User talk:Kostja

Turks in Bulgaria

Kostja in the article Turks in Bulgaria you have changed the section name from Refugees from Bulgaria to Turkey with Migration from Bulgaria to Turkey, stating that the word "refugee" is POV? I will not change this if you in the same spirit change the claim of Bulgarians being killed and expelled from Eastern Tharce to these having migrated as their Turkish counterparts from Bulgaria. In that way you will balance POV in the articles you edit, how is that? BTW if the UN and UNHCR are source to refer to these people as refugees would that still be POV? Hittit (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps POV language is too strong, but are all these people refered as refugees in your sources? If not, then it's wrong to refer to them as refugees? The claims for the Bulgarians expelled from Eastern Thrace are well sourced as refugees. Kostja (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right, fine I will source...BTW are you going to add any non-Bulgarian sorces for to so called expelled Bulgarians from Thrace? I will be very interested to see some diversified sources to back these huge figures since I only find some 46,786 migrating from Thrace and 6,200 coming from Anatolia Hittit (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians

Read discussion before changing total number of Bulgarians. We have established that number at 10 million after prolonged discussion, so please abstain from changing the number just like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozhani buditel (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goce Delchev

Kostja, please understand that the current state of the GD article was reached after a prolonged and serious discussion and exchange of a number of contributors and thus I have reverted your edits. I would recommend that, should you have sugggestions for edits, you join the discussion first. As with AKeckarov's suggestion, please understand that, at this point, I niether agree or disagree with your suggestion. However, you are kindly invited to explain your edit from several perpectives, that include relevance to the article subject as well as describing what does it add that has not already been stated, explained and reference. The problem of the original article was that it had itterations of certain notions that, while not false, produced an imbalance incosistent with the purpose of the article, which is to document and explain why Delchev was a notable historical personality. I thank you for your understanding on this and look forward to your discussion. Best regards, --Modi 09:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 19:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

Military history of the Soviet Union is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please contribute to it to help make it a feature article

Гласувайте!!!!!

Не става въпрос за българските избори, а за анкетата в Talk:Macedonian Slavs за това как македонците да бъдат наричани на английски: Macedonians или Macedonian Slavs. Подкрепете предложението за запазване на името "Macedonian Slavs" на Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#Wikipedia_should_call_people_X_.22Macedonian_Slavs.22, за да предотвратим бъдещи посегателства върху българската национална история от македонска страна! Или се запознайте с дискусията и гласувайте по съвест. Аз обаче познавам въпроса достатъчно издълбоко и знам какво се крие зад македонското предложение за преименуване... VMORO 22:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oblasts/Regions of Bulgaria

Hi! You moved Provinces of Bulgaria to Oblasts of Bulgaria. I think it would be better to move it to Regions of Bulgaria, see discussion at Talk:Oblasts of Bulgaria. Markussep 5 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Black Cat White Cat

Just to say that the film is called Black Cat White Cat in English. So the article should be there. The redirect is unnecessary, although the etymology is useful, thanks, and unless you know otherwise, could this be changed back? --Thewayforward 22:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Test

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.--Donald Goldberg 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Legis2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Legis2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut

Was there a reason for removing the population density map? You left the edit summary blank. Jd2718 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in Bulgaria

If you remove information from an article, as you did here, please provide an explanation in the edit summary. Hut 8.5 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:TERRORIST, and WP:CITE. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Turks in Bulgaria. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bulgarisation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Ptolion (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarisation dispute

Kostja - Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Kostja reported by_User:Athenean (Result: Protected). While I did not find a 3RR violation, I did see a misuse of rollback. I caution you that there is an Arbcom decision regarding Eastern Europe which allows admins to apply discretionary sanctions. This means that hyper-caution regarding edit wars is needed on EE topics, particularly those like Bulgarisation where conflicting national aspirations may have to be treated neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit undid on Pomak section.

I got permission before I change the flag (regardless of whether based on the Wikipedia is not answered on this section) the file and the edit are οf course fully validated and accurate. Please understand and not undo the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MessiniaGreece (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Philipopolis/Plovdiv

If you think so why you are not take part in the discussion instead to reverting? The only way to answer you to what you say in the edit log is to rv you back. Is that what you really want? --Factuarius (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your San Stefano map

It was already changed. Todor →Bozhinov 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

What are you doing in Treaty of San Stefano? You are inserting the Ravenstein map twice? What is the point of that? Regarding your single-minded campaign to remove the Stanford Map from Wikipedia, it's not a good idea. Wherever we have the Ravenstein map, we are going to have the Stanford map, it's only fair. --Athenean (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I got no response from you on my talkpage I've taken the liberty of tentatively re-introducing the Stanford map at Congress of Berlin, per the reasons given at Balkans by Jayron32, with suitably modified captioning. Hope that's OK with you now. This leaves Eastern Rumelia and Treaty of San Stefano, where I haven't done anything. I will request mediation at WP:CCN, I think that is the best way to resolve this once and for all. Athenean (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trikala, Imathia

Eastern Rumelia, was just that, Eastern Rumelia, when the refugees arrived in 1925, also when you changed it to bulgaria, you didnt reference it. Marilena Karantinini 08:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarilenaK (talk • contribs)
You are using a wikipedia article you have edited as your reference?
Marilena Karantinini 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Neither is your pro-bulgarian one, I can agree with your use of Thrace, but not Bulgaria.Marilena Karantinini 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarilenaK (talk • contribs) [reply]
I am glad we have achieved this compromise.
Marilena Karantinini 10:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As you see it was not me who put myself as notable native. 93.163.23.166 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians

Hi, can you please check your latest edits to Bulgarians. You tried to revert some number vandalism in the infobox, but it seems to me that at least part of the data is currently untrue (Poland is at 11,920, source says 1,020; Slovenia 3150 vs source 138). Thanks and all the best :) Todor →Bozhinov 09:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of land borders

Hi Kostja,

I have changed two edits of yours and kept one.

One edit was about the Bulgarian independence from the Byzantine Empire in 1185. At the time, the Danube river was the border of Bulgaria, according to the historical maps on Wikipedia. North of the Danube were the Cumans in Walachia, which used to be Bulgarian territory. It was the first time that this part of the Bulgarian-Rumanian border was the border of Bulgaria, so that is why i put it in the article.

Another edit was on the border between Bulgaria and Macedonia. The system of the article is that i give the first time one of each countries has a border on that exact place, and when both countries at the same time have the border there. In this case, the northern part of the Bulgarian-Macedonian border became the border of Bulgaria. It only became the border of the country of Macedonia in 1991.Daanschr (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source that Bulgaria's northern border ran along the Danube? According to some maps, this was Bulgarian or at least dependent on Bulgaria: [1]. In such a case, where the sources are unclear and there are different interpretations, it would be better if border information as it would be difficult to be certain of the information given. Kostja (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source on the rise of the Bulgarians in 1185. It says the Cumans or Vlachs were allies of the Bulgarians during there revolt and later became vassals. This article (see map) suggests that the Cumans were independent from Bulgaria in 1200. But, under Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria Cuman territories are suddenly Bulgarian without a fight. The question is wether the Cumans were allies or vassals of the Bulgarians.Daanschr (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map in the Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion indicates that the area north of the Danube was vassal to Bulgaria, while the map in Kaloyan of Bulgaria indicates that Bulgaria exercised some influence north of the Danube. So it seems that at least it's agreed that Bulgaria had some control north of the Danube, though how much is unclear. Kostja (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Than the border should be 1241, when the Mongolian Empire conquered Wallachia and invaded Bulgaria. Since 1241, there was a border between Bulgaria and the Mongolians. But, i still will like to keep the question open, because we don't know enough about the Cumans.Daanschr (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will adjust the article with new info.Daanschr (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Wars

Hugh Poulton "Who are the Macedonians" now? The source says nothing of the kind. He doesn't even mention Kukush. This went to RSN, and you lost. If it had gone the other way, I would have respected the result from RSN. It would be good form of you to respect the verdict of RSN now. You win some, you lose some. I know you are a reasonable guy. Now would be the time to act like one. Athenean (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Bulgarian State

Instead of using websites as references for the "First Bulgarian State", you might try some of these sources instead:[2],[3],[4]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources! Kostja (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss the issues? From my part I am ready to do it, but before you rv everything. This is not an article that we cannot find solutions. If you agree come to the talk page where I already I have posted my points. If you cannot find the exact refs I will provide them to you. Tell me what you cannot find.--Factuarius (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer here[5] --Factuarius (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Kostja, I am currently accused of disruptive behaviour in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This has occured after I have presented the various sources in the First Bulgarian Empire discussion page. The users that apply double standards to Greece and Bulgaria articles are trying to get me banned. I mentioned your name there. Please read through and share your opinion. Thank you.--Monshuai (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apology

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice you were in the middle of editing the Bulgarian IPA page or I would have waited. Lfh (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean - updating the tables, or the transcriptions in the articles? Lfh (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are bots that can do this. I know nothing about them at all, but I think User:Kwamikagami uses them and should be able to help you. Lfh (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

I have reported you here for breaking the 3RR rule [6]. Enough is enough. Athenean (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at First Bulgarian Empire. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Template:Z9 The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Kostja reported by User:Athenean (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1809039 appears to have expired.

Request handled by: עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

My blocking time is over, but my IP address is still blocked. Kostja (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Report

I have mentioned you here [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushtrim123 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no arguments in the discussion page, just removals of the same part that is completely sourced and verified. This is the reason why warning messages exist.Alexikoua (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even sourced material can be removed, if it isn't cited correctly. That's what the whole point is about. Kostja (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synvet map

You need to read your source more carefully. It says that the map is "favorable to the Greek cause", not Synvet himself. There is a world of a difference there. Athenean (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not important because instead of saying "Ethnographic map by pro-Greek scholar Synvet" you should say "Ethnographic pro-Greek map by scholar Synvet". --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps aren't people. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually favorable to the Greek cause means pro-Greek, but really nice reply by you.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying an ethnic map of the Balkans during Ottoman Turkish rule prepared by a foreign state/scholar (non-Ottoman) as pro-Greek, pro-Bulgarian or pro-Serb is correct. However if you decide to only select the pro-Greek publications and leave the others un-classified then this is POV. It is a historical fact that during Ottoman-Russian and Balkan Wars foreign states or countries not owing the territories in question have prepared hundreds of maps each supporting their claim to territory. Once territory was gained other ethnic groups were usually effectively removed from the area or prevented from coming back so looking afterwards these maps only show intent of ethnic composition if territory is gained and not the real ethnic balance in the area. After 1878 some 2 million ethnic Turks have been removed from Bulgaria (over 300 000 killed) and today there are still some 800 000. Showing ethnic Turks to have been some kind of a minority in the Balkans and Thrace is just POV, statistics show Turks were in the Balkans in significant numbers. Now looking at these so called ethnic maps one can hardly see that. Hittit (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always interesting to read your opinions. However, they are not relevant to Wikipedia unless they are backed with sources, which they aren't in this case. If you think that a map is pro-Bulgarian add this information with the proper sources, but don't remove sourced material just to prove a point. Kostja (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion at WP:CCN. You might be interested in contributing there so we can achieve a consensus on this matter. Athenean (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism

So, what do you think about this issue? Should Ottoman empire to be included into the template? Filibeli (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be. After all, the Ottoman Empire did practice extensive settlement as well resource exploitation of foreign territories. Kostja (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1898-1877=21

Stop using every ridiculous pretext for removing the map--Factuarius (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Bulgarian Empire

It would be kind of you to respect a long established concensus. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your recent flag adjustment (I always hated this flag games). What do you believe about the present 'flag situation' on 2nd Bulgarian Empire?Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems, as long as those flags are sourced to have been used, which they seem to be. Kostja (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Article

Hello. I'd like to bring to your attention an interesting article you might be willing to contribute to:

Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims

BTW, the deletion of it is now being discussed at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims

Regards, Aregakn (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participate in discussions for changes in Articles

Hi, I'd like to ask you to express your opinion on this issue discussed [8]. Of course, if you are interested :). Thanks, Aregakn (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kostja

Thanks for putting back the original figure in the Turkish people article but if it happens again can you please change back all the figures rather than just the population in Bulgaria. Thank you in advance.Turco85 (Talk) 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for this edit, I've focused on the blowjob and have overlooked that part of the sentence :) Best, Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was about to remove the whole sentence, you just beat me to it. :) Kostja (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

You have been mentioned at WP:ANI#Edits by user:kostja - 3 reverts of a page and using wiki as a battle ground. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harmankoy

Hi Kostja, το Χαρμανκιόι νομίζω πως είναι τούρκικο όνομα, όχι βουλγάρικο, και γράφεται με Υ στο τέλοςYangula (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Yes I wrote that Harmankoy is a turkish name therefore you should ad a turkish language link and not a Bulgarian.Yangula (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name is of Turkish origin but it was used by the Bulgarians who used to live there (I've added sources about this) - and is still the name used today in Bulgarian. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Turks lived there, at least at the beginning of the 20th century, so there's no real justification to add the Turkish name. Kostja (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is' is a turkish name in a turkish state. it was used by bulgarians as it was used by turks, greeks, french, indians, australians, spanish etc. This is the justification needed and not how bulgarians did write this turkish nameYangula (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way, the history in the article is false. the municipality Eleutheria-Kordelio has part of the Lower Harmankioy. The most of former Harmankoy is now part of Evosmos. Harmankioy was a very small vilage (like the name says). There was no second village who formed a union in 1982 (!!!!) where you got this stuff anyway?Yangula (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nea Zichni

Quite weird about this town, as I see the Italian Instituto Geographico de Agostini (1908), didn't mention any Bulgarian school there or in the surroundings.Alexikoua (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to one of the sources I provided, they were followers of the Patriarchy and as education was organized on a religious basis, it's natural that there would only be a Greek school.

I'm aware, of course, of the Greek point of view on the issue, but I think in a neutral encyclopedia such a name is notable enough to warrant inclusion, especially if there are sources. Kostja (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload the map of de Agostini institute. Villages that underwent a decree of hellenization can have an alternative name. I'll check every case carefully.Alexikoua (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In tha case of Starchevo ‎for example we can mention that it was inhabited by a Greek community, or at least keep the alt. name, somewhere. What do you thing?Alexikoua (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in this case the name is appropriate. And of course the community is notable, though perhaps we should use the more neutral Patriarchist. Kostja (talk)

I fear that according to the addition of alternative names we should take into account a more neutral source. Brancoff's numbers lack for sure neutrality since he states that: p. 12: Bulgarians: 501k, Greeks: 147k in Vil. of Saloniki. This is the most pro-Bulgarian statistic i've seen so far. For example most of these Demographics_of_Macedonia#Sample_statistical_data_from_neutral_sources, seem to be more neutral.Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitat Mishev (Brancoff's a pseudonym) lumps exarchist and partriarchist Bulgarians together. In the Vil. of Salonika, for example, there were according to him about 360k exarchists and 120k patriarchists which if they were added to the number of Greeks (as was done in the census of Himli Pasha) would get 360k Bulgarians and about 270k Greeks. This still gives a higher number of Bulgarians than the Ottoman census, though that census can't exactly be taken at face value as well. First, the total number of Christians is lower in the census - which would fit well with a pro-Muslim bias - and secondly, it's doubtful how neutral the census could be on the Bulgarian-Greek issue just a year after a major Bulgarian uprising.

By the way, a 1913 book by an Armenian author (The figures can be seen in "Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913", p.41) in Ottoman service gives 446,050 Bulgarians and 168,500 Greeks in the Villayet of Salonica, so Mishev's figure doesn't seem to be such an outlier. Kostja (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The census in this book is obviously completely unhistorical (not only in Macedonia, see for example Kosovo). Moreover I would appreciate if you base your estimates on neutral works like the ones here: Demographics_of_Macedonia#Sample_statistical_data_from_neutral_sources. Also please give the reference in every village you add the alternative name, so someone can judge if it's ok.Alexikoua (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is unhistorical supposed to mean? The Vilayet of Kosovo was considerably larger than today's region and contained nearly half of today's Republic of Macedonia, so the large Bulgarian population doesn't seem that unlikely. Nor do I see why the source should be considered non-neutral, at least on the Bulgarian-Greek issue.

I'll try to add references, though as you probably realize they're not that many references on the subject and even fewer that could be considered neutral. Kostja (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see the statistics of Hilmi Pasha counted: [[9]], 373k Greeks, 207k Bulgarians in v. of Saloniki (and 487k Turks).Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if those statistics are accepted at face value (and considering that they have the highest Muslim population of almost all works and among the lowest Bulgarian populations, that probably wouldn't be very wise) the fact remains that more than half of the Greeks in the census are actually patriarchist Bulgarians - see page 3.

By the way, the demographic figures listed in "Balkan Harbi Tarihi" have about a million Christian Bulgarians living in Macedonia which is less than many of the neutral sources in that list. And of course if the figures for exarchist and patriarchist Bulgarians on Himli Pasha's census were combined, it would give a total of 895.000 which is rather close to most of the neutral figures anyway. Kostja (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koufalia

OK, I contextualised the name. Politis (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Bulgaria

Kostja, pictures in your version are too large, and they are posted in only one part of this article. You also removed birth-death years. I think that my version is esthetically better. --Sundostund (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all what you said, Kostya. Smaller pictures (for all Prime Ministers), with numbering and birth-death years included. I'm happy to see that we founded common language on this matter. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Ukraine

Thanks for your effort in editing Wikipedia. It seems that there was an error in you edit of Jijia River (Prut) on the 29th of July,2010. You placed the word "the" before the word "Ukraine". There has been a change in the accepted usage. Now Ukraine is preferred to the Ukraine. See Name of Ukraine#Syntax. I hope this helps. Again thanks for your effort. --Fartherred (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Names

Please see my response here: [10] Avionics1980 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response does not address the fact that most of those article don't even have a history section. Nor is the criteria "significant usage", usage by former speakers is enough. Kostja (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Avionics1980 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Avionics1980 stop vandalizing articles.. you are the one who started the edit-war. Ggia (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avionics1980

hello Kostja,

Avionics1980 seems that he is doing an edit war in the articles of cities in Thrace.. How we can notify the administrators for this vandalism? Since in Rhodope and Xanthi prefecture both greek and turkish languages are used I don't see a reason that both names of the cities should be present. It is common sense.. beside there is also a rule WP:NCGN.

About the Bulgarian names we can discuss about that.. If the name is similar to Turkish or to the Greek I don't see the reason this name to be present.. if the name has changed during the short Bulgarian period.. probably we can add it in the history of the city..

Ggia (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't really committed vandalism, but I suspect that he has broken the 3RR limit and has committed sockpupetry.

About Bulgarian names, they are indeed often based on the Turkish ones, but are still different enough to be included - there are many cases in Wikipedia with similar enough names included in an article. In addition, as Bulgarian was once spoken in many of those places, WP:NCGN does seem to permit their usage, within reason.

In connection with that, it might be better to include Turkish names in larger articles in their history section, if the name is used only historically. Kostja (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issue about the bulgarian names we had in greek language version of wikipedia. In the greek article of Echinos a user invert my editting adding the bulgarian name of the city.. I don't have any problem with the bulgarian names to be included in the articles and I will not remove them.. but if it is included in the WP:NCGN I want to discuss about that in el.wikipedia.. so the bulgarian names to be included also there...

since you are bulgarian.. probably we can collaborate and add references and history in the villages of thrace.. I saw some articles about greek villages in Thrace that have a lot of historical references in bulgarian wikipedia... Ggia (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yordan Letchkov - current/former mayor of Sliven

Hi, I am writing here regarding the changes you made (at the end of May this year) in article ‘Yordan Letchkov’ in the English version of Wikipedia. Replacing the phrase "current mayor of Sliven" with "former mayor of Sliven" in my opinion materially mislead the readers of Wikipedia. Any lie, you insert in Wikipedia, regardless of your personal reasons to do it, reduces the trust of readers to Wikipedia. Posting lies here is extremely harmful for this project! I just hope, your reason to lie is not your malice, but just the fact you are not informed good enough about the facts you writing for. It is also very bad, but not as bad as malicious disinformation of the readers! Please edit the incorrect facts, you have entered in this article. This is more honest, rather than if someone else should do it. HSGeorgiev (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kostja,

You chose to answer on my page, but let me continue this discussion on the place it started.

Once you continue to persist, let me draw your attention to the fact that under Bulgarian law, it is not possible judicial authority to terminate the authority of the elected person. Separation of powers is political doctrine, according to which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This principle is part of the legislation of any democratic societies and it is important part of the Constitution of Republic of Bulgaria as well.

Your reference to the ‘Trud’ newspaper is very strange for me. It is obvious that journals publishing so called ‘yellow’ news need to be at last duplicated with a second independent source of information. Actually it is fundamental, basic principle.

If Wikipedia just copy uncritically information from the so called ‘yellow’ press, it would mean that Wikipedia itself is no more trusted source than ‘yellow’ press.

Let me inform you also that even that this article makes it clear that mr. Yordan Letchkov was never been removed from his post. A court has imposed a temporary ban for a specified period of time to ensure the investigation of the Regional Prosecutor's Office.

In conclusion, I am happy to assure you that there are no cases some political figure in Bulgaria to be removed from office in violation of the Constitution of the country so far. I just wonder whether you can understand the importance of this problem, problem ‘of vital importance to the State, a matter of life and death’. HSGeorgiev (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bulgaria" pronunciation

Hi, could you explain why you {{fact}}-tagged the native pronunciation entry at Bulgaria? We don't normally insist on extra sourcing for such items, since they can be verified through simple knowledge of the language. Unless of course this one would be somehow controversial. Is it? I don't see anybody has ever objected to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians in Turkey lead

In what way does Ethnologue specifically say they are Pomaks? The only thing Ethnologue says is that "Pomak" is an alternate name or name of a dialect of the Bulgarian language used in Turkey.

The profile of Greece also lists only "Pomak" as a dialect of Bulgarian in that country, but you know very well that not all Bulgarians in Greece are Pomaks. The profile of Turkey includes "Haketia" as an alternate name for Judaeo-Spanish: as you might know, Haketia is a Moroccan variety of Judaeo-Spanish that is different from Balkan Judaeo-Spanish. This is to illustrate that not all speakers of Judaeo-Spanish in Turkey speak Haketia, and not all speakers of Bulgarian in Turkey are Pomaks.

The only thing that Ethnologue says specifically is that the speakers of Bulgarians in Turkey are "Refugees from Bulgaria. Scattered in Edirne and other western provinces". This applies to both Pomaks and Bulgarian Turks. Isn't it obvious, though, that most Bulgarian speakers in Turkey would actually be Turks?

I'd appreciate it if you make sure you're right before reverting me. A discussion often helps in that respect. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Point Todor, in fact the whole article is a bit bizzare and I think already at one time considered for deletion since instead of Bulgarians in Turkey it clearly refers to Bulgarian Turks in Turkey.Hittit (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more detailed entry on the Bulgarian language ([11]) says that the language is used by "Muslim Pomaks in Turkey and Greece". Ethnologue, in any case is concerned only with native language use, not with those who might know a second language. As for Greece, ethnologue regards other speakers of Bulgarian in Greece as Slavs, or Macedonians [12].

Hitti, as far as I remember the article wasn't deleted because it couldn't be shown that it referred to Bulgarian Turks, so I really don't see the point of this comment. Kostja (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of templating

You have placed a 3RR template on my page. You'll need to explain why. If it is because of my reverts to Pensionero in Bulgarians you should know that I am reverting a change he made from the existing consensus-agreed text. His change is inconsistent with the source cited - and he has not replaced the that source with a source supporting his change. I have opened a Talk page and asked him to not to revert but to discuss on the talk page. I will not be making any further change but will instead report him to AN/I for edit-warring if he tries to change it again. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed an explanation on your talk page. It's only fair that you are warned, because you would also break the 3RR rule if you reverted Pensionero again. Kostja (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A) as I explained I will not be reverting again but simply taking it to AN/I. B) I am not making the change he is. I have deleted your templating again as it is inappropriate. Please do not do it again. DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Прабългарите

Здравей Костя, майтапа настрана, но ще те помоля внимателно да прочетеш статията за прабългарите на английския вариант. С поздрав! Jingby (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Наистина, майтапа настрана. Статията за прабългарите страда от сериозна липса на балансираност, а в статията за прабългарския език се споменава алтернативната теория.

Във всеки случай последната ти редакция нарушава 3RR, така че няма да е лошо да прочетеш WP:Fringe и да обясниш точно защо тази теория нарушава този принцип в Talk:Bulgarians. Kostja (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Явно не си я прочел. Жалко! Jingby (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance.

Hello. My name is Moti, and I'm an editor and a sysop on the Hebrew Wikipedia. The majority of my editing time is Dedicated to Bulgaria, (History, Geography and Jewish communities). Lately I completed a personal project and wrote or expanded articles about all 28 oblasts of bulgaria, the capital cities and about a third of each district municipalities. In recent days an article I wrote about the jewish community in plovdiv, (my parents were born there), was elected as a Featured article.[13].

There isn't A free photo of the Jewish synagogue in plovdiv mentioned here [14]. I noticed you edited the article about plovdiv, and request your assistance in obtaining one. Thanks a lot --Assayas (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vilayet

Please respond to this discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Turkism

Before reverting the article can you discuss it on talk page.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Turkism, the Batak Massacre

Kostja you have reitared in the article that Richard, Millman is pro-Turkish. I suggest we go a bit further and clarify that according to the bulk of sources MacGahan is described as extremely pro-Russian and a sensationalist (some newspapers refused to even hire him). Would you like to add this to the article or should I? We can also discuss in the article talk page. Regards Hittit (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable, neutral source about this. Kostja (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devsirme

Would you care to give your opinion on a matter in the Devsirme article? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet at Devsirme

I have opened a sockpuppet case here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kenzo4000, if you would like to comment. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Struggle

I asked the administrators for an intervention against the edit warring of Special:Contributions/AngBent. The decision is "declined" and "Please take this issue to WP:ANI" ( see here). So the vandal may go on with his disruptive edits (chauvinist Greek + pro-Pyongyang Communist, an interesting mix...). --Pylambert (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Keep on the good work. --Pylambert (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third and last attempt after "tell other Greek users of this interference, so we can stop the Bulgarian POV" (sic !). Note that he edits also under IPs 46.176.88.230, 46.177.71.53, 46.176.13.209, 46.176.224.54. --Pylambert (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AngBent

Hello, Kostja. Judging from your contributions, you seem to have an interest in Greek history, politics and geography. However, you should not make contributions about things you know little of, and then start edit wars. For example, you wrote many unsubstantiated things about the Macedonian Struggle, without having a clear knowledge of the Greek perspective, strategy and people involved. Instead, you created whole paragraphs filled with useless details about the internal workings of IMRO. Yet the article is about Greek efforts (military, political, cultural) in Macedonia; and let me tell you that the objective of Greek leaders was Byzantine imperial restoration (Megali Idea), not just a few attacks against IMRO peasants. By claiming that the Macedonian struggle was just a "conflict between Greek and Bulgarian guerillas", you present a false picture of the historical situation, and of Greek strategic planning. Please, don't be like other users (such as Pylambert, who finally found out that he cannot label anything he doesn't like as vandalism) who edit articles without having learned their history first. And please don't delete referenced content, this is a most offensive form of censorship. I sincerely hope we can become friends and eventually collaborate in preparing articles about the history and politics of Greece. Cheers! AngBent (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite a bit about this conflict, thank you. My additions are well referenced, while you are submitting information without any references (except the irrelevant article from 1939). This conflict was not one sided, but was a struggle between IMRO and the Greek andartes, so the organization of both sides are important in the article. It's unacceptable to present the Greek partisans as valiant protectors and IMRO as a bunch of bandits, while completely removing the Bulgarian point of view of the conflict. And please stop the hypocritical accusations. While inserting a lot of original research and personal opinion, you also removed the important and referenced fact of the tacit Turkish support of the Greek andartes. Kostja (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]