of Bulgarian independence and the loss in prestige of Basil which resulted in the rebellions of the two Bardases. If requested, I'll be happy to supply citations (I may even do so either way, during the weekend, if I find the time). Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never write this email in public, so use this form and send me one. I'll then reply to your email address. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland?

You support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom despite the fact most Scots do not? I am curious as to why? G. R. Allison (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply,I just find support of something the Scots don't want for Scotland strange. But yeh, thanks for the reply. G. R. Allison (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Gates of Trajan

Hi Gligan, Thanks for your note. My Initial review is complete. Provided that your corrective actions are successful in addressing the problems that I have identified, I will award the article GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've now got GA-status. Congratulations and thanks for fixing the "problems". Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the GA, Gligan. Keep them coming! :) Todor →Bozhinov 13:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems: Naval Battle of Kaliakra

Hi. The article Naval Battle of Kaliakra was listed at the copyright problems board for evaluation on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 13 as it appears to be a direct translation of [10], which internet archives confirm was published prior to your placement of the text here. Direct translations are derivative works, and the right to prepare them is reserved to the copyright holder of the original text under United States law. The website is marked "© Борислав Петров" If you are this copyright owner, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you believe you can obtain permission from this copyright owner, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you do not believe this constitutes a copyright concern or are able to verify that this material is not copyrighted, but public domain or compatibly licensed so that it may be used in accordance with copyright policy, please leave a note of explanation at the new listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 21. Alternatively you are welcome to write new content in your own language at this temporary page. If it cannot be verified that this material does not infringe on the copyright of that source, it will have to be removed from Wikipedia. While we may use brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with WP:NFC, we may not copy, closely paraphrase or directly translate copyrighted text. Wikipedia must ask every contributor to adhere to its copyright policies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

Your recreated article Naval Battle of Kaliakra has been deleted, as it appears to have again added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. The problem with the article was explained to you above; after sufficient time for the matter to be addressed, it was duly deleted by an administrator. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted for copyright concerns. If you disagreed with the deletion, you had the option of speaking to the administrator who deleted it (User:CactusWriter, the first time) and, if he did not agree, seeking wider opinion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Republishing it as it was without addressing the copyright concerns is not appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Kardzhali DYK

I saw the article at DYK and reviewed it. It's good to go, but I'm worried about this {{primarysources}} tag. Aren't there any foreign references at least for the basic facts (date, outcome, location of battle)? I'd like to pass the article, but I'm not sure that it can be on DYK with a maintenance tag. Best, Todor →Bozhinov 08:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not find any passages or sentences that may be considered POV, it's all a very neutral description of the battle devoid of any praise whatsoever, and it does seem pretty difficult to find any western, what's left for Turkish, publications on that event. Perhaps you should contact User:Preslav and try to explain your difficulties. It's not too late to get the article to DYK, we just need to solve that tag problem :) Best, Todor →Bozhinov 11:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag there because I felt that additional references highlighting the Turkish side of the story would be very welcome. I do think it's neutral, but there's no suitable tag that expresses that. Maybe we could contact WP:TURKEY and invite them to come with additional material? Too bad, by the way, that your article on the Naval Battle of Kaliakra was deleted; good to see you started working on it again! Preslav (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the tag seems reasonable and I perfectly understand your argumentation. It would be great if Turkish Wikipedians can contribute to the artilce. It would be great if we can solve this as soon as possible, though (today or tomorrow), because the article is awaiting approval at Template talk:Did you know and may be featured on the main page. Todor →Bozhinov 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

DYK for Battle of Kardzhali

On January 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kardzhali, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Serbia

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

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

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

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

For the Portuguese case, it pretty much is a 18th Spanish region, couse all the Spanish companies are present here. (as personal info:I´m a Belgrade born Serb, lived in Mexico, so learned to speak Spanish very young, then came to Portugal, where, because of already knowing Spanish, made my entire education in Spanish schools, I have Portuguese, Spanish, Serbian, and all foreigners here friends, usually go to Spain to visit old school collegues that now live there, and depending on future professional oportunities, I may go to live to Madrid, but I´ll allways have a home in Portugal and Belgrade, whatever happends. I´m in Lisbon since 1988, when Serbia,Yugoslavia, was way better than Portugal,back than. Since than, I don´t need to say nothing, you know the story). As for the eventual territorial changes for our two countries, we (both) can´t dream much, since we don´t have the religious beleve as the world leaders, writte different alphabet, and have too many enemies, we can only be smaller. In Macedonia case, there is only investment to be made there, and there is where we can compete, otherways, it´s not neither Serbian nor Bulgarian, but, more American. FkpCascais (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article, I hope he are both satisfied with the outcome. We must admit we do have different interpretations about some issues, while only language presentation was my reason for not accepting other edits you´ve made. You were caught in an edit war (chek page history) and for me was just easier to return to initial point removing both yours (it was in middle) and other user edits. FkpCascais (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I´m back. I´m angaging now in a "fight" because our language is now being decomposed now. Montenegrin, Bosnian, come on...

Hey, I forgot to tell you, I´ve been in Sofia once. Short time (one day) but it counts. Unfortunatelly, I didn´t saw much.

About our women (both, SRB/BUL) and food, you´re right. They are the best! FkpCascais (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Gligan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 686 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Slavcho Atanasov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval balkan countries

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

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

Victory over Women and children in 895?

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

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

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

Hall

Regarding this [11], the exact quote from Hall is already inserted by Factuarius at the top of the paragraph [12]. Hall, page 22, right? Hall nowhere says that The major battles of the First Balkan War were fought between the Bulgarians and the Ottomans in the plains of Thrace. Twisting his words like that and placing them at the bottom of the paragraph with the ref to page 22 is really not cool. Come now, be reasonable. Athenean (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions

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

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

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

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

File source problem with File:2345686.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to tell but be more polite, or it is I who will report you. It's not me who called your edit idiotic. The two sources YOU included said "Danubian Bulgarian Khanate" not "medieval Bulgarian state". What to discuss? Your refs? --Factuarius (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on First Bulgarian Empire. 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) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Why should information like this be avoided in the lead[[13]] or taken as unconstructive? The establishment of the state is something that needs to be part of the lead.Alexikoua (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find Avidius' version more accurate by the way. I'll post my comments in the article's discussion, however there is no reason to insist on completely removing this part of information.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead for First Bulgarian Empire

If you could write out a copy of what you think the lead should consist of, I would be more than happy to take a look and compare/contrast with Athenean's suggestion. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a rough draft of a conglomeration of things I believe the lead should contain. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaro - Vlach empire

Look at the frenc version of "Second Bulgar Empire" http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnum_Bulgarorum_et_Valachorum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Vlach-Bulgarian Empire is not universally accepted"

there isn't even a word about it in the article (Iaaasi (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It would be appropriate to place the -cn- for a while before removing this parts that claimed that it was called Bulgar-Vlach.

Morever I see that Monsh.&Kostja, are completely ignoring your lead proposal in 1st Bulgarian Empire, proposing a pov-peacock style one.Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents

Hi Gligan, I am currently accused of disruptive behaviour in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This occured after I presented the 20 sources in the First Bulgarian Empire discussion page. I mentioned your name there. Please read through and share your opinion. Thank you.--Monshuai (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your opinion Gligan. I very much appreciate it.--Monshuai (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:25, 15 February 2010 edit Monshuai (talk \| contribs) 987 edits →WP:ANI ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:25, 15 February 2010 edit undo Monshuai (talk \| contribs) 987 edits →Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents Next edit →
Line 875:		Line 875:

	Hi Gligan, I am currently accused of disruptive behaviour in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. This occured after I presented the 20 sources in the First Bulgarian Empire discussion page. I mentioned your name there. Please read through and share your opinion. Thank you.--[[User:Monshuai\|Monshuai]] ([[User talk:Monshuai\|talk]]) 07:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)		Hi Gligan, I am currently accused of disruptive behaviour in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. This occured after I presented the 20 sources in the First Bulgarian Empire discussion page. I mentioned your name there. Please read through and share your opinion. Thank you.--[[User:Monshuai\|Monshuai]] ([[User talk:Monshuai\|talk]]) 07:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

			:Thank you for sharing your opinion Gligan. I very much appreciate it.--[[User:Monshuai\|Monshuai]] ([[User talk:Monshuai\|talk]]) 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)