Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk:Bulgarian language --VKokielov 06:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That was excatly my point regarding Bulgarians but some people also insisted to say similar thing for Serbs aswell. As for Serbs most of them live in Kumanovo where locals speak Torlakian dialect (which is as we know transitional to Macedonian/Bulgarian) my conslusion is that probably those who declared Serbs and Macedonian speak same idiom but because of this "between" idiom or identity Serb-Macedonian divide is more of political then of ethno-genetic nature. This is ofcourse reffered to Kumanovo and region where Torlakian is spoken. Am I right? Luka Jačov 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
As you said different nations in different countries but you have situation like this in one country or in one municipality does things should be noted. Do you agree with my change? Start discussion on Macedonia talk page i ll join right after you. Luka Jačov 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Those things are hard to source but nobody can contradict that certain amount of people declared cos of that reasons. Luka Jačov 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Pro4eti tova:
Hello Todor. Long time no hear. I have a question: how can I merge two talk pages? Talk:Bojana River and Talk:Buna/Bojana River? They are about the same subject, page was moved (and made total mess out of it, if you check the talk pages or history), so now only one of those two talk pages can be reached from the Bojana River page and I think it is important that both should be there. Greetings PajaBG 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh, I know very well what he did. He was reverted by editors almost immediately but the talk page of the Buna/Bojana remained as such and wasn't reverted to Bojana talk page and I think some important stuff is said on that talk page. So I will have to copy-paste it? Can I do that as one section within the talk page, pointing out it's a talk page of the same page but while it was renamed? PajaBG 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 29 | 17 July 2006 | |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I would welcome a third opinion on this issue. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Unfortuately I have no spare time at the moment to dedicate to wikipedia so i'll have to hope others can put some work in. Thanks. CGorman 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[Copy:]
Hi! I came across your articles about Ivanko and Dobromir, two of the less known medieval Bulgarian rulers. What puzzles me is the terminology you've used to refer to them: 'leader of the Vlachs and Bulgarians'... the other articles about rulers of the Second Bulgarian Empire (including the earliest) use 'of Bulgaria', which is the established way to refer to them given the name of the realm they ruled over and the specific meaning of the word Vlach then (see Kaloyan of Bulgaria#Disputed origins. Do you insist on the articles being named so, because I'd prefer them being 'of Bulgaria' to conform with all other ones. Todor→Bozhinov 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Todor. Can you please find a source for the area of Blagovegrad? My Bulgarian is kinda rusty, you know... :NikoSilver: 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We're almost done for the FA status, but there is too little time to deal with some final opjections, mainly in citation. Your help is needed, see talk! :NikoSilver: 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lyaskovets.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Ottoman, Turkish. Why? Well, I'm not arguing. I'm asking. --VKokielov 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick talk contribs 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Todor. There is an absurd discussion on the Bulgarian (and for that matter Russian) usage of the title "tsar" (with some contending that it is equivalent to "king" or else not fully imperial) on Talk:Tsar. You might find it interesting. I am about to abandon this whole insanity. Best, Imladjov 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 30 | 24 July 2006 | |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that Shopi article should speak about entire Shopi population, meaning those that live in all 3 countries - Bulgaria, Macedonia and Serbia. I have one book about Shopi and Torlak population including a map where they live, and according to this map most of Shopi live in Bulgaria, thus most of the article should be about them, but those that live in Serbia and Macedonia should be also mentioned. I do not have time now to improve this article, but I do not think that categories should be removed. I will maybe try to improve article a little when I find time, but you can also change introduction part and you can write there something like that Shopi live in all 3 countries, and then it will not be problem that most of the article is about Shopi in Bulgaria. PANONIAN (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe you can start culture section in that article if you want, and I might look to add more things there if I know them. Regarding origin of Serbs and Croats, see for example this map: http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0600.htm You can see where they lived in AD 600 (on this map they are shown as Sorbs and White Croats), and here you see where they were in AD 700: http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0700.htm And you still have part of original West Slavic serbs living in Germany (see: Sorbs). So, yes they originaly were West Slavs, but when they settled in Balkans they mixed with South Slavs and most of modern Serbs and Croats are in fact descendants of South Slavs that adopted Serb and Croat name for them. Regarding my sources, I will mention few more books in the reference section. PANONIAN (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding to your last question:
Why do you have such a repulsive reaction in not accepting a compromise solution like I last modified it, e.g. Romanians (Vlachs). In many article it's like that and I don't see a reason for not having alse like that in the case of Bulgaria :). Cheers, --Eliade 13:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Bulgaria according to this link the population of Sofia is not 1.2 but 1.1 million inhabitants. Cheers, --Eliade 16:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Todor, no, I'm not trying to do that, as may seen annoying but you did that first with my edit on Central Europe. Have you forgotten already? Now is the question, how reliable are the sources with estimations from 2006? --Eliade 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Todor. Can you drop in to FAR and give us your appraisal of the progress on articles you've nominated for review? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Economy of the Republic of Ireland, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lego, and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lastovo. Thanks, Sandy 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought you understood and we finally reached a compromise. Don't forget I'm willing to pass through a mediation/dispute process if you're not willing to accept the alternative name of it. You will loose since Wikipedia accepts alternative names. I think all have been said now. --Eliade 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If you don't try the minumum of compromise I will be forced by you to start an RfC against your impulsive not willing to accept the compromise: Romanians (Vlachs). --Eliade 10:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Check it. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed you had reported him. I'll continue to monitor what's happening. --Guinnog 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Todor, on Eastern Orthodox Church you placed a very beautiful photo of Bulgarian monastery. Thanks a lot. Do you have any photos of Bachkovo Monastery? Thanks in advance. Ldingley 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I started an RfC against your general behaviour here in Wikipedia. --Eliade 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 31 | 31 July 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet of ElevatedStork. Please remove the sockpuppet tag from my page. Rater 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Todor, I've just examined your contributions and some of your excellent articles, and I'm just curious - how come you're not an admin yet? I feel you have the right approach, attitude and understanding for the mop. What can I do to convince you to take a ride on the Mopping rollescoaster? ;) Big hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Todor. There's a problem with Image:Bulgaria-(893-927)-TsarSimeon-byTodorBozhinov.png: it seems that it's just a nationalist map with little to do with the reality. I find it very hard to believe that Tsar Simeon actually ruled that huge territory. He might had some incursions in that land, but that does not mean that it was part of the Bulgarian Empire.
I googled for sources and only found a similar map on a far-right Bulgarian site: http://www.bgns.net/site/images/stories/history/karti/2-14.jpg Do you have any actual sources to support that map ?bogdan 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
See here. If I'm wrong, I'll stop. Also, please be careful with some reversions, as they may have included other links that are in at least one case quite malicious. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My basic idea with that map was to show only municipalities where South Slavs are majority in Romania. Of course, another map could be made showing the percent of South Slavic groups in each of the municipalities (or counties) of Romania (like it was made for Hungarians for example), but it is little bigger job, and by my opinion, it is not much important to show municipalities where South Slavs are not majority, no matter how large minority they are there, but minority is only minority. Alternatively, another map could be made showing all settlements (villages and towns) with South Slavic minority in Romania. I could be interested to draw that map, but currently I do not have enough data about this, because I have only data about ethnic composition of municipalities, not of settlements. The point is that if Denta municipality have 18.98% Bulgarians, we should not create a map showing Denta municipality, but map showing village in that municipality where Bulgarians are majority (if that is a case here, of course). As I said, I do not have data about settlement populations, but if you have that data, you can list all settlements where Bulgarians are majority in "Banat Bulgarians" article. Later, we can make a map of these settlements, of course. PANONIAN (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The Bulgarians living near Bucharest came in the early 19th century, fleeing from the Turks, but they eventually were assimilated. According to the 2002 census, in Ilfov County there were only 27 Bulgarians, of which 12 spoke natively Bulgarian. (in Bucharest, there were 370 Bulgarians, of which 301 spoke natively Bulgarian).
As for the Romanian Dobruja, the Bulgarians moved to Bulgaria during the population exchange, so currently there are only 135 Bulgarians. (See Dobruja#Area.2C_population_and_cities) bogdan 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 32 | 7 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Здравей! Сега виждам колко много труд хвърляш, и колко хубави статии на български теми си написал и/или превел! Браво и продължавай в същия дух! С поздрав! --5ko 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
(I am wiritng in English Since my comments concern the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Bulgaria in the English Wikipedia )
Hi Todor, First of all I would like to express my respect and gratitude to your work contributed here. I wish however to dispute the edit that you have done on the Geograph of Bulgaria page delering the external references I added to the article yesterday to professionally compiled and unique information on Bulgaria, which cover very closely and precisely the subject.
The information that I linked is not commericial in its nature and the fact that it is part of a commercial site does not make it inelibible for Wikipedia?
If you think that the articles linked lack merit can you please give us some additional explanations. Adding an extranal resource to an articles is not SPAM by itself. And in this case I think it will contribute Wiki Readers more than the recepient site.
Best wishes Vesselin
Here is the article I had mentioned on Bulgarian reactions to history I find the news item more interesting than the comment Politis 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you plan to do that? I was just thinking about adding a fixed 135px width. --Cameltrader 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, we would use SVG or something and forget about scaling. I'll do some more experimenting (in a separate temporary template) - I hope we can get something out of thumbs. And just for comparison - the general "City Infobox" template uses a 100px width. The German one uses 135px, which I mistook for the standard. --Cameltrader 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You can use my temporary Template:Infobox Town BG Test for tests, let's not clutter up the history with small reverts. --Cameltrader 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, anastenari is αναστενάρι in the Greek alphabet. Also, we have an article on it at the Greek Wikipedia: el:Αναστενάρια. --Telex 10:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what the Turkish name for Dzhanka is? As Turks are the major ethinc group there, I think it should be mentioned in the article. —Khoikhoi 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Good! Perhaps you can expand a little on the Apriltsi article ;-). By the way, I though it was simply called 'Balkan'. A Bulgarian friend went on holidays there and she said, 'I went to the Balkan'. Politis 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 33 | 14 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RubberJoshy, there is some concern that an editor has been adding information about non-existent Bulgarian telvision programmes. Would you take a minute to look at it? Jkelly 23:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you often remove year links. Do you have an idea what the preferred style is for years "Before the Common Era"? Are there any user settings which would work (or might work if implemented some day) when the year is [[123 BCE]]
? E.g. some may prefer BC, others — BCE. The Manual of Style doesn't discuss this. --Cameltrader 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 34 | 21 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
...and another --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 35 | 28 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the claim was about Bulgaria and places around it. I found that interesting: the source traces the migration of Proto-Bulgarians by places with such names (look at the maps). Anyway, I don't insist on including this. It mentions touchable topics such as Aryan/Turkic origin, and may be just bullshit. --Cameltrader 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
...you know the drill! :-) •NikoSilver• 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I will. It's in the pipeline:) Cretanforever
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 36 | 5 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Todor, Thanks for you comments on this AfD. As I don't read Bulgarian, I'm afraid there's nothing else I can add to the article. Would it be possible for you to expand it a little (e.g. by translating the brief biography in the link I put into the article?).
I think a small amount of reliable text would really improve the article!
I am sorry you find the “creation of mine” disgusting. As for Macedodnistic-sounding, I can not help it, much of the articles are various quotes. Obviously you don’t like them but this is not “my creation”. As for non-existent Slavic Macedonian ethnic group in the 19th century, I will answer you with Gologanov’s quote : “there were no Greeks and Serbs, nor Bulgarians in Macedonia. The country was inhabited by Macedonians, who are ethnically distinct from the other three Balkan peoples’”. Now why is so difficult for Bulgarians to accept the fact that there were people like him it’s beyond me, really it’s your problem. As for the historians: feel free to find contributions from non Macedonian historians, even Bulgarian one, if it so anti-Bulgarian in your view. Much of the documents can be found in the archive of Vatican, before you start disputing the validity of the documents, especially corespondence with the Pope and bishups. Overall, you disapoint me, for some reason I thought you were slightly more moderate and analytical . BTW, Ohrid Church is not claimed that was Macedonian. In fact I’d let FF to put Bulgarian adjective, even thoug Ohrid A. was as Bulgarian as you are Mongolian – all of the high clergy was Greek, jurisdiction over South Italy, Venice, almost entire Balkan (at its peak), etc. --Cigor 03:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
1. if the stuff really happened; 2. if 1 is true than T.G was not right completelly, rather he was in minority. 3. Ohrid Church is much older than 11th century, nor it was Bulgarian. But even if it was, it's really irelevant: obviously T.G. considered it as Macedonian. Maybe he was wrong there but it is the idea that counts. Everybody knows that Byzantines were not Romans, yet this is how they called themselves.
Like I said I don't see problem with 3. As for 1&2 if you want to make it better find some opinion from other historians, I am sure there is some Bugarian historian that covered that part. Redirecting to MOC makes no sense. --Cigor 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: Since the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.
In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:
If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 09:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I know perfectly well that the Slavic name Belgrade was mentioned in a letter exchange between the Bulgarian czar and the Pope in 878 A.D. The other thing I know perfectly well is that Belgrade was settled by a Serbian populous back in 630 A.D., invited by Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius. Belgrade was not to become a part of the Serbian state until te 12/13th century, that's a fact, however there are several facts to be considered. Serbs have settled the Balkans before the Bulgarians, and their first stop on the Balkan soil was the Roman Singidunum, one that they have named the "White City". That town, previously destroyed by the Avar invasion, was the first permanent Serbian settlement on the peninsula. This population however was small and insignificant since the city was in ruins, and it didn't have a big perspective taking that it was a border town towards the "barbaric Central Europe". Serbs were aiming for the Dalmatia province, settling also the Thessalonikki/Macedonia etc.
Of course that Bulgarian czar would call the city Beligrad if it was under Bulgarian occupation, that's perfectly normal! I'm also aware of the city's status as Alba Bulgarica for the same reason. However, for the Serbs Belgrade was ALWAYS Beograd, and the capital of Serbia for 600 years now was always known by that name. Serbs and Bulgarians have always been distinct nations, Bulgarians formed by the Slavic and Turkic roots and Serbs beeing at the time predominantly Slavic (or slavicised, for that matter). The fact is that Beograd was and is a Serbian version of the city's name, while the Bulgarian form is Beligrad (just as f.e. Skopie is Bulgarian and Skoplje is Serbian form of the city's name). User:NeroN_BG
-First of all, my sources are De Administrando Imperio and Einhard, Frankish contamporary historian (to start with at least). Upon their arrival to the Balkans Serbs were invited to settle in the Salonica (Thessaloniki) province, however they have mostly colonised Dalmatia. De administrando imperio proves this
-Second, you are contradicting your own claims. If the Slavs were indeed a 'same South Slavic group'- which by the way does not implicate the same ethnic counciosness- how come the Draguvites could be "Bulgarian", not to mention that at the time Bulgars were hundreds of miles away across the Danube, before the end of the 7th century that is...??(plus, Bulgars are not a Slavic race unlike today's Bulgarians who claim a predominant Slavic ancestry, as you know)..
To cut the long story short, you are right when you say that Bulgarian Belgrade was Beligrad; the letter from 878 A.D. proves that fact. However what it doesn't prove is that the Bulgarians have named the city Belgrade. The letter simply implies that Bulgarian occupied Belgrade (Beligrad) needs a new bishop, nothing else. You need to understand this: by simply using the name Belgrade instead of Singidunum in their correspondance it is quite obvious that the Slavic name has already taken grounds, a.k.a., that there is no more confusion about the city's name, meaning that it must have been changed for some time before the occupation. Simply, the letter proves the Slavic name, but it doesn't prove that the Bulgarians have named it. Had it been otherwise Bulgarians would have probably printed out an official document stating that the city has been renamed by them. Bulgarians are responsible for chronicling the city's Slavic name, but there are no proofs that they were the ones who named it Belgrade. User:NeroN_BG
Hi, after seeing the article Greco-Armenian relations, I thought that a Greco-Bulgarian relations article would be handy. As the former article is based on primarily one source (the Greek Foreign Ministry), which includes the same data on Bulgaria, it shouldn't be too hard. The problematic issue would be how are we supposed to cover the "History" of the relations? How far back should we go and in how much detail? Greek-Bulgarian interactions haven't always been sweet (e.g. the Second Balkan War, the Bulgarian occupation of parts of northern Greece during WWII). Do you think it would be worth it starting such an article? --Telex 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please see my response to Talk:Macedonia (terminology). Are you sure this was the source you were looking for? •NikoSilver• 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 37 | 11 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
Carnildo resysopped | Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia |
News and notes | Features and admins |
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Todor, Firstly, As I know, this architecture is under patent of Turkey. It's so normal being one of these buildings in former Ottoman Empire countries. If you view the period before Ottoman Empire of Bulgaria, you'll see that there is no these architecture. I don't know about Bulgarian history but at least I know that this style buildings of Veliko Tarnovo made in Ottoman period.
Regarding Turkic people's architecture, you should know about climate; Central Asia's climate is continental which is very cold( -20/-30) in winter time and very hot (~30 to ~+45) in summer but the building is made by wooden. If you build one of them in Central Asia, It won't be firm. Like you can't build Norwegian style buildings in Africa. - Zaparojdik 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyway,you says Kolyu Ficheto built the houses but he just re-build. Cause I said wooden is not firm at all. 20:10, 12 September (UTC)
OK, I've just started Greco-Bulgarian relations. Just thought you should know, in case you didn't have anything to do and wanted to help expand an article ;-) --Telex 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Todore, I disagree with the revert to Old Church Slavonic.
Slavonic = slavonski, from Slavonia.
Slavic = slavenski, from Slavs.
Google hits aren't always good measure. Of course that it will be more hits on Slavonic, than on Slavic, because Britannica and Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia use word "Slavonic".
But they are wrong.
Those who wrote those articles aren't Slavs, they don't make difference between Slav, slava, Slava, Slavko, slavuj, Slave, slave (verb, 3.pers.pl. of "slaviti"), slave (noun, 1.pers.pl. of "slava"), slavlje, slovo, Slovio, slavica, Slavica, Slavic, Slavonic, Slavia, Slavonia, Slovenia, Slovakia.
These words sound all the same for non-Slavic speaker, but for the Slavs it should be clear that these aren't the same things.
So, don't intend to allow to non-Slavic scientists to mutilate Slavic words.
"Slavonic" is an older form of "Slavic" which has been preserved in the name "Old Church Slavonic". This proofs nothing. It only shows how old this mistake is (in English literature).
This mistake in fact contains two mistakes:
At least, you're a Slav. You're supposed to know and hear the difference.
Maybe you've never heard for Slavonia (northeastern part of Croatia), but here, in Croatia, when a person reads word "Slavonic", he thinks on Slavonia, not on Slavs at all.
I hope I've explained you the matter. Kubura 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
These links speak for themselves:
- Google search for Church Slavonic (271,000 hits)
- Google search for Church Slavic (1,950,000 hits)
Suddenly, we have a change of ratios and numbers here.
I'm still saying, the naming of an Slavic language as "Slavonic" is wrong and uncorrect.
Possibly this wrong use (Slavonic instead of Slavic) comes from an obsolete scientific terminology for starocrkvenoslavenski.
Have in mind the Google results that I've presented you.
Now the Wikipedia's naming convention turns the other way. Kubura 00:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your "Slavonic" assistence with User:Kubura. One question - what's that deletion tag on your user page? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you check the page? The author requires some assistance. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.