User talk:VMORO

Welcome

Hello VMORO and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

From Borislav

Здравей и от мен! --Borislav 20:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zdrasti-:)) Samo 4e nqmam kirilitza...

on writing comments

When you write a comment on a Wikipedia talk page, it's customary to place your signature at the bottom of it, rather than at the top. If you use "---VMORO" or "===VMORO", that will be interpreted differently because those dashes have a special meaning.

Also you can and should use the ":" characters for indentation of comments made in reply to some other comment.

: For example like this.

That translates into:

For example like this.

Or:

:: This.

That translates into:

This.

Enjoy. --Joy [shallot] 15:49, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excessive linking

I'd like to point you to Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, which states: "Avoid duplicate links on a page. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. However, link the first occurrance of a term, and always link when directing to a page for more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series"." You don't need to link every single mention of a term - linking once is quite enough. -- ChrisO 15:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Demographic history of Kosovo

Well, since you’re not an administrator there isn’t a lot you can do, you can however keep reverting him, report him for vandalism, or list the page for protection. The best way when he’s anonymous is to keep going back to NPOV version and hope he’ll give up. I could nominate you for an admin if you'd want, but for that you'd have to have at least a 1000 edits, you have around 600 now. GeneralPatton 06:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unicode text and interwiki on Cyrillic alphabet

Hi VMORO.

I just wanted to let you know that the problems with corrupted characters on Cyrillic alphabet wasn't directly caused by the interwiki link.

The English Wikipedia only handles ISO-8859-1 characters correctly. Someone had earlier typed a bunch of non-ISO characters into the article (dashes, apostrophes, quotes, etc.). These are properly entered as Unicode entities, but they can sort of work when typed in raw—they are supposed to be control characters in ISO, but most browsers when send and re-display them as Windows characters.

But then someone added the interwiki link to the page with a different web browser that conforms more strictly to the ISO standard. It sent only ISO characters, and substituted question marks for the non-ISO ones.

I re-entered those characters as Unicode entities, which will prevent this.

Sorry for the long explanation. Things work this way because Microsoft distributed a lot of products that play fast and loose with Internet standards. English Wikipedia is planning to switch to Unicode at some unspecified date, which will solve this, plus let us type directly in any language.

Cheers, —Michael Z. 16:27, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Kapnisma

Dear VMORO

I think it's time to end this useless debate between us on the sentence as the ancient Greeks themselves explicitly regarded the Macedonians as non-Greek barbarians since it's degrating us, making us seen as fanatics.I keen on supporting that the meaning of that sentence is wrong since many greek orators and historians like Isocrates,Polyvious,Thukidides also had the opinion that macedonians were greek and also don't forget Strabo.So, as a sign of moderation I propose to refrese the sentence as many ancient Greeks regarded the Macedonians as non-Greek barbarians .

Cheers, Kapnisma 30 Nov 2004

Hi, VMORO

I study history in Thessaloniki and I am interested in Bulgarian history, can you please suggest me some indicative sources in English or in German?

I thank you in advance

Kapnisma 12:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Foreign ones is OK

Kapnisma 21:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Englification of the bulgarification

hi there VMORO

John is the english form of the bulgarian Ivan which is the bulgarian form of the christian Ioan, i'd like you to provide reference to the original name of John Asen, so we can show it to the world. Wikipedia requests that names like Mihail/Mikhael/Mihaly/Mihai refering to the same christian name Michael to be "englificised" aka "wikified" :) Criztu 17:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then why is the article about Ivan Grozni called Ivan IV of Russia but not John IV of Russia?? --webkid 22:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism threats

Your edit comment in History of Bulgaria that

If you don't leave this article alone now, there will be "sudden" outburst of vandalism against Romanian articles, this is final warning)

is unacceptable. Vandalism of Wikipedia is likely to result in your being banned from editing. If you have a disagreement with other editors, please use the article talk page, or the Wikipedia:Request for comments mechanism. -- Karada 17:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bulgarian language

Zdrasti, nedei da vkljuchvash Bulgarian language kam kategoriite Indo-European languages i Languages. Praktikata e statiite da se vkljuchvat vav vazmojno nai-detailiziranata kategorija. Razgledai Category:Indo-European languages i shte se uverish, che tam lipsvat svetovni ezici kato frenskiq, angl., ispanskiq i t.n. Te sa si v svoite kategorii - Italic languages, germanic languages.. pozdravi! --webkid 22:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR

Please read up on the Three Revert Rule rule, which you have broken on Macedonian Slavs. In doing so, you run the risk of being blocked. Don't just edit war, use the talk page, that's what it's there for. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --fvw* 13:52, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

It is inadequate of you to threaten me with blocking. Have you even read the article in question? I have an evident nationalist trying to sabotage a page which has existed for several years. He has not bothered to sign in and he has not explained why he has deleted four-fifths of the article. And he has started his version by claiming that an ethnic group is "a fabrication of history".

If you continue with the threats of blocking, I am going to talk to other users as to how you can be prosecuted for aiding sabotage actions and vandalism and attempts at intimdation. You are evidently trying to aid a vandal. VMORO

It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the point of the 3RR is to avoid edit warring, which you are quite obviously doing. Also, threatening to "prosecute" me for warning you you're violating the rules isn't exactly constructive, but should you wish to do so the procedure for that can also be found in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, perhaps that will inspire you to read it. --fvw* 14:09, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

But to see that, one has to actually check what is going on in the article. Barging in and quoting rules which may sound "beatiful" but cannot be applied in the particular case is inadequate. By the way, how did you "warn" the vandal himself that he can be "blocked"? Did you use his talk page that does not exist? And how did you threaten him you'd block him when he does not have a user name? And again, have you - at all - read the article in question? VMORO

Anonymous users have talk pages, they're just shared by everyone using that IP. This anon's is at User Talk:212.251.109.95. And even though the edit was a deletion, this is nonetheless very clearly a content dispute, so the 3RR does apply. If you feel this hampers your ability to deal with disputes, work to change the policy. Until then you are still bound by it. --fvw* 14:32, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

You just admitted that the vandalist edit WAS a deletion, so what actually is your point? And secondly, what is important is not the letter of a rule, but its spirit. You cannot deliver an opinion about an edit without getting familiar with the content. VMORO

I said the edit was a deletion yes. There is nothing wrong with deletions, they can often improve articles, we even have a barnstar for them. And the spirit of the 3RR is to prevent edit warring, which is what you two were doing. --fvw* 14:47, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

I've protected Macedonian Slavs, let's follow the correct procedures and not get wound up with each other please. Dunc|☺ 15:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi. You uploaded Image:Bg-alpha.gif but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image copyright tags for more info. If the image was uploaded in error or cannot be licensed for use on Wikipedia, please add it to images for deletion. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 22:47, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, VMORO

Please stop censoring the ROC article and if you want to discuss arguments, use them. We have a common cause of truth in Christianity, against enemies of Christ, and we are mature enough not to let ourrselves being dismembered by hidden agendas. Didn't you see they used laser-guided 2500 lb "arguments" against Serbs? Not they aren't stubborn, even against our Romanian Church inside Serbia, but they are human beings and thou shalt not kill! I'm sure Romanians and Vlachs in Bulgaria aren't pampered either, but you are a Christian and we are brothers above all. So please forgive my stubborn insistence, for which Bulgarians are also known in our anecdotes :-)

With love in Christ, Dan

Opera singers

Hello VMORO. The Category:Opera singers has been taxonomically grouped into people by voice type and also into Category:Opera singers by nationality. As such, the Boris Christoff article should go into the Category:Bulgarian opera singers, and should not remain in Category:Opera singers since this is a parent category of the Bulgarian opera singer category. The same goes for Category:Bulgarian people: Bulgarian opera singers is a subcategory of Bulgarian musicians, which is a subcategory of Bulgarian opera singers. This avoids redundency. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization if you have any addition questions. The same goes for Raina Kabaivanska. Thanks. --BaronLarf 16:15, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there are no articles in the Category:Opera singers except for the ones that you are reverting there. They have all been subcategorized, as is encouraged in the Wikipedia:Categorization. I encourage you to visit the Opera singers category to take note of this. It's rather silly for Boris Christoff to be the only exception. This isn't "hiding" the article, just giving it a greater degree of categorization.

For example, someone like Renée Fleming could be listed under Category:American singers, Category:American opera singers, Category:United States musicians, Category:Opera singers, Category:American people, etc. Instead, she is just listed under Category:American opera singers since this is a subcategory under everything else. It reduces redundancy and makes categories much easier to navigate through. Cheers. --BaronLarf 20:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello VMORO. I know that you've created and contributed to the articles on several Bulgarians, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in adding to anything about Elena Nikolai. I can't find too much information about her. Cheers. --BaronLarf 15:52, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

За старобългарския

Здравей, надявам се да четеш кирилица. Бих искал да те помоля нещо. Събрах някои основни неща, които обясняват защо старобългарският следва да се нарича именно по този начин. Може ли да ти дам тук статията на български, а ти да я преведеш и да я поставим в статията Old Church Slavonic, в подкрепа на българското гледище по въпроса. - Ogneslav 11:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Старите исторически извори сочат езика на Кирило-Методиевите преводи като iезыкъ словяньскъ. Това е названието на езика на онези племена, които през VІ-VІІ в. се заселват в югоизточната половина на Балканския полуостров и по-късно, след обединението с прабългарите, приемат народностното име българи. В днешно време, като се изхожда от научните факти - исторически и езикови, - най-правилно и естествено е Кирило-Методиевият език да се нарича старобългарски, защото, преди да стане писмен, този език е бил говорим народностен език на българите. Редица езикови черти показват недвусмислено българската същност на първите преводи. В областта на фонетиката това е преди всичко преминаването на праславянските съчетания *dj и *tj в консонантни групи жд и шт, например *medja - межда; *svэtja - свэща. Подобно развитие имат и групите *gt и *kt пред предноезични гласни, напр. *mogtь - мощь; *noktь - нощь. Тази особеност е характерна само за българския език, тя не се среща в нито един друг славянски език. Друга съществена негова черта е широкият гласеж на ятовата гласна (э) - бэлъ, лэто. В останалите славянски езици на нейно място има тесни гласни. Характерна българска особеност е и задпоставената употреба на показателните местоимения тъ, та, то; онъ, она, оно; сь, си, се, от която се е развила членната форма, присъща само на българския език. Важни лексикални доказателства за българския характер на стб са думи от прабългарски произход, като напр. кумир, капище, чертог и др. Синтактични особености от български характер са употребата на дателен притежателен падеж при лични местоимения и съществителни; описателно бъдеще време с глагол хотэти; употреба на сравнителна форма мьнии (по-малък) в значение на по-млад.

Освен това, езикът на паметниците, произлизащи от българските земи след 12 век, в световната славистика биват наричани, без уговорка, единодушно “среднобългарски”. А щом бива признато съществуването на “среднобългарски” и “новобългарски език”, то съвсем естествено и диалектически необходимо е да бъде признато, че тези два периода от развоя на българския език биват предхождани от един първи, поставил началото на писмения български език. А несъмнено, този първи период трябва да отговаря и на началото на славянската писменост. Следователно, езикът на първите славянски ръкописи би трябвало, и най-точно и научно обосновано е, да се нарича “старобългарски”, а не “старославянски” или “староцърковнославянски”, тъй като в тази епоха отделните славянски езици са имали вече обособен облик и терминът “старославянски” може да доведе до погрешни изводи, че този език е или изкуствен общославянски книжовен език, или че това е едва ли не праславянският език, засвидетелстван писмено, а терминът “староцърковнославянски” навежда на мисълта, че този език е служел само за църковни (религиозни) цели, а не за обществено-политически и културни нужди. Що се отнася пък до опонирането на термина “старобългарски език” с твърдението, че може да се стигне до смесване с езика на Аспаруховите сънародници, то не може да бъде убедително, тъй като последният бива наричан в науката “прабългарски” (протобългарски, първобългарски).

Някои учени използват за Кирило-Методиевия език и други наименования, като старославянски и староцърковнославянски. Те, обаче, са изключително неточни. Първото название е твърде широко и по-скоро се отнася до праславянския език. Второто пък е твърде тясно и ограничава стб език до език само на църквата и на богослужението, което не е вярно. Защото, ако в другите славянски държави, стб наистина е изкуствен език, използван само за църковни и административни цели, то в България това е и говоримият език на обикновените хора. От него по-късно се развива и българският език, какъвто го пазнаваме днес.

Освен в българското езикознание, терминът старобългарски се използва и от авторитетни чужди учени, след които са Аугуст Шлайхер, Мартин Хатала и Леополд Гайтлер, докато Александър Востоков използва термина славянобългарски. - Ogneslav 12:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ОК, както решиш. Аз бих го превел сам, но английският ми не е толкова добър. Просто помислих, че след като има "българско" становище, нормално е и то да бъде изложено. Правилата на Уикипедия за разнообразието на гледните точки са ясни. Мисля че всичко е в наша полза.

Btw какви точно материали ти трябват? Може да мога да помогна. - Ogneslav 10:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Не разбрах, какъв точно подпис искаш да имаш като моя?!? - Ogneslav 15:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ами след коментара си пишеш ~~~~ и става: Ogneslav 15:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Btw ти, приятелю, къде живееш? - Ogneslav 15:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, you're too aggressive, work on your diplomacy

VMORO, you have to know that there is a Discussion page for every article on Wikipedia, when you intend to add or modify info that you are not 100%, u better talk there, in our Romania-Bulgaria relation we should get to talk as much as possible, change info, POVs, ideeas, etc. I invite you to talk to us romanians when it comes to the influence of Bulgaria on Romanian history, don't assume we are your enemies, and that you can't speak to us reasonably. i'm going to erase your last addition on Wallachia article, as it is not true, but i invite you to give reasons for using the term Old Bulgarian instead of Old Slavonic when it comes to "administrative and ecclesiastic language of romanians" .. darling :0) -- Criztu 20:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agression

If I may make a comment, I find your recent conduct quite aggressive. You sometimes seem to treat Wikipedia as a battle field. This attitude is in my opinion reflected in your announcement that since I make an edit you do not accept, you will demolish an article about my country and in personal attacks . I would be grateful if you tried to adopt a more positive and cooperative attitude towards me and other Wikipedians. I do not like this kind of conflicts and I think they are harmful to Wikipedia. Thank you. Boraczek 10:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Поздрави

Радвам се че се застъпваш здраво за майка България, продължавай все така! --Smartech 07:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) (в бг.уикипедия)

Ivan Alexander Tetraevangelia.jpg listed for deletion

An image that you uploaded, Ivan Alexander Tetraevangelia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because it lacks source and license information, and it is not used in any articles. Please go there to voice your opinion (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Great Bulgaria

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Great_Bulgaria , which explains the rationale behind the vfd nomination. The entire entry for Great Bulgaria (2 or 3 sentences) repeats material already covered in the Bulgars article. It should be merged and redirected, in my opinion. In any event, this is a matter for the Wikipedia community to review and vote on. Wikipedia policies forbid you to remove the VFD notice for seven days. Please do not do so again until people have had a chance to vote. --Briangotts 01:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bulgars and Turkic peoples

Please stop trying to remove the Bulgars article from the Turkic peoples Category. Even if, as you say, there are various theories about Bulgar origins, the majority of linguists classify Proto-Bulgar as a Turkic language. If someone wishes to read the article they will see that you have listed alternative theories. If you want to add them to the Slavic peoples category or whatever else, be my guest. But it is stupid and pointless for us to go back and forth every day, removing and replacing the category note. Leave it alone, please. If I have to I will discuss the issue with the site administrators. --Briangotts 15:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You wrote on my page:

"Using threats to further a point of view is scarcely the best way to approach any of the editors here. Behaving as if your own version is the best and ond only possible is a bit childish. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it., this stays below any page in Wikipedia and contrary to what you might think, it regards you, as well. Please, stop reverting the category, you are misleading readers to accept one of the explanations about the origin of the Bulgars. VMORO 15:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)"

First of all, to suggest that I was "threatening" is a total mischaracterization. What I said was that rather than engage in a pointless revert war I would ask that the site administrators arbitrate the issue (as per Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Requesting_an_advocate). This is quite different from threatening, which I note that you have been known to do in the past (e.g. "If you don't leave this article alone now, there will be 'sudden' outburst of vandalism against Romanian articles, this is final warning") You yourself concede that Turkic origin is one theory about the Bulgars. Linguistically it is the only theory accepted by most scholars. I refer you to the works of M.I. Artamanov, Runciman, David Christian, and D. Dmitrov (himself a Bulgarian) to name only a few. However, even if there are other theories worthy of consideration, Bulgars deserve a mention among the Turkic peoples category. Your accusation that I am trying to foist my views is totally ludicrous. I did not edit the article itself. The various theories are all in there. You are free to add the Bulgars to whatever other category (Slavic peoples, Iranian peoples, etc.) you wish. By repeatedly deleting Bulgars from the category you are attempting to force your ethnopolitical views on the article in the same manner you accuse me of. The notice "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it" cuts both ways, my friend.

To avoid more pointless fighting and reversions, I propose the following:

1. On the "Turkic peoples" category page, I will add the following note:

Many of these peoples' origins are still being debated. For example, while most linguists classify Proto-Bulgarian as a Turkic language, others have disputed this classification and point to Iranic and other linguistic features. Likewise, the Avars and Hephthalites are sometimes classified as Mongolic, Iranic or even Tocharian in origin. Finally, some people listed, such as the Golden Horde, were in part or in whole Mongolian in origin, yet are included in this category because they adopted Turkic languages.

2. Bulgars goes back in the "Turkic peoples" category.

As a gesture of good will I have implemented #1 already. You are welcome to suggest modifications to the language. I ask that you return the Bulgars article to the Turkic peoples category within 48 hours, and I will consider the matter closed. If you do not, I will begin proceedings outlined under Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Please let me know what course you would prefer.--Briangotts 14:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Wrong, I am not trying to impose any "ethnopolitical views" on anything. What's more, I don't have any such "views", I am not supporting any of the theories regarding the origin of the Bulgars. However, since there is a controversy about it, the article should either be placed in none of the two, conflicting categories, or in both of them. Sounds logical, doesn't it? And since you insist so much on their inclusion in the Turkic category, they should also be included in the Iranian one. Thank you. VMORO 15:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)~

• • • You know, I really don't care to argue with you. You clearly have chosen your side in the debate, it is the side not supported by the majority of linguists, and you promote your views through intimidation and threats. Be that as it may. I have added Bulgars to Turkic peoples. Feel free to add them to the Category:Iranian peoples if you wish. I will not stop you or remove them from that category. If others wish to take up the matter with you, that is their concern. I consider the matter between us resolved. --Briangotts 00:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slovenia - the Balkans

So why is the inclusion of Slovenia in the Balkans controversial then? This has to be explained.

Why have you removed the following: "On the other side, Slovenia and Croatia are culturally closer to Central Europe, as to the end of the first world war, they were ruled by the Central European Habsburg ruling house and are mainly catholic countries."

If you don't like this definition, then explain the controversy in your own terms. --Eleassar777 16:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All major sources list Slovenia and Croatia as lying on the Balkan peninsula. Can you tell me what religion (Roman Catholicism) and being part of the Habsburg Empire have to do with being part or not being part of a geographical entity??? Romania was also part of the Ottoman empire but with the exception of Dobrudzha it is not considered part of the Balkan peninsula on geographical grounds, just as Slovenia and Croatia are considered part of the Balkan peninsula again on geographical grounds. It is really bizarre when politics starts to influence geography. VMORO 15:46, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)~

Yes, in the terms of physical geography you are close to what is true, although half of Slovenia is located north of Sava and should be considered part of Central Europe.

However, have you ever heard of cultural geography, political geography and historical geography? In this section of the article the distinction between physical and human geography is not at all clear. In the article it is said that "the inclusion of Slovenia and even Croatia is more controversial but it has often been regarded as Balkan due to its association with the former Yugoslavia.". In my opinion mentioning of the Habsburg Empire is even more important than mentioning of former Yugoslavia, as it influenced Slovenian culture more profoundly. --Eleassar777 16:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Македония

Сигурно статията ти е в списъка за наблюдение така че по същество. Виждам че влизаш в известна роля на "модератор" на различните националистични отношения и не искам да влизам в конфликт с тебе но като виждам какво пишат на страницата за Македония ми става едно такова отговорно да променя нещата в по-правилна посока. Ако мислиш че тона ми е твърде националистичен го редактирай но света трябва да знае за междусъюзническата война и предателството на Сърбия, Гърция и на Румъния особено. Още веднъж радвам се че застъпваш здраво за България, все така!. Smartech 00:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pismo ot Goce Delchev

Zdravey, iskam da te pitam za iztochnika na tova pismo Image:Goce_Delchev_Letter.jpg, otkade moje da se proveri? Zashtoto az go dobavih v makedonskata wikipedia na stranicata mk:Гоце Делчев i te go mahnaha i kazaha, che e bilo falshifikat. Ta me interesuva da go proveria lichno. Blagodaria mnogo (moje da mi otgovorish tuk). --5ko 16:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blagodaria. --5ko 20:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we do not claim it is falsification, but that there are claims that it is false, and this is what is supposed to be added to the page - as text - that is, that the letter exists and that on the basis of it Bulgarians claim that Delchev was a Bulgarian, but that there are doubts over how original the letter is. In addition, there are different sources where Delchev's nationality is referred to as Macedonian, and these sources, on the other hand are considered to be false by the Bulgarians. On this basis, the letter is not as crucial to the page as conflict-inciting Bulgarians claim that it is. A link to the letter will be provided, however, the changes will be made only as soon as we get there. In addition, it has to be noted that there is a case of a Bulgarian who is turning the discussion page into a field for attacks that have nothing to do with basic Wikipedia culture. Thank you. --Ivica83 2:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

At the First Congress of MRO, in April of 1896, an updated organizational redistricting was introduced, MRO was renamed SMORO (Secret Macedonian Odrin Revolutionary Organization), its new Constitution and Charter adopted (drawn up by Gotze Delchev and Gjorche Petrov), and an expatriate branch of SMORO established in Sofia. -- [[CrazyC]

Поздравления

Честит 24 май - Деня на Св.св. Кирил и Методий, на българската култура и славянската писменост! Продължавай все така да отстояваш коректното представяне на българската история и култура! Поздрав,--AKeckarov 08:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration

Hi! I started a discussion at Talk:Bulgaria about standardizing transliteration of Bulgarian geographic and personal names in Wikipedia. What's your opinion? Markussep 21:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghena Dimitrova

Since I know that you're interested in Bulgarian citizens, I thought that you might want to know about the new article on Ghena Dimitrova, the recently deceased Bulgarian soprano. Cheers. --BaronLarf 16:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Miskin

I have reported Miskin for violating WP:3RR at Extinct language. If he's violated it at Demographic history of Macedonia as well, you may want to report him for that as well. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Report on improving a badly written stub article, that's extremely ironic. If there's something I hate more than liars, that would be cowards, I guess tha guy qualifies for both. Anyway, what do you think of my proposal in Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia? We remove all connections to antiquity and state that it's a demographic history on the region, starting from the Slavic invasions of the middle-ages. I don't think anyone disagrees that prior to that its ethnic composition was 100% Greek. The biggest beef with the Greeks is that Macedonian Slavs and occasionaly other Bulgarians, are trying to falsify the history of Ancient Macedonia and fool the word that we're talking about the same people. I'm also willing to debate on the reliability of the external links that you have added in Macedonia. What you define as central Macedonia in the early 20th century, to Greeks it's nothing. You have already a biased admin on your side (who's already been reported), so I'm trying to solve this with no edit wars. Reply to me in User Talk:Miskin. Miskin 6 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Image:Ohrid Banner.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ohrid Banner.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A request

You would oblige me if you could find some time in order to translate this pages in english for me

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

I thank you in advance,Odysseas

ThanksOdysseas 18:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

Hi, VMORO. Could you please tell me why you reverted this edit by User:MANOS? Thanks, Sango123 16:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ilinden Revolution

The Bulgarians were not involed in the Ilinden revolution of 1903. Why would you lead people to believe that the Bulgarians fought for the independence of the Macedonians from the Ottomans? The people who formed the Krushevo Republic were Macedonian and are celebrated in Macedonia.

iggy4467

Bulgarians... Where?

Dear VMORO and all other Bulgarians. During this years we constantly offer friendship to your nation. Instead, our egistance is getting denied by you. Get your head clear soon, because your politics already resultet in every seccond Macedonian hating you from the bottom of his heart. Beleived it or not, some of us started using 'Bulgarian' as synonym of 'sneak'. Example: If you pretend to be my friend, and latter you steal my girlfriend, then I can call you snake or I can say you are Bulgarian. And beleive me, this has nothing to do with your ethnicity.

Shortly and clearly: There were no Bulgarians EVER in Macedonia, except when you supported Hitler and occupied Skopje, so your soldiers were here for 2-3 years.

I have a living grandfather from 1920s, he is a living prove of the truth. Till the 1930s, Bulgarian was a synonym for "Slavic Ortodox". Same as 150 years ago American ment person living on any of the American continents and nowdays it means US citizen.

I invite you to visit Skopje at any time and try to find Bulgarians here. Then, you will be able to stop your assimilation wishes and live a real life. I will see you as a friend, treat you as a friend. But in the moment you try to deny my Ethnicity, I would strangle you to death. Seriously.

I don't have anything personal against you. But this bullsh** that you and your other fellow Bulgarians are doing are not acceptable.

We all feel only Macedonian, and you can only dream us to be Bulgarian. Deal with it and get a life. Personally, I would rather be dead than be Bulgarian. Noone did worse to us during our history than Bulgarians. And you keep doing it. I sterbinski 07:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ilinden Uprising page

So, VMORO, you can suprise with your constructivity. I am very positively suprised.

I have to remove the world 'Bulgarian' in front of 'Nikola Karev', because he proclaimed himself in his letters as Macedonian. But, I did not put that, because I respect that Bulgarians see it as Bulgarian. So, let's leave it this way. OK?

As you could see, all edist that I made on this page did not include any of the Macedonian POV. Now, it looks completely NPOV. Don't you agree?

I am happy that the Vlachs are included in the text. Some sources say that some Albanians took part in the uprising too. Do you think we should include them?

(If you want to make any comment, please use my discusion page. Thanks) I sterbinski 03:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Ohrid article

First we are talking about Middle Ages which ends at 15 century Now if somebody reads this article, and have never been there he will assume:

1) Ohrid was part of Bulgarian empire after 1018

2) It was a center of a Bulgarian church after 1018

3) The Bulgarians build many churches after 1018

However the fact of the matter is:

1) Ohrid was not part of Bulgarian empire after 1018 with a very brief exception in early 13th century – couple of years.

2) There was no Bulgarian church in Ohrid after 1018

3) There isn’t a single church (at least major) built by Bulgarians

4) There are no churches dating 8-10th century

The oldest church (not counting early-Christian church) is Church of St. Sophia built around 1030. The vast majority of churches are built in the 13 and 14th centuries. Therefore unless proved wrong I will insist on the previous version. I am sorry but Ohrid is not just exclusive part of Bulgarian history. Also why was the name origin removed? What’s so controversial about that? --Cigor 18:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia & co

I didn't have a problem with your edits, just with the fact that you added them on Irbinski's POV version that deny the Greek etymology of the name. I will restore them as soon as the article is unprotected. Miskin 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Annihilating Greek propaganda

Leaving aside the question of Bulgarian propaganda, no Greek propaganda must be tolerated in this article:Demographic history of Macedonia. ---James 007 01:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration for User:Theathenae

A petition for Arbitration has been brought against User:Theathenae because of his behavior in the Talk:Arvanites dispute. You can add evidence if you wish here. REX 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

about that paragraph

Good evening. Could you possibly find those quotes, so we can work out an accurate paragraph? Thanks. MATIA 12:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The quotes are in the Talk page. VMORO is having difficulties to understand that the paragraph only aims to point out that the term SLAV has been used and is therefore not an ethnic slur like Flavrsavr claimed. The paragraph doesn't claim that MACEDONIAN SLAVS had been in official use. I replaced the term 'macedonian slav' with plain Slav a long time ago, but his stubborness has prevented him from noticing. Miskin 15:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Картата на Западните покрайнини

Здравей! Тази вечер намерих време и успях да направя картата, за която ме беше помолил. Качил съм я в статията Western Outlands. Ако желаеш и е необходимо си свободен да я добавиш и в други статии. Пусната е под GFDL, така че няма проблем също да правиш корекции и подобрения (а ако не ти се занимава, пусни едно съобщение и ще оправя, ако има нещо :)). Поздрави, Martyr 18:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious to see in what sad degree your nationalism can get. You probably wouldn't even admit that the entire Bulgarian and Slavic culture was adopted by the Greeks (Byzantines). You probably won't even admit that Cyril and Methodius were Greeks. They had a Slavic mother of course, but so did Scanderbeg. I'm curious to know in what degree of denial you're living in. Miskin 15:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Bulgarian Macedonian representation

VMORO, I was just joking on Talk:Macedonian Slavs. I by all means think that the Bulgarian Macedonians should have representation. I happen to glorify in the fact that there are Bulgarian Macedonians because that means that Macedonian Slavs is an inaccurate term to use because there are more than one Slavic group in the wider region of Macedonia (the Republic of Macedonia's primary ethnic group and the Bulgarians). If you want to represent the Bulgarian Macedonians in mediation then you should know that have my 100% support. REX 11:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, this paragraph is inaccurate, isn't it? I mean the Macedonian politicians just used the word Slav as opposed to Greek in those particular circumstances. They never said that that is what they can be called! Those are Miskin's lies! REX 12:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that Miskin is so unbelievably arrogant! He thinks that he knows everything. REX 18:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Isolation

Hi VMORO, I have noticed that you seem to be quite isolated on the Talk:Macedonian Slavs dispute. This is not fair it seems to me, as the Macedonians and the Greeks are groups. If you need help with anything; please, don't hesitate to ask. GrandfatherJoe 16:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Because I might be misunderstood, I wish you to know that I support your participation in the mediation process. If there's any (we really need the Yes from Matia or Chronographos). We had a rough time on the Goce Delchev article, but it seems to me that was a long long time ago. The Ilinden Uprising article is a good indication that you're willing to accept the different POV to be included. I was really positively surprised with your opposition to Miskin, although you seem to have offered him "alliance against the FYROM propaganda", as you call it, in the past. I was even more surprised when you said that you recognize the modern Macedonian nation. I agree that there are some holes in Macedonian history, but there are holes in the other Balkan nation histories. We needn't agree on everything, including history, but you're representing a good will to include different POVs, according to the NPOV policy, and that should be enough for me. I hope that we can collaborate more in the future. Regards --FlavrSavr 14:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, who are those people ...

... in the 4 little pictures that REX, a.k.a. GrandfatherJoe, and Bomac, a.k.a. Macap, are trying to advertise as "Macedonian Slavs"? Chronographos 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll answer that; they're all Macedonian Slavs:

Konstantin Miladinov, Konstantin Miladinov, Tsar Samuil (considering McdSlvs were just Bulgarians then), and Saint Cyril (his mother was from Ohrid)

Bwahahahahahaha, Tsar Samuil was a "McdSlv" who just wasn't aware of it, and St. "Cyrus"' mother was from Ohrid? Care to cite any evidence, contemporary with these persons, that says so? Chronographos 09:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

now please stop editing it as there is nothing wrong with it. Also, help me protect from RIDICULOUS population estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Cyril_and_Methodius_Day

Born to Slavic mother in territory of today's Macedonia (probably Ohrid). Tsar Samuil was a Bulgarian, but since Macedonians claim that they were never Bulgarians and always Macedonians, he's a Macedonian. What's so hard to understand?

How do we know she was a Slav? Do primary sources from that era say so? The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Cyril and Methodius were Byzantine Greeks of senatorial rank, born in Thessaloniki. What were the chances of their senator father marrying a peasant girl from Ohrid? And if she was from Ohrid, couldn't she have been a Greek? Ohrid was under Byzantine rule for the longest time. Surely some Greek administrators, priests etc also lived there. In other words, their mother might have been born in Ohrid, therefore she might have been a Bulgarian, which means she was a "Macedonian" but she didn't really know it until now, when you informed her of her true identity. And all this makes Sts. Cyril and Methodius "Macedonian Slavs"? Are you crazy? Chronographos 01:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link about the Macedonian diaspora:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=macedonian+diaspora

Educate yourself.

• • There's no population statistics on there you retard. If there are, why don't you point them out?

Have you heared about searching? That is something that google is used for. Do you think I will spend my time to search and give links to blind idiots like you? I am not going to spend my time for your own education.

Obviously not even you spent much time on it.

• • Oh my god. Do you not understand that I have searched?!?! The only links I have are from the US and Canadian census. NOTHING MORE.

Most sources don't bother listing peoples that number under a few thousands, hence there are highly minimal statistics for Macedonian Slavs abroad.

VMORO, stop interfiering in someone elses bussines. Check the estimates on the "Bulgarians" page. No difference between your own and my edits about population of our nations around the world.

Just a hint... today Macedonia played football against Netherlands in Amsterdam, a meaningless game which made no difference (Netherlands is on the world cup, Macedonia is 5th in the group). Between 500-600 Macedonian fans were on the stadium from the neighbouring countries. Use your logic... how many people should live there in order to be able to find 500 which will travel in a midle of a working week to Amsterdam and see a game which was not important at all?

Another, official informations from the Canadian ambasy in Skopje is that since 1991st, in average 1800 Macedonians move to Canada every single year (3500 is the average of the last 5 years). That gives you a number of more than 25000 just in the last 14 years.

Any further edits of yours about the Macedonian population around the world will put you in situation where you will have to prove the numbers of the Bulgarians around the world by providing official census informations (which we both know is imposible, because many of those people register as citizens of the country where they live in, aldough they are Bulgarians).

Two (or more) can play that game you play. Macedonian 02:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

From Macedonian

You have a point, the history of those people are also claimed by the Bulgarians. But, their work and live doesn't show that you are right.

Look, I am not going to fight with you about something that happened centuries ago. The fact is that you know one version of the history, I know another. We both have our sources and we can never be sure what is truth and what is not... all depends who wrote the book you read and who wrote the book I read.

The fact that the Bulgarians were alowed to fight for their national interest, while the Macedonians were inprisoned if they did the same (during Yugoslavia, until 1991st) just gave you time for you to promote your POV around the world. But, like I said, we still haven't seen the last of this stories.

Just to remind you that even the pope gives the same importance to the Bulgarian and Macedonian delegations when they go to the Cyril's grave in Rome. And, Vatican has the bigger archive of important documents, which most of are (unfortunately) protected from the public eye.

Anyway, I am not here to fight about the history with you or anyone else. Respect my position if you want to be respected. I never erased your claims that Samuil was Bulgarian. I am planning in the future to make a revision of that article, but I won't ever try to ignore or exclude your claims.

About the fact that you come from Macedonia... yeah, I read somewhere that you said that your family has origin from Kukush. But, do not forget that many Macedonians also have that origin, which was recently said even by your prime minister, Mr. Stanishev.

Anyway, do not forget that you identify yourself as Bulgarian. Right? On the other hand, I identify myself as Macedonian. I never claimed that you are Macedonian (whose brain was washed by the assimilative politics from Bulgaria) just because you come from Kukush. Even if that was the case (which I beleive is not), I would respect your decision to identify yourself as Bulgarian. So, please respect my decision and do not bother about my origin...

I know my Macedonian origin, I know my Macedonian identity and that is all what counts. No one can change that, same as no one can change your own identity as Bulgarian. Macedonian 04:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• • So what, Macedonian? Do you conclude that Macedonian Slavs and Bulgarians are not related genetically to eachother more than any other European peoples? More than, for example, Austrians and Germans or Moldovans and Romanians?

No, I do not claim that we (Macedonians) and Bulgarians are not related. As a matter of fact, we are related. But, our ethnic roads took different dirrections much before you claim they did. As a matter of fact, I can not ever agree that we were the same ethnic group because of our past and your desperate tryes to deny the existance of a separate Macedonian nation even now, in the 21st century.

P.S. Please use my talk page to ask my to read some of your comments or to ask me to answer some of them. I will be glad to. Macedonian 02:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What does mean? Does it have a connection with VMRO? HolyRomanEmperor 23:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, you can not expect Wikipedia to accept the Bulgarian policy to ignore the existance of separate Macedonian identity even now, in the 21st century. If this is what you are doing these days, I can just imagine what kind of assimilation was happening some 100-150 years ago, when no one was concerned with Human Rights.

I would like to say that I do not have anything against your nationality, or anyone elses, but I can not allow someone to disrespect me, my identity, culture or language.

It is time to get deal with the reality and move on. Don't you think? Macedonian 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, please feel free to report me. That way we can face each other in front of other editors, so they will soon realise all the bullshit you have done to the Macedonians.

You might show some documents from the Bulgarian side, but I can easily take care of it with great amount of interviews of the 3000 partizans that took active part in that fight and arestill alive. I can even get a direct letter of the Macedonian union of those people to Wikipedia, saying the truth about the propaganda that you try to spread here.

Not to mention the documents that are made by the resistance by itself, clearly showing that Sharlo made contacts with the cominterna, not to the Bulgarian communist party. Should I mention how weak the Bulgarian communist party was in that time? How come they organized a resistance in Macedonia, but they did not do that in Bulgaria?

Again, please open this disscusion. That happened just 64 years ago and it has many survivors from that time. It will be my plesure to show to the Wikipedia administrators a part of the tricks you use in your endless try to assimilate the Macedonian nation. Macedonian 02:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You showed no sources or proofs. Your imagination is not a reliable proof, neighter the nationalistic Bulgarian web sites are.

Do you know how rediculous you sound?

The Macedonians fighted for their freedom, and Bulgaria was the occupator. That fact can be found in any history book in the world.

Also, your lies are not more powerful than the words of 3000 partizans that are still alive and more thna 100.000 that passed away, but took part in the WW2. They clearly say what were they fighting for, a independant Macedonia, without any Serbian, Bulgarian or Greek occupier in it. They were fighting for it, VMORO, not you.

Concerning Chento, he is the biggest fighter for independant Macedonia. His whole family still lives in Macedonia. Do you think your lies can be more powerful than their words?

Concerning the other people that were inprisoned by Tito, you can ask also most of them, many of them are still alive. Independant Macedonia was in their heart and that is what they fighted for. That is why they got inprisoned for.

The ones who had pro-Bulgarian ideas were runned away in Bulgaria or Russia... and they were about 400 people (source: The union of fighters for Macedonia, the union of the partizans that fighted in the WW2). The other 9500 inprisoned were fighters for free Macedonia, who stayed untill the present day.

Deal with it VMORO, we would never be Bulgarians. And, because of people like you, you will never gain our trust back. We treated you as brothers, but all what you did is put us a knife in our backs.

By the way, what happened to the 300.000 Macedonians that were registered in Bulgaria after the WW2? How come that census was set up, but all other after that were truth? My god, you are so full of s..t. Macedonian 04:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Romanians in Bulgaria

Please see Talk:Romanians#Bulgaria. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Miskin

I'm sure we had our arguments with the Macedonian related articles, but we could find a compromise solution in the demography topic if we both decide to cooperate instead of fight. What's more important at the moment is not to let the Macedonian Slav POV pass into wikipedia so easily. They've already had their way with the article's name, which for me is of less importance. The least we can do is to protect the article from such moronic historical fallacies that insult both of our histories as well as wikipedia. Miskin 11:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The aim here is not to support one POV. A compromise must be reached, through any means possible. I don't even know what you are objecting to, there aren't that many "Macedonian Slavs" on Wikipedia. If you want to talk about POV Miskin, why don't you explain all the Greece related articles: Greek language, Greeks, Greece, History of Greece (that's the whopper). In my opinion, their disputed history should be mentioned as little as possible (the less said the better). Are there any specific parts you don't like? Tell us about them on the talk page, I'm sure a compromise can be reached that way. REX 12:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Note

Why do you continuously choose to delete the estimates that are most readily available? Your sources estimates are unconspicously bias, as the numbers are bloated beyond imagination - yet I see that it is ok to include them. Why you fail to include sources that depress the population instead of bloat clearly reveals your bias. This simple: stop reverting the CIA and NationMaster estimates. Also, BOLDING is only used on estimates that are more reliable. Therefore it is best to only bold the first ones.72.144.150.156 01:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians

Hi VMORO, What do you think should be done about that edit war on Macedonians (ethnic group)? The Greeks and Macedonians have gone mad. I noticed your edit, and you are not being unreasonable. All you are disputing are some figures and a way of phrasing. As I am neither Bulgarian nor Macedonian, I have no reason to support either side. Don't you think that it would be a good idea to include everything? I'm sure that I could get the Macedonians to agree. For example you say it cannot be expected that all members of the minority group voted for the Rainbow party - or that all votes for the party were cast by ethnic Macedonians. instead of the Greek goverment is constantly beeing criticised by most of the major international human rights groups for its poor treatment of the minorities living in Greece. I say that both can be used as they are both true, everything can be included, pro-Bulgarian, pro-Macedonian, pro-Greek and even pro-Chinese views. If everyone just adds and deletes nothing, then there can be no revert war. Tell me what you think, because this revert war is getting silly. REX 10:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. We had proved that Human Rights have been criticised in Greece, especially at the expense of the Macedonian speaking minority, see United Nations 61th Session of the Commission on Human Rights 14 March – 22 April 2005, Geneva The Macedonian Minority in Greece. Anyway, that is not important, if it is left out, there is no big loss. I'll ask Bomac and Macedonian to leave that bit out. I'll try and NPOV it a bit, check it (at my version, before Theathenae reverts it) and tell me what you think. REX 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)