User talk:Sumatro

August 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm Jingiby. I wanted to let you know that I undid your recent contributions because they didn't appear constructive. If you believe the info you have added was an improvement, please discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history on Bulgarians shows that you tend currently to be engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Jingiby (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sumatro, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sumatro! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OVERLINK and stop linking to well-known words such as "Canada" and "English". If you continue to do so your edits will be seen as disruptive and you will be blocked from editing. Also, read WP:3RR which states you will be blocked for edit warring. Also read WP:OPENPARA which specifically states we are not to put the place of birth in the opening paragraph. Continuing to add that information will also be seen as being disruptive and can lead to you being blocked. I have left the article in a neutral state of compromise without any nationalistic claims. Do not revert again. Either add reliable sources or participate in the discussion on the talk page and achieve a new consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I read WP:OPENPARA again it does not require her to be a citizen of Canada but a permanent resident (which is amply sourced throughout the rest of the article) and where she was located when she became notable. If you think more information should be added then discuss it on the talk page first. SQGibbon (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages

Your recent editing history at Middle Ages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Graham Colm (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could present your version in a user page and discuss it. Changes to a featured article during discussion on the talk is not a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. only (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Edit Warring..

From your last edit, I note that you've continued the pattern of edit-warring behaviour from yesterday at the Middle Ages. Please stop, and gain consensus on the talk page first. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's see your arguments!--Sumatro (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the talk page. You've been given plenty of advice there but you don't seem to be listening. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

December 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit warring after expiration of last block, as you did at Middle Ages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages

Hi there. I see you have been in trouble before regarding your editing behaviour at this article. Can I implore you to discuss and achieve consensus at the article's talk page for your proposal that there should be a longer coverage of Bulgarian matters? Can I also ask you not to add tags to a Featured Article unless there is real reason to do so? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to back up what John has said. The article has already received FA status, and is an important article. It is not good to add a banner like that, because, in general, it is an excellent article. The bias, which is clear to you, is to be expected in an English language article on an English encyclopedia.

Keep discussing it on the talk page. Don't give up and go away.
It is best not to make the changes yourself, because if they are not written in perfect English expression, they will be deleted on those grounds.
Adding four images that are regionally specific is not a good approach.
When adding an image to any article, the first rule is to look. If every image on the page (except the lede image and the maps) is thumbnail size, then do not make your image the biggest on the page.
Understand, as I have said to you already, this is not about a specific, directed "prejudice". It is about "insularity", a restricted point of view. It is about unwillingness to change or compromise. When a person/people have worked hard on an article, then they don't want to be told that something is lacking, or wrong. I have had a very long argument (which is in the archives of the talk page) in order to get something changed that was about a very well-known (to the English-speaking world) Anglo-Saxon object in the British Museum. So the length of the argument had nothing to do with prejudice or discrimination.

Suggestion:

Start a new discussion
Write two brief summaries of the first and second Bulgarian empires. About three lines each, two/three sentences each.
Provide references, including page numbers.
Put the summaries onto the discussion page.
Request that they should be added at two specific sections of the article (in keeping with what is there. You might suggest a change to the present wording in the article.)
Leave a request: "Could one of the regular editors please correct this contribution for grammar and style before adding to the article?"

Amandajm (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , I am writing you regarding the page ' Middle Ages ', which I see that you edited. I notice that most of the editors there are too sensitive about " Bulgaria " . I am a historian by education, and I lived in Sofia for a while. I see you found more than 30 sources , and all of the sources are serious and academic . I think that the editors there, are ignorant on the subject of history. Their problem is that they rely on biased sources , mostly British and American ( Davies, Collins, Wickhnam ) . These authors describe only the history of Western Europe and generally lead to stereotypes of the Cold War. Many of them say nothing about Bulgaria, because it is uncomfortable topic. I have taught at universities in Germany and the Netherlands , and I know what is it . The problem for the West is that Bulgaria have a too great history . And this is not a some conspiracy. It seems strange, but this is the truth . I see that the editors there are quite aggressive, otherwise why they make a so big problem of the inclusion of Bulgaria in the " Middle Ages" ? I see that words not working there. My advice is to find historical maps of Bulgaria and Bulgarian cultural influence and to get them to comment that. At the time of Simeon the Great, Bulgaria is the largest country in Europe. Cultural influence of Bulgaria affects over 60% of the area of Europe ( Russia, Belarus , Poland, Ukraine , Serbia ... ) . Let's see how these editors will comment this maps ! After you proposed a maps, asking them "Which other state in Europe in Middle Ages was influence 60 % of Europe's area?". There are countless atlases by the topic. Use the atlases of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. This is the highest source that nobody of this haters can to challenge.--195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a three maps in Talk page, but I do not see any comments about them. Only one editor commented the Bulgarian toponyms in present-day's Italy. This, what you say is quite sharp, but it's true. I still can not explain why the editors of this page delete any information related to Bulgaria. Even added a short information about the Boyana Church and the Tarnovo school, for which I use a reliable high-academic sources, they immediately delete all. Without any arguments. They constantly cite three world encyclopedias, but all of the three are British, which is doubtful. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, but I have a distrust towards British and American historians, because they are often dependent on the political stereotypes. One of the obstacles that they share is the language. Many of the sources are on Bulgarian, which is normal because we are talking about the Bulgarian history. I studied History in Sofia, Berlin and Amsterdam, and I know that if I write about Poland in a pan-European history I must meet theories of Polish historians, because the foreign sources are often biased. Before to write my dissertations about Rzeczpospolita in universities in Berlin and Sofia, I know only some things about the Polish history (Vladislav Varnenchik, Jan Sobiesky, Knyaz Mieszko, and some other things :) ), but now I know that this was the most powerfuul state in Europe in 16 - 17th century, and even fluent Polish language. "Middle ages" is article about European Medieval history and Bulgarian Empire is one of the most powerful and influence medieval states and is normal to added a information by this state. --Sumatro (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Talk page has a new discussion, related with your contributions there--195.24.37.106 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Middle Ages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Macedonia and Rostislav (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Middle Ages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You were just blocked for edit warring on the same article in December. You may not agree with the objections but you cannot just wave them off. Please see WP:DR for further steps you can take. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this article has a violation of NPOV (look at Talk page). I just want to add a important information, which is missing now. And I do not understand, why, after I proposed over 40 high-academic reliable sources, which confirm adding of that information, the editors there always delete that. No one of their argument have academic maturity and I think that the reason they to delete this is political. Please, look this article and Talk page carefuly! Some of the sources, used in article, are not reliable.--Sumatro (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages

Your recent editing history at Middle Ages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Eastern European Bias

I think you have Eastern European (orthodox-slavic) bias on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_Ages talkpage. You forget, that the population of medieval russia or balkan orthodox countries were not significant in a comparison with HR.Empire or medieval France. The social economical development of the orthodox slavic countries are negligable by Western standards. Their cultural technological and scientific development also negligable. They have semi-asian Orthodox (as S. Huntington said) or Eurasian culture.

They were not part of western (catholic and later protestant) civilization.

It is not a secret in history, that countries civilizations are/were not in the same level of development.

It is well-known that Western and Central Europe, ( the so-called Western civilization) was always more developed than Orthodox Slavic or Eastern European civilization.

The cultural the societal-system and the economical civilizational (technological) differences between Orthodox countries and Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries were similar great, as the differences between Northern America (USA Canada) and Southern- (Latino) America.

MEMENTO: Western things which were not existed in orthodox world:

1.Medieval appearance of parliaments (a legislative body(!), DO NOT CONFUSE with the "councils of monarchs" which existed since the beginning of human history),

2. Knights, the knight-culture and the technological effects of crusades from the Holy Land,

3.The self-government status of big royal/imperial cities, (local government systems of cities), which is the direct ancestor of modern self/local governmental systems.

4. The appearance of stone / brick castle defense system and fortified cities. (In Orthodox world only Byzantine empire had such an extensive system in Greek territories)

5. The medieval appearance of banking systems and social effects and status of urban bourgeoisie,

6.The medieval appearance of universities and the medieval appearance of secular intellectuals,

7.Philosophy: Scholasticism and humanist philosophy,

8.The medieval usage of Latin alphabet and medieval spread of movable type printing,

9.The medieval western theater: Mystery or cycle plays and morality passion plays,

10.The architecture, sculpture paintings and fine-arts: Romanesque Gothic and Renaissance styles.

The renaissance & humanism , the reformation and the enlightenment did not influenced/affected the Orthodox (Eastern European) countries.

Before 1870, the industrialization that had developed in Western and Central Europe and the United States did not extend in any significant way to the rest of the world. In Eastern (aka. Orthodox) Europe, industrialization lagged far behind, and started only in the 20th century.--Werbeln (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werbeln, you have Western European bias, my friend! Look, I'm historian and I'm explore the period of Middle Ages. The most of your points are absolutely wrong and are not needed by comments, but I'm a good man, who believe in the science and education.

1. You say: "The social economical development of the orthodox slavic countries are negligable by Western standards. Their cultural technological and scientific development also negligable. They have semi-asian Orthodox (as S. Huntington said) or Eurasian culture. They were not part of western (catholic and later protestant) civilization.". Wrong. And not only wrong - this is one racist theory, which is created by political reasons. Be careful with sources! In Eastern Europe also exist a books, which says that "Western Europe is too backward and there doesn't exist a culture, because everything western is created in Greece". Don't believe in similar books! The concepts "East" and "West" are created during the time of Cold War. Eastern, Western and Central Europe are one - the civilization of Christian Europe.

2. You say: "the population of medieval russia or balkan orthodox countries were not significant in a comparison with HR.Empire or medieval France.". Wrong. In Ancient times "the father of History" Herodotus said that the Thracians in modern Bulgaria are "the second largest nation, after the Indians (Herodotus, History). In 10th century the Bulgarian capital Veliki Preslav has a population of 150 000 - 200 000, which make it the second largest city in Europe after Constantinople. In 1376 the turkish conqueror Lala Shahin say "The Bulgarians are the most numerous people to the West" (by diaries of Lala Shahin in National Library of Sofia). The Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria continued 70 years (1352 - 1422), filled with bloody battles and casualities on both sides. Many historians believe that the Bulgarian and Serbian resistance stop the Ottoman invasion of Europe in the 14th century. The archeologist Nikolay Ovcharov say that in 14th century on the territories of Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania has a triple more castles than Central Europe and 5X than Western Europe. The historian Peter Konstantinov say that during the reign of Ivan Alexander Bulgaria has a population of 5 - 6 milion, much more than France for example. Evidence of this is the large number of castles and tax lists from the time of Second Bulgarian Empire. The Ottoman rule is a demographic catastrophe by Balkan states, because they lose many people in wars, slavery and Devshirme.

3. You say: The appearance of stone / brick castle defense system and fortified cities. (In Orthodox world only Byzantine empire had such an extensive system in Greek territories). Wrong. Typical case are the Bulgarian cities, which is centres of komitats in First Bulgarian Empire. Stoyan Popov in his book "The Castle in Europe during the Middle Ages" say that Pliska and Preslav are the only cities built of stone in medieval Europe, without Byzantium. The castles in Western Europe are created in the 11th century, in the High Middle Ages. Pliska is created in 681 and during the reign of Omurtag and Boris I is a very large city. The same argument still maintain the archaeologist Nikolay Ovcharov and many other historians and experts by urban planning. The Great Basilica of Pliska is the largest cathedral in Europe during the Early Middle ages. The area of the central cathedral is 2920 square metres, the all Pliska complex is 27 000 sq. metres. During the reign of Simeon the Great the Bulgarian capital Preslav was said to rival Constantinople.

4. You say: The renaissance & humanism , the reformation and the enlightenment did not influenced/affected the Orthodox (Eastern European) countries. I'm not agree. Look at "O pismeneh" on Chernorizets Hrabar. It is typical Reformation tractate 600 years before Luther and Erasmus.

In 870 the Bulgarian church became the first independent church in Europe. In 927 became Patriarchy. The British historian Norman Davies say: (Quote - "More importantly, they both created their own Orthodox Churches with their own Patriarchs - Bulgaria - in 1235, Serbia - in 1346... It was a step, which none of the countries of Latin Christendom could take until the Reformation, and which Moscovite Russia did not take until 1589", Europe. A History, p.381). On Preslav Council in 893 the Old Bulgarian language is stated by official liturgical and literary language. The Bible was translate to Bulgarian in 893. The German historian Otto Kronsteier says: "The Old Bulgarian language became a cultural language of all Slavs. It is the first literary language in medieval Europe, long before the emergence of European literary languages - German , French, Italian , English, Russian". The historian Peter Konstantinov say: 6 centuries before the Reformation in Western Europe, Bulgaria has an independent church where the liturgy is reading on Bulgarian language and the God's words are understood by all people in the state. Moreover - in 927 The Bulgarian church rise to the rank of "Patriarchy". Thus, the Bulgarian Patriarch became equal to the Roman Catholic Pope and the Constantinople Patriarch (Konstantinov, History of Bulgaria, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1992).
By Enlightenment you wrong again. The Balkan Enlightenment is happen in the same time like in Western Europe - 18th century - with Vuk Karadjic in Serbia and Paisiy Hilendarski and Sofroniy Vrachanski in Bulgaria. In Bulgarian literature this period is called "Възраждане" (Vazrazhdane), which mean Enligtenment on Bulgarian :)
The first steps of the Renaissance are making in the Balkans - in Byzantium (Paleologue Renaissance) and Bulgaria (Tarnovo Artistic School). After the falling of Balkan states under Ottoman rule many ideas of Balkan Proto-Renaissance are spreding in Italy, where is developed.

5. You say: "Knights, the knight-culture and the technological effects of crusades from the Holy Land". Myths, Myths, Myths... And Romantic! Wow! In Battle of Adrianople (1205) the Bulgarian army crushed the western knights. That is the result after the meeting "East - West". Latin Empire exist too short time on Balkans (1205 - 1261).

6. You say: "The medieval usage of Latin alphabet". Yes, in 9th century Bulgaria was created own alphabet - The Cyrillic, which later is spreading in Serbia, Russia, Ukraine and others. Actually Bulgaria is the only state, which created own alphalet. The Western states just take the alphabet of Ancient Romans. This is the only one script, created in medieval Europe. The Cyrillic script is major element of Bulgarian cultural influence, which is the reason acad. Dmitriy Likhachov to called Bulgarian Empire "The Third Roman Empire".

7. You say: "The medieval appearance of universities and the medieval appearance of secular intellectuals". Wrong. Preslav school, Tarnovo Literary School and Tarnovo Artistic School. Cyril and Methodius, Chernorizets Hrabar, Konstantin Preslavski, Evtimiy of Tarnovo, Grogory Tsamblak, Cyprian... It no need by comments.

Summary: Please, read before to write!. And be more polite! Thank you in advance!--Sumatro (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think , you are not historian, but a Bulgarian nationalist. 2. "Herodotus said that the Thracians in modern Bulgaria are "the second largest nation" How is it related to medieval bulgaria or HR.Empire or France? There is no way. "Veliki Preslav has a population of 150 000 - 200 000" This weird statement is not supported by archeological evidences. Medieval chronicles often wrote exaggerated fantastic numbers. (do not forget that the non-greek balkan have a very high ratio of nomadic shepherd population.) Lala Shahin say "The Bulgarians are the most numerous people to the West" Hahaha:)) Which western-European census were made by Shahin? However, in the reality the total population of Balkan peninsula (incl. byzantine territories of non-european lands) did not reached the population of medieval France or HR.Empire. The money economy spread in Western Christian countries between the 12-13tc century, however Orthodox Slavic countries had bartel economy until (around) the 17th century.

3. Bulgarians and Serbians had no stone-castle defense system to stop the Ottomans. (in Orthodox slavic countries only the capital cities had stone-town walls, because it would be too expensive for them) The countries of the Balkan region and the territory of Russian states fell under Ottoman/Mongolian rule very rapidly, due to the lack of the network of stone/brick castles and fortresses in these countries. Later Orthodox balkan slavs fought for the Ottoman Empire against Western Christian Europe. See: Ottoman-Hungarian wars, and Ottoman-Habsburg wars in wikipedia. Why? Because they hated more the Western Christianity than the Ottomans. Medieval Serbia (even under Stephan Dusan) and Bulgaria were not powerful states by Western standards, Kingdom of Hungary was more important power than them.

4. "The Balkan Enlightenment is happen in the same time like in Western Europe - 18th century" The Enlightenment came from France. I don't know any Francophile philosophers intellectuals in Orthodox Balkan in the 18h century, who write books about freedom political social sciences or economy. I don't know about the enlightenment literature operas , dramas , poetry in Balkan Wrong. Balkan was one of the world's most backward region. Even before the ww1, the ratio of literacy was between 10% - 15% in balkan orthodox countries and Russian empire.

PLEASE, do not call and compare every religious changes to Western protestant reformation, because it is not only laughable, but misleading too...

Religious impacts: Protestantism gave people a new sense of coming to God without the mediation of the church and priests.(religious individualism)

economic, Social intellectual and state development: Powerful Monarchs began to reject the idea of being subordinate to religious authority, secularization of political powers, many people began to challenge the notion that monarchs rule by "DIVINE RIGHT", religious individualism coincided with intellectual individualism, the new economic modell of capitalism began to take shape. Growing sense of skeptism about traditional medieval ideas and feudal institutions, growing trends toward secularism and the pursuit of worldly interests.

5. "Effects of Crusades are myth"? Oh really? Read about the important political, commercial, social, intellectual, and material development of crusades here: http://www.lordsandladies.org/effects-of-crusades.htm

6. Cyrillic alphabet is not a "slavic invention", but greek scholars created it. (Cyril and Methodius) for slavic population. "Actually Bulgaria is the only state, which created own alphalet."

Hahahaha. HAve you ever head about the Germanic Runest ? The Celtic Ogham alphabet, and Old Hungarian alphabet? Bulgarian alphabet is a variation of old Turkic alphabet.

7. These people have only local importance and impact, and they had no any effect on modern world and its philosophy (which grow up from the West) The artistic life of Orthodox Slavic countries remained primitive. Just compare the little Hovel-like medieval churches with the western German Italian English French Gothic Romanesque and Renaissance Cathedrals and castles... Or compare the Orthodox sculpture and paintings with the western the sculpture and paintings..... No comment needed.

8. There were no renaissance in Balkan. The slavic orthodox balkan was so backward, that around half of the population of non-greek balkan was shepherd nomads even in the 15th century. Shepherd nomad renaissance? Good joke.--Werbeln (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop to fill my talk page with nonsenses! The most of your points are completely wrong and furthermore all claims are from sources with fascist leanings. I am not a "Bulgarian nationalist", because I'm Armenian and I'm not a nationalist. I am a historian. I have a 3 diplomas of 3 Universities in Sofia, Berlin and Amsterdam, 2 doctor's dissertation by Medieval History and publications in scientific journals. I fluent 4 languages. If I look your bias, you are nationalist. Or just a hater. Your sources are unreliable or missing. Discuss with academic sources! Please, stop to post your hatred here! And the most important - read! Do you know who is Paisiy Hilendarski? Evtimiy of Tarnovo? Chernorizets Hrabar? Simeon the Great? Ivan Alexander? Clement of Ohrid? What you know about the Boyana Church? You know nothing about the medieval history, Balkans and Bulgaria. I love when some western European talk about the Balkans! Because 99% of the things, which he say are nonsenses. Just in Western Historiography has a huge gap about the Balkans (Actually even "Balkans" are not correct concept) Read the discussion in Talk Page of Middle ages and look the sources and the maps, which i'm cited. If you want to learn something by the literature - look this site - [1] - here are proposed some Medieval Bulgarian books. And information by population and architecture of Preslav is from "History of Bulgaria" on Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1992. The same things is said in over 300 sources, like the books of Nikolay Ovcharov, Rasho Rashev, Georgi Bakalov, Vasil Gyuzelev, Peter Konstantinov and many others experts. The grand castle in Pliska is by stone. And Bulgaria is the oldest state in modern Europe - from 632 to today is called Bulgaria (fact! What nomads?). And the Cyrillic is created in Preslav in 893. During the reign of Simeon the Great and Ivan Asen II Bulgarian Empire is the most powerful state in Europe. Bulgarians, Serbians and Vlachs stoped the invasion of Ottomans in Europe. They lead a hard battles with them in Plochnik (1387), Kosovo pole (1389), Chernomen (1371), Sofia (1378). The western armies are too weak in 14th century and was defeated by Ottomans in Battle of Nikopolis. The Balkan states are more powerful than western states (for example - look Battle of Adrianople (1205), where the Bulgarian Emperor Kaloyan crushed the Crusaders). Again: Read, before to write! And again: be polite and without insults! This is for the last time.--Sumatro (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I believe that you are just a craftsman. (plumber, electrician, auto mechanic, mason or whatever) and you published your ideas in The Family Handyman or similar magazines. You have no idea what racism and fascism mean, you have just heard these terms on the Television. You have no sources. You must to show up impartial foreign academic authors, the name of their books, the page number, and the date of the publication must be after the fall of communist regimes. Do you know who "Paisiy Hilendarski? Evtimiy of Tarnovo? Chernorizets Hrabar? Simeon the Great? Ivan Alexander? Clement of Ohrid?" These people are not really related to each other in era and culture, their only link is the bulgarian ancestry. How interesting...only Simeon the great article exist in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. They had only so-called "local importance". Boyana Church is a prime example of typical balkan-slavic hovel-like church buildings. There are no gap about balkan history in Western European history, just it was not important, due to the extremly slow economic technological cultural development and importance of the region. Balkan people (except byzantine greeks) were unable to build real large cathedrals. "Bulgarian Empire is the most powerful state in Europe." Interestingly, balkan orthodox countries were often were vassals of Hungarian Kingdom and later the Ottomans. After the Hungarian confederation united, Bulgarians where swept out. See Bulgarian–Hungarian Wars and Louis the Great articles (balkan wars). Medieval Bulgaria population: 1.1 million Bulgarians in year 700, 2.6 million Bulgarians in year 1365. Greek population in 1350: only 6 million (HR.E had 21 M. in 1350, France 18M) The total population of Balkan peninsula is estimated around 10M people in 1400AD. (Half of the French or HR.Empire.

Have you ever seen historic maps of the expansion Ottoman Empire? Vlachs grew up from shepherd nomadism only in the 15th century. Bulgarians, Serbians and Vlachs were unable to stop the Ottoman Empire, due to the lack of stone-castle defense systems in these countries. There was enough a SINGLE large-scale open-field battle against such countries to conquer them. Orthodox countries (like serbia Vlachs) were later allied with the Ottoman Empire to attack Western christian countries. Ottomans Were stopped in the defense system of Austria and in Kingdom of Hungary. Balkan states were vassals of Kingdom of Hungary, and they served as buffer states of Hungary against Ottomans and byzantine Empire. During the Ottoman expansion these balkan, countries had similarly structured armies as the western armies around the 10th century. The metallurgy of Balkan slavic countries were extreme primitive. When Westerners built mechanic clock-towers in the 12th century, astronomical instruments, and pocket-watch in 1500 (Nüremberg Eggs). Slavic balkan countries were unable to build artillery in the 14th century.... or real (plate armour) armored knights. It was too complicated for the level of their civilization and economy.--Werbeln (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source. Every proffesional historian will say it.

2. In 14th century part of Balkan states became vassals of Hungary, because are too separated. For Example - after the death of Emperor Ivan Alexander, the Second Bulgarian Empire disintegrated into 11 separate kingdoms - Turnovo Tsardom (the largest that remains independence until the fall of Tarnovo under the Ottoman rule), Vidin Tsardom, Dobruja despotate, Kingdom of Momchil and etc. The rulers of Tarnovo, Vidin and Kaliakra are the pretenders by the throne and make wars each other. Many Bulgarians allied with Hungarians and attacked the Vidin Tsardom, which became a vassal of Hungary. So they removed one of the contenders for the throne. Bulgarian and Byzantine rulers often used the Hungarians, Ottomans and Tatars in their dynastic battles. That is the reason Bulgaria, Byzantium and Serbia to be conquered by Ottomans. The hgistorian Stefan Tsanev in "Bulgarian Chronicles" said "If the Bulgarian state was remained united, the Ottomans never conquered the Balkans". Look Bulgarian–Ottoman Wars

3. The archeologists Nikolay Ovcharov and Rasho Rashev says that in Bulgaria and Serbia are the strongest fortresses and castles in Europe during the 14th century. Typical examples are Kaleto, the fortress near Belogradchik, Tzarevetz, Shumen, Urvich near Sofia, and over 4,000 others. Urvich is besieged 6 years by the Ottomans (1382 - 1388).

4. Evtimiy of Tarnovo, Chernorizets Hrabar, Simeon the Great, Ivan Alexander, Clement of Ohrid are mans, who are make a influence over the culture of 60% of European area. It will be good to learn who are they, before to disscus. You don't know who is Paisiy, but you dispute with me about Bulgaria. It is not serious.

5. In "Pages From the History of the Tarnovo Literary School" of Georgi Danchev, P. H. "Science and Art", Sofia, 1983", p.78 - 82 is said: "Tarnovo school is the peak of medieval art, which is nowhere else outside Byzantium. A. Petrovski in his "History" said that Bulgarian emperor Ivan Alexander was a real Renaissance person, as Voltaire was imagined for France in The Enlightment.", "...influence of literature and painting of the Tarnovo school is comparable only with the influence of classical civilizations of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. It is no coincidence that the Byzantine chroniclers from the 14th century called Tarnovo "The Third Rome".", "...in the late 14th century and the 15th century (after the fall of Bulgaria under Ottoman Empire in 1396) Bulgarian missionaries of the Tarnovo school spread the ideas and achievements of Bulgarian culture in Eastern Europe. So they bring the values of the Classical World and the Christian civilization in Eastern Europe"

6. About Boyana Church in "Boyana frescoes", p.7, Mavrodinov is said: "One of the most remarkable phenomens in medieval art are a frescoes in Boyana Church, which are created by painters of the Tarnovo Artistic School in Bulgaria. In 1259 the author of Boyana frescoes has done a spectacular revolution in the history of European art as a discovered the upward perspective and three-dimensionality in the visual arts", "The frescoes are genuine masterpieces with a flawless technique, psychological depth, complexity and realism. Boyana is the only and the most impressive wholly preserved monument of the Turnovo School of Painting from the 13th century. According to many leading experts, the world famous frescoes in the Boyana Church played an important role in the development of mediaeval Bulgarian and European painting.".

This is the official website on National History Museum of Bulgaria (in English by your joy) - http://www.boyanachurch.org/historyen.htm - "The Boyana Church owes its world fame above all to the frescoes from 1259, which demonstrate the exceptional achievements of mediaeval Bulgarian culture. The majority of the more than 240 figures depicted here display individuality, remarkable psychological insight and vitality."--Sumatro (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 was edited by members of the Royal society, The scientific academy of Britain. But it is not about credibility, they didn't created articles (with the exception of Czar Simeon) with your local-important starts, it means, they had no international importance (just local).

They became vassals, due to their little populaton, their societal economic military backwardness and traditionally low inland-revenues, and lack of fortified city and castle systems. They were easy preys. I've doubt that 2Million strong Bulgarian "Empire" was enough to stop the Ottomans (again: without city-walls and castle systems). The material culture architecture and fine-arts of Orthodox countries were semi-asian or eurasian, because the Byzantine arts (and public-administration) were strongly influenced by Persians and Arabs. Third Rome is a laughable term , Only 1 Rome exist in Italy. Byzantine Empire flasely believed that he is second, Russians and Bulagrians claimed that they are the third.... more and more inflation of the many Romes...

Boyana Church is a little hovel-like building, like a villager church in the west. Orthodox paintings are not realistic (the most strange their ufo E.T. eyed Jesus and saints....--Werbeln (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand. Western Europe is not influenced by Eastern Europe. All discoveries and ideas in Western Europe are fallen from the sky. We, in Eastern Europe still live in caves and every morning we go to hunt mammoths. Thank you that educate me!--Sumatro (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Church and Xenophobia in the 21th century

How is it possible that a "christian" church generates racism and xenophobia in the 21th century? Which are the social causes of that phenomenon?

Google book results from 21th century (Books, UN reports , and writtings of western Sociologist scientists and Civil Right movements)

There are more than 3 090 results for the relation of racism xenophoby and the Orthodox church. (it is an engine of ethnic hatred and chauvinism until this day)

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=xenophobia+%22orthodox+church%22#q=xenophobia+%22orthodox+church%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:2000,cd_max:2099&sa=X&ei=MI7FUe6oG6OJ4ASHg4HwDw&ved=0CCIQpwUoAQ&fp=1&biw=1887&bih=996&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=WI7FUY-bKKvc4QS0j4HwAw

Just some very FEW example from the results:

UN. Dag Hammarskjöld Library : United Nations Documents Index: No.4 January-march 2004 - Page 107

...by the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, focuses mainly on the status and importance of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the situation of non- Orthodox

Cristian Romocea : Church and State: Religious Nationalism and State Identification ... - Page 137

Attempts at inner spiritual resistance and formal denunciations of xenophobic and anti-Semitic political activities came only ... Conclusion The investigation of the history of Orthodox church–state relations has shown that Romanian Orthodox

John Anthony McGuckin - The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, 2 Volume Set - Page 504

.. (over Estonia and Ukraine) and the R.O.C. / Romanian Orthodox Church (over Moldavia); some of them are still unresolved. The ROC has also been deeply affected by the tides of widespread xenophobia, nationalism, fundamentalism,

Linda Woodhead, Christopher Partridge, Hiroko Kawanami: Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations

In many cases they have been active in supporting the resurgent forms of ( sometimes xenophobic) nationalism which have developed in the wake of communism. Themost notorious example has been in Serbia, where the Serbian Orthodox Church

Elizabeth Pond: Endgame in the Balkans: regime change, European style - Page 226

and thus maintain the unity of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as well as his rejection of Western liberal norms. ... figures" with the values of the Serbian Orthodox Church, "marked by archaism, collectivism, anti-Western stands and xenophobia.

Geraldine Fagan - Believing in Russia: Religious Policy After Communism - page: 205.

Alexander Verkhovsky, 'Role of the Russian Orthodox Church in Nationalist, Xenophobic and Anti-Western Tendencies in Contemporary Russia: Not Nationalism, but Fundamentalism', paper for 'Xenophobia and Postsocialism'

Raphael Walden :Racism and Human Rights - page 123.

Finally, given the prominence of the Russian Orthodox Church in the formation of post-Soviet national identity and its unhappy ... of the multi-ethnic Russian Federation, in the development of measures to combat xenophobia and intolerance.

Daphne Halikiopoulou - Patterns of Secularization: Church, State and Nation i

Homogeneity as the ultimate national value may promote xenophobia and totalitarian attitudes (Fragoudaki and Dragona, 1997: ... identity, and increases the need to assert this identity and rally around its main defender: the Orthodox Church.

Stephen R. Goodwin : World Christianity in Local Context: Essays in Memory of David A.

These xenophobic features of Bulgarian nationalism have cloaked ethnic and religious discrimination in patriotic wrappings, placing membership in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and devotion to the Fatherland above all. This nationalism

Daniel B. Clendenin: Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective

This xenophobia toward the West has ebbed and flowed over the past one thousand years in the life of Russia in general; in the last five years it has markedly increased within the Orthodox church. The Russian Orthodox Church, which with

Daniel Benjamin : Europe 2030 - Page 118

On the other hand, the growing influence of the Orthodox Church and widespread xenophobia and intolerance of minorities could generate social tensions and amplify Russia's demographic challenges. Russia should learn from Europe

Benjamin Forest, Juliet Ellen Johnson, M. T. (Marietta Tigranovna) Stepaniants: Religion And Identity In Modern Russia: The Revival Of Orthodoxy ... - Page 137

The Orthodox Church has also adopted a defensive position in regards to perceived religious competitors and free speech. Chistiakov laments the xenophobia and "opposition to Christians of other traditions" expressed by many in the Church

Allen D. Hertzke: The Future of Religious Freedom: Global Challenges - Page 193

In a July 2007 open letter, leading academics, journalists, and human rights activists accused the Orthodox Church of fostering a “new national and religious ideology” that risked negating democracy and “endorsing xenophobia and a cult of

Katja Richters : The Post-Soviet Russian Orthodox Church: Politics, Culture and ... - Page 23

that on 28th December 1998, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church noted with regret that 'some clerics declare civil weddings illegitimate or demand the dissolution of marriages between partners ... to nationalist and xenophobic. --Werbeln (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Now send this comment to Putin and win a trip to Siberia! Russian joke.

--Sumatro (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you just a have Anti-Orthodox bias. Almost everything that you say, is false. You use quotes from random sources, the most of which are neo-fascistic or just science fiction. The source of this information is a forum in which to discuss topics such as "Jewish conspiracy" - [2]. You say: "These xenophobic features of Bulgarian nationalism have cloaked ethnic and religious discrimination in patriotic wrappings, placing membership in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and devotion to the Fatherland above all. This nationalism". What? I am Armenian, who was born and raised in Bulgaria and I've never seen anything like it. On the contrary - my grandmother and my grandfather had fled from the genocide in the Ottoman Empire (Armenian genocide) and were rescued by the Bulgarians in 1917. Over 22,000 Armenians have received asylum in Bulgaria then (Armenians in Bulgaria). Bulgarian Church has always condemned the fanatical nationalism. Have you ever seen the center of Sofia - there is one place are gathered Orthodox church, a Catholic church, a mosque, a synagogue and a Protestant church. In Bulgaria there are many Armenian churches. In Bulgaria there is greater religious freedom than most western countries (I lived in Germany, Spain, Netherlands and France). I, as an Armenian in Bulgaria accept your statements very offensive because they are false and distorted the history. I do not know about the Serbian and Russian Church, but I guess what you wrote about them is a hoax too.--Sumatro (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, the liberal civil rights activists, United Nations reports and observers are all fascist and racists and they made flase reports. It is VERY "belivable". Now I understand your Bulgarian bias. Historum.com is a left-liberal website, all nazi users are banned immediately. Hundreds of users were banned due to racism since its existence. Interestingly, the banned racists are mostly from Orthodox countries. (I've never seen a single racist Western European on that site). The main problem in Orthodox countries, that the state and church was not really (just formally) separated. If somebody criticize the Orthodox religion they interpret as an attack of their identity. Orthodox church is a hotbed of nationalism and chauvinism. In western world and western society the overwhelming/vast majority of people do not interest when you criticize the protestant or catholic beliefs/churches.--Werbeln (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Bulgaria state and Church are separated before 1100 years. You just a live in Middle Ages. The only state, where Church and State are not separated is Vatican.

Criticize the Orthodox! I don't care! I also may to criticize the Catholics and Protestants because of cases of pedofillia, the american TV preachers, the racism and by priests, who talking about new Crusade. But this is not the problem. I'm angry because you post lies (with political origin) and use neo-fascist websites as sources. In Bulgarian Church doesn't exist a nationalism and chauvinism. And never existed. Furthermore, Bulgaria is a part of Western society, but it seems the Geography is your enemy.--Sumatro (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The state and Church was not separated until this day in Orthodox balkan. Read: Van der Vyver, J. D., Johan David Van der Vyver, John Witte, Jr. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives, Volume 2

Vatican is a mini-state (only 1 sKM big). As a protestant, I've never heard about pedophilia in my country. Wrong: United nations, British American French civil rights activists and social scientists are not racist, just because they draw the attention of religious roots of racism in Orthodox countries. --Werbeln (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And look the the title of this section. You are here just to hate the Orthodox countries. You even don't know what is my religion and my ethnicity, but you insult me from the beginning. Your comment are example by religious intolerance and religious hatred. This is unacceptable in Wikipedia. I told you two times to be polite and to check the sources that you quote. Yes, some of the allegations are true, but others like this for the Bulgarian church are complete hoax. Some of the claims overlap with some theories, established in Italy during the rule of Mussolini and are by fascist propaganda purposes. If you continue you may be blocked.--Sumatro (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "The state and Church was not separated until this day in Orthodox balkan. Read: Van der Vyver, J. D., Johan David Van der Vyver, John Witte, Jr. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives, Volume 2". This is not a true. Now, you know that this sources are not reliable. Actually in the most cases I don't believe in Western European sources, which talking about the Balkans. The things in Balkan states are too complicated and because of various political reasons the people in Western Europe know very small about the Balkans. Look at yourself! You even don't know who is Paisiy Hilendarski! O, God!--Sumatro (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suprised that you can't understand the very essence of democracy (forexample read about Freedom of speech) Since I'm an atheist from a protestant family, I do not interest about the religious parts, because it is marginalt for me. So it is not religious hatred. In a free and democratic country, everybody has the fundamental right to criticize the churches. Moreover, I criticized only the secular politics of Orthodox church. So you do not belive in freedom of speech. However I don't like racism chauvinism , whether it be religious ( church-based) or secular (state-based like Axis powers in ww2). Do you think that Western universities and their professors are not reliable sources? Which sources are the reliable and unbiased? Perhaps the books of Orthodox religious leaders about their own churches? Are you kidding? Be serious!--Werbeln (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Freedom of speech, what protestants, what secular politics? I just say that some of your statements are wrong. What "books of Orthodox religious leaders"? All my quotes are from books of proffessional historians, art experts and scientists. You just spread one neo-fascistic theory with political origin. Your comments show that you know nothing about the Balkans and Eastern Europe, but in every comment you say that Eastern Europe and Balkans are "primitive lands". This is completely wrong and seems fascistic. Actually it is fascistic, because this theory is created in Nazi Germany in 1930s. You don't want to understand that the "Eastern-Western partition" is political concept, which was created during the Cold war. Even the concept "The Balkans" is not correct, because in Balkans are 12 different countries (For example look at Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Albania - 4 absolutely different countries with absolutely different languages). Eastern Europe was influenced by Western Europe also like Western Europe was influenced by Eastern Europe. That is all! --Sumatro (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, Do you think that the United Nations , International Civil Rights Foundations and organizations are fascist organizations? Are you serious? It is not a secret in history, that countries civilizations are/were not in the same level of development. Have you ever learned economic history? (I think, you didn't, because you are a crafman/workman) It is not nazism, but deatailed knowledge of economic and societal development. You proved unable to argue by logical way, that's why you try to divert the conversation towards primitive emotional ways (nazi etc...) Not only the nazis, but all academic western historians considered the social and economic development of slavic orthodox countries very slow and backward long before the nazis appeared in History. According to your "logic" the Americans Canadians French British Italian academic scientist are all "nazis". I suggest to worry about craftmanship/trade, instead of write articles on wikipedia without a single degree on this field.--Werbeln (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm say nothing about the United Nations or other organization. This are trumped up charges, figment of your imagination. Although sometimes in UN reports also are written some nonsenses. I said that your statements are completely wrong. Moreover, the fact that you do not know who are Paisiy Hilendarski and Clement of Ohrid shows your ignorance and poor knowledge. The sources, which you use, are not reliable. It just no needed by comment.--Sumatro (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one academic opinion by the historian prof. Petar Konstantinov, published in "Istoria", journal of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, May 2006, p. 27: The truth is that the specialists in Western Europe and the United States know very small about the Balkans and Eastern Europe. During the Cold War, when the East and the West was competed to conquer space, the battle was not only in the field of technology and innovation. After 1950 the history of Eastern Europe was completely hidden from the history books and encyclopedias in Western Europe and the USA. For the Bulgarian readers this statement seems inexplicable. Why? While the communist regimes impose a ideological censorship, to the west the major censorship principle was "Damnatio memorie". This method is used by the pharaohs in ancient Egypt - the new Pharaoh destroyed all pictures and works of the previous Pharaoh. So by the hate predecessor has not a trace of his reign, as if he never existed. Even before the rise of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe and the Balkans were little known by Western Europeans and Americans. Under normal circumstances, today these gaps would be filled. But the tension of the Cold War changed the expectations. For the period 1945 - 1990 the Western propaganda not only conceal the existence of the history of countries like Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary, but also managed to turn some myths and nationalistic doctrines in serious history and so this completely poison the hope for a comprehensive view of European history. After 1990 some Western historians have begun to fill these gaps, but because of the long period of half century of ignoring, it becomes difficult. --Sumatro (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Empire during the reign of Ivan Alexander and after that

Hi, Sumatro! Because you are expert on Balkan history, I want to ask you something. After the death of Emperor Ivan Alexander, the Bulgarian Empire was separated. But how many are Bulgarian states, after that? According to most sources are 11 states, but other historians says that the number is between 15-24. The other question is: do you know how many medieval castles were built in Western Bulgaria, at the time of Ivan Alexander? I know that in the 14th century many castles were fortified, revived and was built many fortresses and castles. This is probably the most impressive building of castles in Europe's history. The most of historians say that at the time of Ivan Alexander, the Bulgarian fortresses are the most powerful fortresses in Europe. Fortresses as Kaleto, Shumen and Urvich have a very strong resistance against to the Ottomans. I'm interested in the number of castles and fortresses at that time in Western Bulgaria, including Sofia.--195.24.37.106 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Bulgarian states is not absolutely sure. But this 11, about which you talking, are Bulgarian by all experts. About the number of the castles in Western Bulgaria I'm not sure - maybe over 1000 or more. I wiil check it and will write here or on message.--Sumatro (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro. Thank you. Nev1 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages and the hatred

Hallo, Sumatro! I don't know who are you, but did you know I'm your sockpuppet? Look at this parody. It is just disgustingly! I think this is some form of personal revenge against you. I saw the topic and wrote a few comments and they joined me to some list of puppets. I am new in Wikipedia and I want to ask you is this often happening on Wikipedia? How can I prove my innocence?--Mandramunjak (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh, oh, the old good article "Middle Ages"! I call it "the page of Ealdgyth and her nationalistic gang". The fact that the Bulgarian Empire was completely ignored in this article - overview shows that it is just a political discussion. Ludogoro probably felt the problem correctly here, if you see the latest results of the European elections in England. You can not actually do anything. The article is dominated and ruled by these nationalists (Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Hchc2009, etc.). Before a time, I started a long discussion there, I found and cited a many reliable sources, but they did not use any of them. Your thesis that the British historiography is biased, because there is no debate about the Balkans and Eastern Europe, is correct. But the major problem in the article is that the editors (Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Hchc2009, etc.) are biased and can not (or do not want) to look critically at their own historiography. It is a form of inferiority complex which is supported by some politicians in these countries (UK and USA) and as a result, these editors think our comments as cultural attack. My advice is to leave this page. It is pointless to engage in discussions with such editors. Many of their comments seems too fascist, but the lacking debate and perception of Europe as only Western Europe (the propaganda from the Cold war time) explain this. It will be more useful, if you talking with table, than with these editors. --Sumatro (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Middle Ages

Your recent editing history at Middle Ages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban from Middle Ages

Hi, I noticed this. Would you be willing to voluntarily follow your own advice and stay completely away from this area for a year? I think it would be best. Clearly comments like this are unacceptable. If this is not acceptable to you, how do you see things going forward? --John (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why for a year? I think to stay completely away from this page for 100 years. Or may be 200. I think 200 is a good number. OK, my next edit in this article will be in 2214. The fact that in this article from the three leading empires in medieval Europe are mentioned only two, but the third is ignored and the using of only English sources, which are not reliable about this topic are definite proofs that my comment is true, though is too sharp. I hope that someone else will pay attention to these problems. --Sumatro (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]