User talk:Laveol/2008/May

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

sreken veligden (a bit late now :) ) good job on bulgarians. Collecting the census'. If i find specific country data i will add them in. But once again good job. PMK1 (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Vuistina voskrese. Nice work to you, too. I've removed some of the links on the article about Macedonians (ethnic group) since they were from a book for which there's no info given and from a personal website which is hardly reliable. As for the Foreign ministry source - it tends to be a lot better than the censuses since most of them are outdated (since they were taken some years ago) and the ministry uses the number of people that have registered in the embassy. I've avoided any numbers that look ridiculous or don't have specific info about them. If you can acquire some data for Brazilia I'd be really thankful since I could not find any. There were a lot of Poles and other europeans there, but no exact numbers (from a reasonable source) --Laveol ^T 20:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yes and no, it is often significantly more than the actual figures, yet the bulgarian compared to others is more realistic (eg. greek FM has 700,000 greeks in australia and 3,000,000 in america, (actual figures are half that), even the macedonian 200,000 in australia and same for the US; actual figures are 85,000 and 45,000). If you insist you can leave the bulgarian figures but i think that should be there only as a last resort, when there is no other information. Also census must be given first priority. I will try to find the another source for the macedonians in brazil. PMK1 (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the 'Matitsa na Icelenitsite od Makedonija' it is (if you cant understand) the 'institue for the emigrants from macedonia'. Similar to the comitee for bulgarians abroad. They used to publish a monthly almanac/magazine but i am pretty sure it has stopped publishing for some years now. It gives figures and estimates about foreign macedonian populations. Also with bulgarians the greece figure should encompass the pomaks living in thrace shouldnt it? This source has pomaks at .9%. The turks article has turks as 50% so i would assume that the other 40 or so percent would be bulgarian pomaks? i wouldnt think that that is an innapropriate figure.PMK1 (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know i added the pomaks and bulgarians figure for the greek one, and removed the ethnologue turkish one. PMK1 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Еве што сум напишал:
- Text below is MY OPINION THAT this page is Greek propaganda. Far away from truth. (I hope that wikipedia is interested about truth? And that means to hear ALL opinions, not only Greeks). This is TALK page, so why don;t you HEAR all??? Please do not delete this. I am not NOTHING, and I HAVE RIGHT on free speach.

- It "boldly" states that Macedonians are not Macedonains. WHAT a STUPIDITY!!!!!!

- Maybe the propaganda will survive, but it will be false truth anyway. Accepted or not accepted.

- This is typical Gebels style propaganda, like any fascist regime - be it german or greek.

- - How can they (greek propagandist) claim that macedonians are "unrelated" to antic people?????? Who are they to judge to people??? Just because they twisted history with lies in 16th to 20th century??? Hitler also invented good tanks, and abused them against Poland. But it hadn't give any good to the World.

- - What ever - just Please take out that stupid claim - "unrelated", because it is NOT PROVEN. Is it??? If it is - give me citation from a non greek propaganda source. Especially if you have some genetical or cultural link with connection. I will give you one simple example of relation - we like wine. Alexander the Great liked wine. There is relation! :-))

Дали ти си помагател на Грчката пропганда??? Многу бедно, ако еден Бугарин (за каков си се потпишал) им помага на Грците против Македонците од кои го добил јазикот, писмото и културата и кои му се најмногу блиски и кои НИКОГАШ (за разлика од Грците) не им направиле ништо лошо на Бугарите. Те молам, баш bold-ирај ги моите неточни тврдења. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.246.13 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

SLUSAJ DRUGAR!! Nacionalniot simbol na site Makedonci e sonceto od kutleš!!! Ako misles deka nee taka daj dokaz ili se maani!!!!

Only English here, please. And I don't know what you're talking about. --Laveol ^T 18:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fu.. o.. BAJGAN!!! The national simbol of MACEDONIAN nation is Kutlesh sun!!!!!! I will talk whit administrator of this page!!! I allredy give info of information about pictures!!! And now i'm going to write abot turkomongolic volgarians!!!

DA mi jadeš mandaloto!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makedonij (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See here first than take an action! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgarians There is no CENSUS data and it will be deleted Makedonij 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What?--Laveol ^T 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So go on click on your sorce and you will see that there is nothing!!!So stop pushing,i allready report that to administrator!Makedonij 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you go and see what he answered you. --Laveol ^T 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Turks of Bulgaria

It is not in the benefit of Wikipedia users to be blind sided. The controversy behind the bombing events needs to be recognised. Taking into consideration the high alert security situation during 1984 and 1985 (the main phase of the Assimilation Campaign against the ethnic Turks in Bulgaria) such acts of terror could not be taken as self evident. Furthermore the sources and reliability of something called TNFM are the least dubious. Moreover, the source “netinfo.bg” is without the proper sources for their article on the Bunovo events (good to see you have accepted the correction of the location). To the contrary the interview by Janko Janev is a first hand source despite of the contents of the interview being copied in a discussion forum. It is not polite to delete additions to the article if there are conflicting views these need to be discussed.

Hittit (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what you're adding is OR. Furhter, usage of First hand sources (such as the forum you suggest) are strongly discouraged at Wikipedia. These are policies of the encyclopedia and you as an editor should adhere to them. If you want my personal opinion I think you just want to push a certain POV (seeing your edit history) which is certainly not helpful to the encyclopedia. This is only my personal view, but you should try to follow some rules and if you don't wanna you'd better not edit at all. --Laveol ^T 22:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You should be concerned only with your own editing history, the whole article will be revised when I find the time.

Hittit (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To forget all bed thigs betwin us,maybe you be interested to help me here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians_in_SerbiaMakedonij (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Laveol pleas discuss whit me on article discussion page!Thanks!Makedonij (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pich mi,

mnogo ti se izkefih na podobreniata deto si napravil na dobavkite mi, osobeno toya link za kolodruma me zastralya :-)

popravih ti samo "Boris'es" : spored oxford tryabva da e ili Boris's, ili prosto Boris'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, super. Create an account, please. It'd be much easier. As for Boris - you're 100% right. Oh, and write in English, please or they'll want me to translate everything. I have a mail as well. If you have qny questions just whistle :). I have plans for the Sofia article - to get it to B class at the least. Cheers.--Laveol ^T 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ок, Супер. Направи си акаунт обаче. Комуникацията ще е много по-лесна. За Борис си 100% прав - и аз днеска го мислих много време. Аааа и пиши на английски, че иначе ще искат да им превеждам всичко. Имам и мейл. Ако имаш нужда от помощ свиркай. Имам планове статията за София да я докараме поне до Б качество в скоро време. Поздрави :)--Laveol ^T 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - fast answer! safe. i would register but i cant - i've only got inet at work and our system doesnt allow some registration pages etc. But i do read my i.p. talk page so you can contact me there. i'm with you on that B-class article. will do all i can to help. check the bg.wiki/sofia article at times cos i mite add stuff there sometimes and forget to translate it on here (sorry!).

stay safe!

Nic

ps. for foren users - my orig message was: "i really liked your improvements of my Sofia-sports additions (10 May '08), especially the velodrome link." 62.176.111.68 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Laveol, please tell me why Aegean Macedonians is so iredentist that it needs to be removed? If any thing was irredentist that Bulgarians in Albania that should be delete instantly.!PMK1 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious - it identifies people with an irredentist term - see Aegean Macedonia --Laveol ^T 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What other term should they be identified with? That is how they are identified as Aegean Macedonians, that is how they identify themselves as. It is not only Ethnic Macedonians who use the term, many other people do as well. Such as Bulgarians! and Serbs and Croats! How irredentist of them!.PMK1 (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But you're the only ones using it in an irredentist way. All the others have it as a Greek region, and only you - as a region that was taken from you. And, as I said, no - you cannot call ethnic Macedonians living in Greek Macedonia simply Aegean Macedonians. The Greeks living there are Macedonians living by the Aegean sea (so pretty much the same) - what should they be called? Oh, I forgot - they didn't exist, did they. --Laveol ^T 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not?? How can the region be taken from us? Who is us? If anything i would have thought that the bulgarians would be upset, they controlled the area once! As for Ethnic Macedonians they have not, so it couldnt have been taken from us!. Also if by your terminology, the greeks should be called that, then they can be called Greek Aegean Macedonians, if you want to be specific. but they dont use the word Aegean to identify themselves, it would be innapropriate (eg. Greeks in Athens, and Larissa, they are also Aegeans.). PMK1 (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Laveol,here is the link about Russian census,you can put it in article about Bulagrian.http://www.perepis2002.ru/index.html?id=17 Look number 4 at the link,the number of Bulgarians is 31,965 Bulgarians. And please remove Albanian number until we find the resonble source! Makedonij (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple curiosity (ie no offence meant to our Macedonian users; my question on the page wasn't simply in jest!). Do you have any idea if it was based on the similar Bulgarian one? ("a familiar symbol that, however, still distances us from what we 'rejected'") 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The information you removed has references. Is there anyway we can reach a middle ground on this? Thus avoiding an edit war? Kansas Bear (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has only one ref and it's not about the sentence that immediately precedes it. Yes, we can, but as usually Nostradamus has to tone down the POV. Do you think They were victims of a combination of local Bulgarian rapacity and what later generations would call state terror. When Russian troops entered part of Bulgaria, Bulgarian revolutionaries, Russian soldiers, especially Cossacks, and Bulgarian peasants began a programme of rape, plunder and massacre. is NPOV? --Laveol ^T 07:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to anything, I prefer references to back up what is written. I understand that alot of what is written rubs people the wrong way and I'm not here to blacken anyone's nationality. If we can illustrate/explain what happened(with references) without libelling anyone's ethnicity, I would prefer that. Kansas Bear (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that'd be nice. But what I prefer is not to have such straightforward labeling and usage of such words. It's clear why this was added. Even if there is an author who mentions this in such a way, this is still no reason to write it like that. I've dealt with Nostradamus before and he has the habbit of writing in this way. --Laveol ^T 07:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, Laveol tries to remove anything negative about Bulgarians. He even tried the article Big Excursion deleted. Where is the sense of decency here?Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Laveol, this is not the first time you and your fellow Bulgarians are trying to remove this information. I warned you already. You know very well that the entire paragraph is referenced with TWO scholarly sources. We won't keep this information out just to make you happy.Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read the reference listed by Hupchick p.265, and he doesn't mention in explicit detail(rape,plunder and massacre) as to what occurred. He does mention 260K Muslims died during this war. However, I don't see how stating,

They were victims of a combination of local Bulgarian rapacity and what later generations would call state terror. When Russian troops entered part of Bulgaria, Bulgarian revolutionaries, Russian soldiers, especially Cossacks, and Bulgarian peasants began a programme of rape, plunder and massacre.

...helps the article. What transpired is indicative of all wars(past,present,and future). If we are going to state that the Bulgarians did X,Y and Z, then shouldn't we go back and show how every country's forces involved in conflict committed X,Y, and Z? As for McCarthy, he is heavily involved with the Republic of Turkey and can hardly be considered an unbiased source. I would keep the "260K Muslims died" reference, but remove the "......programme of rape, plunder, and massacre.", paragraph. What are your opinions, gentlemen? Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

?Well, I already told you that my problem was with the things you mentioned. And I'm totally for removing them and leaving the others. I thought ?Nostradamus was not telling the truth when he said these were referenced, but now I'm sure. Thanks for clarifying that. --Laveol ^T 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If McCarthy is credible enough for Hupchick he is certainly credible enough for WP. You can not dismiss a source just because you dissgree with it. There is no such WP rule. Can you please quote the relevant sentences Hupchick wrote? I stand behind what I wrote. I provided two references that convey the same events. In the aftermath of the war attrocities were committed against the Muslim population of Bulgaria. These attricuties included rape, plunder, massacres, burning of villages. These attrocities were not only committed by the soldiers but also by the local Bulgarian peasants. Why should we exclude this from the article and imply that it was committed by the Russian soldiers alone? Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should the article have to libel what Bulgarians and Russians did during a war? This has occurred in ALL wars. Should we go back and edit all wars to include which side raped, pillaged, and burned and when? Where is the relevance? McCarthy sits on the board for the Institute for Turkish Studies. His objectivity is, for me, questionable as a historian. As for Hupchick, his quote isn't so insulting.

As Russian forces pushed south in January 1878, the troops, Bulgarian volunteers, and the emboldened local Bulgarian villagers inflicted a welter of atrocities on the local Muslim population. -- Hupchick p.265

Isn't relevance what we want? Would a re-written version of Hupchick's quote(since we can't use it verbatim) along with the mention of the 260K Muslims, be acceptable to you gentlemen? Kansas Bear (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How irrelevant is the fate of the local population during and in the aftermath of the war? Why would mentioning the rape and plunder of certain people is offending to some but not mentioning that it took place is not? Shall we apply the same standard to the numerous alleged genocide articles? Furthermore the attrocities on the Bulgarians are mentioned in the article. Regarding McCarthy's credibility, as I indicated, he so credible that Hupchick directly quotes him. I am avare that the hate-genocide industry activists have issues with him but a publication that is made available in major western libraries and research centers as a reference can and will be used here. If McCarthy sits on the board for the Institute for Turkish Studies then that might be an indication that he has access to the Ottoman archives making him a better expert. Do you realize that the article currently has, for instance, an Armenian as a reference? How objective an Armenian is and can be when it comes to anything Turkish? Would you prefer we start translating and quoting Turkish historians also? It does not require much of an imagination to guess the reactions here. (Also quoting short passages verbatim from sources is not against the rules. The copyright disclaimers allow for it.)--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you write as if it was you that was there. And as if only your opinion is valid. + you have given inline citations only for the last sentence. Could you provide me with the exact quote? --Laveol ^T 22:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See here [1] It's not my oppinion. It's the oppinion of scholars. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, who were you? I do not know you and at least to steal words from you. However, I am MacedonianBoy and nice to meet you!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So you don't have a problem with these 19th-century revolutionaries in the List of Macedonians (ethnic group) article, but you have a problem with them being in the Aegean Macedonians article. Are you contradicting yourself??? Polibiush (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he does have a problem but he didn't want to cause the United Macedonian ire (aka whining). 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So you don't have a problem with these 19th-century revolutionaries in the List of Macedonians (ethnic group) article, but you have a problem with them being in the Aegean Macedonians article. Are you contradicting yourself??? Polibiush (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They have a note in the list's article and it is just a list. I do believe they should not be there as well, but since this is the consensus, that's it. And aren't most of them actually 20-th century revolutionaries. I mean, they did most of the revulutionizing in the XX century. But nevermind that - it's one thing to have somebody in a list (with a note) and quite another to put him on the article about an ethnic group with a big portrait especially since he did not express any such consciousness and was considered Bulgarian by most first and secondhand sources. --Laveol ^T 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So how would you feel if I added them to the list of Aegean Macedonians with the exact same note as in the other article? Polibiush (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding them to a POV article with a POV title. I'd remove them. The fact that they are ethnic Macedonians is controversial enough as to not include them in any regional variations (POV forks) of that article. --Laveol ^T 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Aegean Macedonians article is just an article on ethnic Macedonians from northern Greece. Since they are already listed in the "List of Macedonians (ethnic group)", I don't think there would be any harm if I added them, after all they are from northern Greece. And I will be adding a note about their controversial identity, which is shared with Bulgaria. I think this is a fair compromise. Polibiush (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it better not to include them and avoid controversies and possible edit-wars. The article is POV enough without giving it even more. It's pretty obvious why you want to add them in order to justify the mere existence of the article. Nope, it's not alright - there was no such term at the time - why should they be bound with it? Were they ever referred to as Aegean Macedonians (ethnic) by English sources? I don't think so. --Laveol ^T 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But I told you, the term "Aegean Macedonians" is just a term used for ethnic Macedonians who come from northern Greece. At the time when they were born, Macedonia wasn't part of Greece so obviously they didn't use the term. Today, they are viewed as "Aegean Macedonians" because they come from what is now northern Greece. The note about their identity will eliminate any controversies and edit wars. Polibiush (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

but this is a term used exclusively by ethnic Macedonians to refer to a controversial minority within a neighbouring country and to mark an irredentist concept. In Bulgaria and most of the world they're viewed as Bulgarians. And what even Fut.Perf would tell you is that since the term is not used in English sources to describe the person in question, then he should not be on the list. --Laveol ^T 18:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the term isn't used by English sources, but what is used by English sources and Bulgarian sources is the term "Aegean Macedonia". Therefore these people are viewed as Aegean Macedonians because they are Macedonians from Aegean Macedonia. Polibiush (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's what you say. I say they are not Aegean Macedonians, but simply Bulgarians. No need for anything else. Do you see Bulgarian editors creating POV forks like the artcile Aegean Macedonians? No? I wonder why. No, nothing like this is acceptable in the current article. You say they are viewed as "Aegean Macedonians"? But only by you. --Laveol ^T 18:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would the bulgarian editors create an article about ethnic macedonians??, to bulgarians we are just western bulgarians are we not? And i forgot i speak bulgarian oh and also i go to the church of sofia. So do the rest of my Bulgarian compatriots! Dont even start laveol! PMK1 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't make any sense. --Laveol ^T 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• source]
• And where are your sources on this atribution???
• There are no sorces of yours coment!Any way this article is about Macedonian church history not Bulgarian!!
• You can write your Bulgarian history at Bulgarian church.
• I dont think this contribution is needed in Macedonian church.Makedonij (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I took the info from other articles that are sourced. And if you think that the word Bulgarian should be removed from the article, then you'd better remove the whole history section till 1913 at the least. There's nothing you or I could do about the fact that the Medieval church was called Bulgarian, that the region was part of the Bulgarian empire, that the Bulgarian Exarchate was followed by the biggest part of the population of the region in the XIX century. Sorry, if youwant a history section, you'll have to take it or leave only antiquity and present-time. --Laveol ^T 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just insert info or leave it like it was!Makedonij (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Will you insert info sources or not???And let thouse sources be neutral!!There was not Bulgarian patrijaršija in Ohrid,it was OHRIDSKA PATRIARŠIJA,like PEČKA PATRIJARŠIJA or CONSTANINOPELSKA PATRIJARŠIJA.Makedonij (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, take it easy now. It was the Bulgarian Patriarchy since this was the Bulgarian Patriarch and since Ohrid was the capital of Bulgaria at the time. --Laveol ^T 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We must find consensus or if we not i will send this to Moreshi to deside!Makedonij (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I once again fail to see what the problem is. We're sure this was the Bulgarian empire and the Bulgarian Patriarch, so why are you making groundless complaints. --Laveol ^T 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok,lets do it this way,Ohrid was a capital but the name of Patriarchate was OHRIDSKA not Bulgarian!!

And there are no sources also!!!

Makedonij (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

come again?--Laveol ^T 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok,that is fine,but now you must read the article about history!!!Is it about Macedonian church??When i read it i think it's talking about Bulgarian church history!!!NOT GOOD!

Now we must change that,or there will be edit war again!I think that you shoud put it back like it was!The article is talking about MAcedonian church not Bulgarian!:-)Makedonij (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I told you - you can remove Bulgarian by removing most of the history section. And no you cannot write unsourced nonsense instead of it. It is either the well-sourced version that all world scholars support or it's no version. You see, there's no dispute as to how this church was called. Not liking it is no reason for removal. --Laveol ^T 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actualy my atribute was focused on a book ALL SAINTS OF MACEDONIA,and on official web page of Macedonian Orthodox church,which you can find in link info in the bottom!And they both say the same about history of Macedonian orth.church!!

Are we comeing to consensus or not?Makedonij (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say (you must better your English if you're going to contribute here, you know). You mean you've used entirely POV sources? And one of them is a webs--Laveol ^T 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)ite?

My mistake,read it now.Makedonij (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the official web page:Makedonij (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mpc.org.mk/English/MPC/history-mpc.asp

Are you going to change it back or i will,or we are going to arbitrage this article??

you dont want to discuss anymore?Makedonij (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask pardon if you have taken offense at my edit summary (here). I realize that you nowhere called the edit of User:85.107.250.251 "vandalism". For my part, I assumed that the primary use of Twinkle was to revert vandalism. The anonymous user's edit seemed to me to be in good faith. I intended no ill will. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed that your additions of [[Bulgar alphabet]] to Early Cyrillic alphabet have been reverted. I think there is a little misunderstanding about what this term refers to. The Cyrillic alphabet has gone through several stages of development, as noted in the article. Considering that the article is still short and lacks a good history, I think it is not clear that Bulgar alphabet is really the same thing as the Early Cyrillic alphabet. Let me suggest that you help flesh out the history, maybe breaking out larger sections into articles of their own. Look at the recent comments on my own talk page - I don't think adding red links to Bulgar alphabet will help at this point. Please let me know if you need any help. Cbdorsett (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are using a double standard, since in the Bulgarians page their are some people such as Apostol Petkov who are listed as Bulgarian. Mactruth (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tane Nikolov was surely Bulgarian and htere's a picture of them both. If you'd be kind enough to find a free image of Tane I'll place it there. Somehow though, I doubt that one of them being such a great hero of Macedonism and a great enemy of Bulgarians, would hug a Bulgarian revolutionary. Something doesn't fit here, ey? --Laveol ^T 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I also couldn't help noticing you used the expression "to name one" as though there were others to name, which clearly isn't the case.--Laveol ^T 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in an edit war with you because you are using a double standard, I stated already to remove controversial figures from "Bulgarians" or ones from "Macedonians" will not be removed either, you know I'm right about it. Mactruth (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I will stop once a double standard no longer exists. Also, it clearly states "people considered Bulgarians in Bulgaria and Macedonian in Macedonia" in the reference. Mactruth (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be a fair compromise if BOTH pages removed controversial figures, and not just the "Macedonian (ethnic)" page... which would avoid a double standard? Mactruth (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First let me inform you, you broke WP:3RR despite my warning. Second, I edited the page bearing in mind your concerns. I've removed Gotse Delchev though cause he's not on the Bulgarians page and happens to be one of the most prominent figure in the Bulgarian revolutionary committees. I have also left a note that the other person on the picture you added is Bulgarian. It is a relevant note and it goes with the picture, I already explained that. --Laveol ^T 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

STOP PUSHING!!!THE SOURCES ARE FROM EUROPEAN NEUTRAL ASSOTIATIONS!!!!YOU ARE PUSHING VANDALISEM!!!--Makedonij (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First Don't shout. Second: no, not all of them are from european associations as you call them. 3. What you did is a direct copyright violation. And stop ranting already - your sentence makes no sense. --Laveol ^T 23:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you my shadow???You are reverting all my articles!!You are not an administrator!You shoud think about reverting census numbers about Bulgarians,or Sources of Bulgarians in Albania!!That is POV pushing whitout any neutral sources!!Any way MHRMI and OSCE are not from MACEDONIA.The are both neutral assotiations!!--Makedonij (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bulgarians in Albania, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarians in Albania. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?Makedonij (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

NO that is not posible!!Maybe we shoud merge Bulagrians and Macedonians to??A'--Makedonij (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly fail to understand that. What are you trying to say/write? --Laveol ^T 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I say,maybe we shoud merge Ethnic Macedonians article with Bulagrians article?What do you think,if Macedonians and Bulgarians in Albania coud be merged,why this one not to be?--Makedonij (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

??? I haven't said such a thing. --Laveol ^T 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you say merge it.--Makedonij (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello my shadow,how are you today??You and i shoud do consensus,dont you think!?--Makedonij (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you want from me? --Laveol ^T 09:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing!A compromis maybe?--Makedonij (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this steel disputed?I woud like to remove pov tag?!--Makedonij (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

When will you learn to be neutral,tray showing bouth sides stories.All references about natonality are from Bulgarian sources so stop pushing!!!!!I did not delete references,i also stated no nationality or POV tag should be edit!!!What do you say??????????????????????????And i mean to write back,and not to pushing edit war.--Makedonij (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sory i didn't see your coment on the discusion page,you need to show Macedonian point of view to,or no nationalities!--Makedonij (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation Laveol.--Avidius (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Books are sorced whit isbn number,one is actualy bulgarian book translated in macedonian,and how about yours source?? I will be engaged in edit war with you again??!!And use discussion first!!!--Makedonij (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is that book? And if its translated from Bulgarian to Macedonian what are your claims? You're saying he wrote in Bulgarian that he was a Bulgarian and this was translated in Macedonian or what? --Laveol ^T 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you ""udren"" or something?? That book is showing authobiography writen in Bulgarian so Macedonians can read bouth sides and deside what was he!! Put them back becous for me is forbiden to revert them more then once!! And stop acting like that! Do you have any onest in you?? --Makedonij (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also it is you who started to use newspaper sources! Did you forgot? Maybe you should see your sources on Bulgarians in Albania!--Makedonij (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do I have what? I've placed one of your sources and pointed out to the view in the Republic of Macedonia. But since he evidently self-identified as Bulgarian, this is as far as this goes. --Laveol ^T 13:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you know when he adopted the surname Stavridis (Σταυρίδης) and when he changed it back to Parlichev? 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a little researc and come back with an answer (if I find any). Cheers :)--Laveol ^T 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he consider him self as a greek to in his younger aeges.But that is not important becouse Laveol say he is Bulgarian!--Makedonij (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, fuck off kindly stop it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(Ignoring the rants) I get the impression he was referred as Stavridis by the Greek clergy, teachers and officials all the time. I think at home they were all Parlichev. He definitely entered the Athens poetry competition as Stavridis, and most probably got rid of it finally as late as 1862 when the Miladinov brothers died. --Laveol ^T 18:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try to find possible specifics. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Da ti ebam majkata kindly for your coment above.--Makedonij (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Da ti ebam sestrata, pederishte skopjanski. Now, stop trying to insult people in Bulgarian and get a grip, you mental patient. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, is this for me? --Laveol ^T 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, for other one, and whay now, are you removeing them from there (references), are you afraid of the truth?--Makedonij (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough gibbering already. Either discuss something relevant and on topic or spare our time reading the stuff you're currently writing. --Laveol ^T 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I, along with another editor, have taken the case. You are listed as an active party. Feel free to come over and comment.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)