Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Is that sarcastic or it just looks like it? --'''] <sup>]</sup>''' 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
:Is that sarcastic or it just looks like it? --'''] <sup>]</sup>''' 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
:Wow, I saw your talkpage - you've got some serious issues right now - why did you do it (besides being really pissed off by the '''petty nationalists''' we are).--'''] <sup>]</sup>''' 18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
:Wow, I saw your talkpage - you've got some serious issues right now - why did you do it (besides being really pissed off by the '''petty nationalists''' we are).--'''] <sup>]</sup>''' 18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
This is the backbone of our GDP. Bulgarian bananas look photorealistic on smaller resolutions, but once you zoom in, you realize they're just fakes of Ecuadorian originals. '']]]'' 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
In all honesty I'm disappointed by the way you have responded to the Bulgarian municipal templates. I noticed you didn't respond when I first mentioned it, I gather you don't think it is a good idea. If I could access the guide Bulgaria site more easily I'd start working on it myself but my computer comes to a halt when I try to access it. Dr. Blofeld14:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me if I haven't replied, I'm pretty sure I'm not being paid by Misplaced Pages to contribute and so I can't be expected to be regular in my editing—or communication. I'm often too busy to engage in any such initiatives or even to reply, and sometimes I can't reply at a given moment and forget to do so later. I don't believe anything of those can be disappointing, but I do apologize if you have actually relied on me.
I don't think those templates are a bad idea, they can have some use although I'm not a great fan because I think categories are doing the job just fine. I'd simply prefer to devote the currently little time I have for Misplaced Pages to authoring original content aimed at DYK, GA and FA. I'm sorry if that is disappointing, but I simply don't have the hours to organize templates. I do personally believe that writing engaging, well-referenced, quality articles is more important to WikiProject Bulgaria than that. See, everyone has the right to choose how to contribute, you can't really be disappointed by the personal choice I've made.
Also, I don't think Guide Bulgaria is the most authoritative source, they seem to be actually nicking content from Misplaced Pages, they are certainly biased as a tourism website, and their English is pretty crappy.
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) 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your last edits from the Wallachian plain because it is the same plain. Your argument "not the same at least culturally" is vague, because this article is about a Geographical feature, not a cultural one. In Bulgaria it is not treated separately, but it is described only in the dimensions that belong to that country. Same for the Balkan mountains, the Rhodopes etc. I give you also an example from Romania: the plain in the western part of the country is called in Romania "The Western plain" (Campia de Vest), and it is described only in the dimensions that belong to Romania. But from the Geographical point of view it is part of the Hungarian Plain though. In Slovakia they call the southern part of the country "Danubian plain" but actually it is part of the Hungarian Plain. --Olahus (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you have right. I apologise! I confused the Wallachain Plain with the Lower Danube Bassin, which are 2 different issues, because the Lower Danube Bassin includes the entire space between the peaks of the Southern Carpathians (as the northernmost limit) and the peaks of the Balkan mountains (as the southernmost limit). Best regards and cheers! --Olahus (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to have a look at Radeva's article linked to from Anatolian Bulgarians but it doesn't seem to work. Tried to find the article in another way so I could fix it myself, but didn't succeed! (Including trying to find the site for Демокрация - did they fail??) Maybe you can help.
There's an interesting discussion going on about a youtube video made in one of the villages inhabited by Anatolian Bulgarians, contact me if you're interested. — Martha (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Tnx for reply. Visit http://archive.iecc.com/search.phtml/eefc and search for 'Multilingual speakers' from 2008-2009. But some of the discussion (the most interesting part of course!) was private. Can we connect by e-mail on this? I don't know how to do that from Misplaced Pages. — Martha (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:Turkish communities outside Turkey
Hi! Thanks for your judgment. I understand your thoughts and take them on board. But I’m sure you see that I have only placed this category into articles which states a Turkish community. I do not think it is necessary to have a certain percentage point as even 1% is quite a high percentage for certain cities. Also please not that the category is not about ‘major’ populations, just Turkish communities… Turco85 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Places with a Turkish community outside Turkey sounds fine to me... however I do remember naming disputes on this category in previous months. Nevertheless, I would be satisfied with such a change. My only objection would be to having a certain percentage for the category for the reasons I set forth before… Turco85 (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems my secret plan of teaching you Romanian bit by bit is working :D. Good to see you've caught a shine for the DYK - you're doing a very good job there too. And thanks, Dahn (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Praise from Caesar - thank you for that. Oh and: sure you know, and I know, that they should go straight to FA, but the philistines keep bothering me with the review processes :). But seriously: I expect the toughest criticism from my friends, so please don't hesitate to point out any flaw you may come across. I'm sure there are plenty, they're just more discreet since I learned how to fake erudition ;). The very best to you too, Todor, and à la prochaine. Dahn (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Delyo
On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Delyo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hiya - I've redirected your page, as convention is that aircraft incidents are just known by the flight name - please help at the main article! Many thanks! Pedro : Chat 10:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Elena Udrea
Hi, Todor, and thanks a lot for verifying the length and date on this. Now that Dahn has proposed a more suitable hook, only that remains to be checked. There's a source in the article, plus plenty more here. - Biruitorul04:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
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) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You have been engaging in edit warring at Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia recently. As a word of advice, when you notice that you are carrying on a conversation in edit summaries like this, that means things have gone too far. You shouldn't be able to revert each other enough to hold a discussion like that, and, more importantly, it just encourages the other person to revert you back, especially when you use taunting edit summaries like "You started it, you'll face the consequences." Please keep your discussions to the talk page instead, and try to resolve the conflict the first, without this confrontational warring. If you have an edit conflict, WP:DR may be helpful. Please take a look at the essay on edit warring for more insight. Additionally, you should be aware that a prior arbitration case pertains to this subject matter, and administrators have the power to block editors who disrupt Macedonia-related articles. Dominic·t12:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Thanks, thanks, I had some big time personal problems and decided to call it a day for some time (six months or so). I think I'm much better now so I decided to come back. I won't be around that much, but still here. I see some things have changed, some haven't, some better English, some familiar faces and so on. So, thanks again and happy editing as always :) --Laveol19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I've translated Ivan Alexander (el:Ιβάν Αλεξάντερ) to greek. I would also like to translate the map mentioned above but it seems to have invalid svg code. Since I'm not very experienced with svg Ι wonder if you could check the map again. Thank you! --Egmontaz♤21:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No need to thank me, I should thank you instead for your contribution to that article which gave me the opportunity to translate an interesting article. --Egmontaz♤15:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for hundreds of years in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for incessantly spreading bourgeois nationalist Bulgarian propaganda. As an IMRO member and a lackey of the Tsar, you have no place among the workers' and working peasants' alliance moving forward to build socialism. You already fought about three failed wars against Greece and Serbia: can you not renounce these expansionist delusions and comfort yourself with building socialism in one country? Per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction. 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.
Please unblock me, I am innocent! I am a faithful servant of our great Tsar General Secretary. I have always been a devoted communist and internationalist! Long live Balkania! Todor→Bozhinov18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the class struggle, comrade! (Granted, this guy has long been blacklisted - indeed murdered by our Glorious Teacher Stalin, but his sentiment was correct back then.) - Biruitorul19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to see the trouble you're having with this. If you want my advice (and maybe you don't!) I think you should consider withdrawing the FAC. Yes, I know you think that would make no sense because of the multiple support votes, but based on nothing more than my (admittedly only recently acquired) experience at WP:FAC, I don't think the article will be promoted this time around; the delegate who reads the FAC page to determine whether it will be promoted, archived or left open will give significant weight to the opposition because it has come from those experienced at reviewing featured article candidates, and because—though you may disagree—the oppose statements are based on a coherent, legitimate argument rather than "I don't like it." So, I do think the most prudent, least stressful course of action for you would be to withdraw the FAC, take a look at the recommended sources at your leisure, include any relevant details, and resubmit the article in a few weeks. Please don't let the frustrations you've encountered this time put you off FAC for good; I'm sure that if you follow this advice, the next time will be far less stressful. All the best, Steve19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's been really stressful. I do believe the article has the required quality and meets the criteria, that's why I've sustained the nomination. I also think the voting and the overall opinion have been generally towards promotion and the delegates cannot ignore that. I deeply disagree with the reasoning and judgement of those who have voted oppose. I simply don't find their comments actionable or even reasonable: how can I be asked to contact experts during a FAC, or comply with a request to rewrite a GA with overwhelming FAC support to boot? I can't understand that. Withdrawing the nomination would be like acknowledging it doesn't meet the criteria, and so far I've seen no solid facts presented to back that position. Might be a few more days (or weeks?!) of stress, but it may prove worth it.
The truth is, I've been very disappointed with the FAC process and I'll probably take a break from Misplaced Pages once this is over. It's been way too much stress for what it's worth. I'm probably never going on FAC again (or at least in the near future) because it really has been a very unpleasant experience compared to my previous FA attempts and my overall experience with Misplaced Pages. This particular nomination has been a rollercoaster, and not in a good way ;) Even the most heated Balkans-related discussions have been less unpleasant. Probably because they can never be that much personal as an article you've carefully worked on for months that people ask you to research again and rewrite.
I understand your frustration. FAC can be one of the most stressful areas; by design it exists to hold our work to a higher standard than most of the rest of Misplaced Pages can match—and this is how it should be. But what I will say is that I don't think anyone was saying the article required a complete rewrite; Laser Brain seemed to be suggesting that other experts on the topic weigh in with an opinion on the best sources to use and "have them review a working outline." I don't know what that means exactly, but it doesn't look like a rewrite request to me. The principal objections are resolvable; you indicated that you could access these books given enough time. I feel sure that if you withdrew the FAC and took some time to look over the books then the opposition would disappear; as it stands, I'm 100% sure it won't be promoted while their concerns are outstanding, but RelHistBuff indicated a willingness to support, and the other editors are honourable reviewers who I'm sure would be happy to reconsider their votes if you pinged them upon renomination. I'm sorry if I seem like I'm repeating myself, perhaps that proves just how much of a shame I think it would be if you were soured to Misplaced Pages and to FAC because of this experience. Steve21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, though, they do want a complete rewrite: "the whole thing needs to be rewritten, top to bottom". When someone goes from a comment to oppose then to comment then to symbolic oppose then to full oppose, you start to wonder if you're really sure what you're doing at all with this nomination. It feels like people are opposing organizedly because I couldn't take a month-and-a-half nomination anymore and wanted it finally promoted, against their vocal but small minority. It gets from bad to worse.
Todor, let me begin by saying this: though I have read through the FAC, I haven't cast my vote because I do see a point to the some of the comments about sourcing, or, at least, it would take me too much time to look into every individual source, assess its nature and how important it is to the text. Voting implies a responsibility, one I can't take in this context. That said, I notice that many negative comments there are irresponsible in the opposite way, and some are simply parasitical (the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type). FAC is a self-important and often grotesque process (I should know), but I found it is better to go the extra mile before submitting an article and make it bulletproof by several standards, which is why I've "sabotaged" at least one intended FAC nom for my contributions.
Whatever the outcome, please, please reconsider your decision to leave us, or, if there's no way of persuading you to change your mind, please, please return soon. This project needs you, and the Bulgaria articles can't do without you. Cheers. Dahn (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey ;-) Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee don't leave us :(:( Don't pay attention to those who are annoying you and go on with something else... We have to fill in tons of templates, write articles for villages, river, landmarks... and without you we are lost. Поздрави... и не обръщай внимания на ония охлюви ;-) --Gligan (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Steve gives you great advice above so I won't try to rehash it, but let me try to offer you some encouragement. You are a great editor, and you brought great prose to FAC. If you got away without an Oppose from Tony1, you know you have that much in the bag. However... there is nothing worse than the sinking feeling that your labor of love might have problems that can't be fixed within the scope of a nomination. I know it's bringing you down, especially since you don't see eye-to-eye with the opposition. FAC should be your shining moment, when all your hard work is recognized for what it is. So I know how you feel! Some people bring nominations in that aren't ready, and when they get archived, the editor goes, "Yeah, you got me" and shuffles off to work on it some more. Somewhere inside, they knew it wasn't ready. Sometimes they don't come back, but usually they do. But some editors believe in their hearts that the material is ready, and there is nothing quite so demoralizing than being told your 100% ready article doesn't meet some criterion or another. It's demoralizing because you spent 100% of your effort getting it there and you don't know what else you can do to appease them. But, please—take a step back. Take two steps back. Have a cup of earl grey. Then look at it again and I think you'll find that a) the opposition is acting with best intentions for the article, and b) it won't take as much work as you think. Engage the opposition and work to fix their concerns. If they don't respond, then they have nothing to bitch about, do they? This is an important topic! Who cares if the 5th episode of season 7 of the Golden Girls is using the best sources? But yours.. we've got to get it right. And we need your help. --Laser brain(talk)16:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Todor. I echo the sentiments of Steve and Laser brain, but I also wanted to assure you that generally articles do not spend this much time at FAC. You had the unfortunate luck to nominate the article in a time when there weren't a lot of reviewers, meaning it took longer to get feedback than it should have. Articles are also now only evaluated twice a week, and with my recent appointment as an FAC delegate, I recused myself from closing this article. This means the nom actually only gets looked at once per week. I understand your frustration, and I encourage you to overlook some of the more over-the-top comments from reviewers who are probably also frustrated. If the nomination is archived rather than promoted, you can either a) leave the article alone, confident that it is the way you envisioned it, or b) work with those reviewers and see if their suggestions may improve the article, and then optionally bring it back to FAC. Either way, you should be proud that you have created a useful article on a very important figure. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Todor, I feel your pain. My FAC has been up for almost a month right now, and my article has vastly improved. If it does't pass, then I keep working on it anyway. You don't need someone else to tell you the article is great. Even the best FA on WP could be improved. Just imagine if Ernest Hemingway came back from the dead and decided to write a bio of Vasil, even you couldn't beat that (or could you?). So just take it all in stride and don't let it frustrate you, try to remember it is all constructive criticism. From one WP author to another, your article is great! You can't please everyone. You probably spent a lot of time on this article, which is more than the other 98% of editors out there can say. There are very few editors with more than five FAs, and you already have two, so obviously you are an accomplished editor without which Misplaced Pages would be sorely lacking in the Bulgarian history category. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Todor, I echo Dahn and Gligan's sentiments. You may need a break and a rest, and that's normal. But please be back soon: you are needed and much appreciated here. - Biruitorul04:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, guys. Don't worry about me—I just really need a break. I'll be back in a few weeks, maybe a month. I don't have time to devote to Misplaced Pages right now and I don't have the inspiration to research and write stuff. I was hoping the Vasil Levski FAC would bring the joy back, but it did the exact opposite. It was a tough and disappointing experience and I wouldn't recommend it to anybody I don't deeply detest. People voting at FAC really need to rethink the way they assess stuff and they have to take some responsibility for their actions. So just give me some time—I never said I'm quitting, I'm just taking a break. Todor→Bozhinov08:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
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) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Privet!
Hi! I'm a user from Japanese wikipedia, mainly translating articles into Japanese. I didn't know what kind of trouble you are involved in, but I liked many of your works & I've translated some of them into Japanese. I hope you spend good time during the break & come back someday. See you!--Peccafly-talk-hist09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Grigor Nachovich
On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grigor Nachovich, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, unfortunately I have no printed book in home about Albanians in Turkey and Bulgaria, for whom I had tried to create articles, unssucesfully. Of course I will be more then happy to collaborate with you on this topic. Have a nice day, Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am getting 8:2 (with Encyclopedia Brittanica speaking about the dialect of Arbanasi of Croatia) . But as Arbanasi Croatia has about 30,000, Arbanasi Bulgaria 64 thousand, i.e. 2:1, I see no huge distinction. If you insist, I have no problem, but I think that a disambiguation page, which would include Arbanasi, Bulgaria; Arbanasi, Zadar; and Arbanasi as a ethnolinguistic group, would be better. What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I bet that Arsenal won`t win:-), but I prefer Arbanasi as a disambiguation. It`s something like Georgia: Georgia US has 2:1 googling results than Georgia country, but as Georgia country has a national group in it, its a disambiguation. Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I saw your talkpage - you've got some serious issues right now - why did you do it (besides being really pissed off by the petty nationalists we are).--Laveol18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the backbone of our GDP. Bulgarian bananas look photorealistic on smaller resolutions, but once you zoom in, you realize they're just fakes of Ecuadorian originals. Todor→Bozhinov20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
— 16 March 2009
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
