User talk:Bomac/Archive 2

Please, don't leave me any messages here. This is my archive-page that contains messages from my past conversations. Thank you very much indeed!

WP is not a playground

And I don't find your new game amusing. If you continue I'll seriously consider an RFC. Please don't. MATIA ☎ 14:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read the relavant talk page, and then revert yourself. MATIA ☎ 18:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA, please stop with your false accusations towards me. I perfecttly know that WP is not a playground and I'm ain't playin'. Read the talk on Mcd. (disambig.). Regards, Bomac 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue POV-pushing and changing the facts I'll start an RFC for your behaviour. Your specific edits are unjustified. MATIA ☎ 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

two suggestions

Please use more often the talk pages. And you can make better use of edit summaries than provoking other people. For example when I adding a link to mk WP, write in the edit summary box " mk:" or something like that. MATIA ☎ 19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, MATIA! I'm not vandalising articles! (that goes for the "specific" articles). I'm adding iterwikies at some articles. P.S. Are you following every step I made? Regards, Bomac 20:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From your latest edits, apart from the pov-pushing in Macedonia related articles, I've noticed this and that. If you didn't wrote the other (rather provoking) edit summaries, I would guess you didn't know that you can write an edit summary. Since you know that feature, I suggested instead of writing those that you wrote, when you do a revert write "revert: reason" or "partial revert: reason", and when you add a link to mk write a useful edit summary like " mk interwiki" or something similar. I didn't said anything about vandalism, and indeed it would be better if instead of reverting each other, people would try to talk about and see what can be done. Take care. MATIA ☎ 22:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Bomac, I think you need to calm down a bit. You've violated the 3 revert rule on Saint Cyril and edit warring on other articles doesn't help. I've blocked you for 24 hours - please try to work towards consensus with your fellow editors, rather than just reverting them each time. -- ChrisO 19:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To ChrisO

He is close to the line? Miskin also violated the 3RR. Plus, that what I'm writing in the St. Cyril article is true, I'm not spreading propaganda as Miskin does. Cyril gave the Slavonic alphabet to Slavs, and that's why I think the Slavonic name of him should be mentioned there. Regards and please reconsider who is violating 3RR and the facts. Bomac 19:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, check out Reikkonen. Something is fishy about him (like, he may be a sockpuppet of Miskin). Bomac 19:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were much closer to the line between edit-warring and vandalism, so it is a fair decision. I'm always using neutral sources for my edits, something which I would advise you to start doing as well in order to be taken seriously. You also should use the discussion page more often and prevent your ethnic feelings from dominating over WP neutral policy. You were practically stalking me upon doing those reverts, hence why they couldn't be regarded by anyone as content dispute in the first place. Miskin 20:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrudenceBumpkin

Bomac, as you know, PrudenceBumpkin is a new user. We have a guideline on this type of thing: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I have written to him/her on his/her talk page explaining the situation and the NPOV policy and hopefully, he/she will adapt. Everyone makes mistakes when they are new - I'm sure that now that the policy has been bought to his/her attention, his/her attitude will change. Be polite and civil to him/her and if he persists in edit-warring or intense POV pushing after his/her errors have been pointed out, then action can be taken. Izehar (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bomac :-) Izehar 16:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not push a Greek POV, but an NPOV.

Greece's POV: "Macedonian" should appear nowhere in said ethnic group's name.

FYROM's POV: The said ethnic group should be called "Macedonian".

NPOV: A qualifier is needed (i.e. to qualify "Macedonian")...for example, "Slav Macedonian", "Macedonian Slav".

Simovski, a Yugoslavian, would naturally refer to the ethnicity as simply "Macedonian".

An aside: I love how Slav-Macedonians are always quick to point out that "[they] exist". Nobody is saying that you don't exist as a distinct nationality; however, your nation has made some offensive claims against one of its neighbouring countries, Greece.

What, do you expect that you will get zero reaction? If we don't protest against your irredentism and your dubious historical claims then where does that leave us? Shall we also change our textbooks to indicate that Alexander the Great spread Slavonic culture around the known world in 330BC?

Alexander spoke Attic (Koine) Greek and the Macedonian Greek dialect. He did not speak any type of Slavic language. This should close the door on the issue; however, from my knowledge of your nation's propaganda, you will twist facts to your will in order to prove that day is night and night is day....and please don't give me any lame quotes from Borza or Baiden, who are obviously grasping at straws.--PrudenceBumpkin 02:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And "your" nation made enough ofenses towards RoM with that it interfered in the internal matters of Ro Macedonia (changing the flag, constitution etc.). Don't wanna talk about who ofended who anymore. Bomac 07:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha...what a joke! You don't even realize that your old flag and constitution were the two most offensive things, like EVER! The funniest thing is that Vergina is in a part of Macedonia that never even had a Slav-speaking population.

If it wasn't for your nation's dubious historical claims re ancestry from Alexander and Philip, maybe Greeks would feel a bit more relaxed with the whole situation. However, your nation's propaganidists continue to make chauvanistic claims even though your own Kiro Gligorov called him "Alexander the Greek"--PrudenceBumpkin 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think is the opposite - your nation's dubious historical claims. I don't wanna talk about Greece's history because is the most "unclear" and "secret" history in whole Europe. And that is the result of the non-existing minorities rights in your beloved fatherland (keeping them "shutted up" due to the true history not to see the daylight). Cheers, Bomac 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian

Hi, Bomac, The Macedonian question is a very difficult one not only because of the various points of view, but also because of confusion in the terms. For example, the word Macedonia can have several meanings, however Republic of Macedonia is unambiguous. Now, how about Macedonian? Here, it becomes really difficult, especially if we talk about Greek Macedonia. How would you call a Greek living in Macedonia? Is she a Macedonian, or not? She certainly would call herself a Macedonian, even if she is kind enough to call you a Macedonian, maybe a fellow Macedonian? Oh, yes, this kind of things occur at a lot of places. Here in Quebec, we call everybody who lives here a Quebecker, but if somebody is of French descent we call her a Québécois. I would think that people would say things like "in places like Florina there is a slavic Macedonian population" because saying there is a "Macedonian population" looks lika a pleonasm because Florina is a Macedonian town, so everybody is Macedonian there. How about a member of the Albanian minority in the Republic of Macedonia? Is she an Albanian, a Macedonian, or both? We have lots of Greek Canadians, French Canadians, Macedonian Canadians here in Canada. However, a Macedonian Greek would be more likely be identified as somebody speaking Greek and living in Macedonia than a person with Macedonian mother tongue living in Greece. Unfortunately, there is no solution to this dilemma. Andreas 17:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you need my help...

I've noticed you've encountered several trolls while on Wikipedia, namely Theathenae and Miskin. I also saw you've had trouble the 3RR rule. If you ever need an administrator's assistance or another user's reverting, I'd be happy to help. freestylefrappe 02:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed :-) Cheers, Bomac 07:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Ioannis Metaxas

I removed your edits from the article because the accusations you made were very grave but you did not provide any reliable sources to verify them. Also, the language you used was very aggresive and POVish. I would really not object to have such information included in the article about that fascist scoundrel, if it were true. Michalis Famelis 21:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XMK

well, I refer you to the discussion archives; this has all been discussed at length. I also refer you to WP:CITE: Of course, if you can bring a respectable reference (from a linguistic journal or monograph) about the theory, things will be very different. Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean it is notable. Your link to the page claiming Bronze Age Cyrillic inscriptions... you must admit that this is pure kookery. Cite reputable sources, and we'll refer to them in the article. dab (ᛏ) 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Hey Bomac, I just noticed how amazed you were on the religious icon photo from Daniel tanevski talk page, and I just wanted to let you know that thats nothing compared to all the other proof of Greek lies regarding Macedonia. So here are some links to other photos you might find interesting.

[1] Look at the bottom part, you'l notice wiped out macedonian writing

[2]

[3]

[4]

All these photos are from the church Sveti Atanas in Zhelevo

[5]

[6] These are 300 year old graves and tomb stones in Gorno Pozharsko (Greek - Ano Loutraki) near Voden that were destroyed by Greek officials in 1998 because they were in Macedonian writing. Also, the historic church beside it, St. George, still has original Slavonic inscriptions over its main doorway that were not totally wiped out and are 90% visible.

regards, Macedonia

Congratulations

I, Rex, award Bomac the Barnstar of National Merit for all the work he has put into maintaining the neutrality of the articles relating to his fatherland, Macedonia.

Enjoy and keep up the good work. Rex^(talk) 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Rex. I am honoured. Regards, Bomac 13:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Bojan - Now that Theathenae's back my wikibreak is over! I hope you don't mind my new userpage being a carbon copy of yours ;-) Rex^(talk) 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah :-) Cheers, Bomac 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bomac :-) Rex^(talk) 15:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring with Theathenae on Arvanites, can you help me? Rex^(talk) 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert to my last version :-P Thank you. Rex^(talk)

15:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, God Bless You :-) Could you keep an eye on Macedonians as well. I know that in Aegean Macedonia, the ethnic-Greeks, call themselves 'Ellines' (Greeks), not 'Makedones' (Macedonians). I have put a 'requesting sources tag' there and Theath keep removing it :-)) Rex^(talk) 15:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there poeple in Bulgaria who speak Macedonian?

You already gave me the answer, thank you. My question was more meant rhetorically. I noticed that some Bulgarian(?) editors think that Macedonian is not spoken in Bulgaria. Some also assert that the slavic language spoken by many Greeks is indeed Bulgarian and not Macedonian. (I suppose that the language spoken by Pomaks in Western Thrace is considered Bulgarian and not Macedonian, am I right?). The reason I raise this question is because of the concept of a dialect continuum between the various variants of south Slavic languages. Bulgarian and Macedonian are standard languages, the latter being standardized only in 1945. The situation is similar to that in Alsace and Luxemburg. In Alsace, the language spoken (mainly by the rural population) is an alemannic German dialect known as Alsatian (French Alsacien, alemannic: Ellsässerdytsch). This is not a standardized language, and is very similar to the dialect spoken at the other side of the Rhine around the German city of Freiburg im Breisgau. German was an official language in Alsace until 1919, and was also declared official during the German occupation 1940-1945. Today's Alsatians do not consider themselves speaking German, but Alsatian. This is different from the situation in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Vorarlberg, where the local dialects, which are very similar to Alsatian, are considered variations of German. So if you look up the article on the German language, you will notice that France is not mentioned as a place where German is spoken. Andreas 17:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian editors think that Macedonian is not spoken in Bulgaria by obvious reasons which I'm tired of mentioning them. And I don't see any concrete problem why not to be mentioned that Macedonian is spoken in Bulgaria (still, it's a separate language, no matter of the similarities). Cheers, Bomac 17:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should. Andreas 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Miladinov Brothers

I've blocked you for 1 hour for WP:3RR on Miladinov Brothers. Given that you've been warned and blocked before, you're pretty lucky to be getting away with so light a penalty (and yes, its 3 R in 24h, and that includes *different* reverts). Please try to calm it down there; discuss; and take it up to WP:RFC if talk gets you nowhere. I'm watching this page if you want to reply. William M. Connolley 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Can you help me?

Hey Bomac. Since the last few weeks I was involved in a revert war on the English wikipedia on articles on cites in Northern Greece. I have continually by myself keep adding the Macedonian name of these cities right beside the Greek name in the Florina, Kastoria, Grevena, Kozani, Ptolemaida, Edessa, Greece, Kilkis, Naoussa, Nigrita, Veria, Serres, Greece, Drama, Greece, and Kavala articles. Unfortunatly, Greek users have outnumbered me are replacing Macedonian language with South Slavic, Slavic, Turkish, Bulgarian, or are deleting that part as a whole. I would deeply apreciate if you can back me up and support me on these articles. Fala, Macedonia

Macedonia

Hi there! I hope you're well. I mildly question this reversion. I see you hail from Macedonia and no disrespect is intended, but my edit (as stated) is more to reflect a neutral point of view regarding the country's name. Many country articles have such recapitulations for clarity (q.v. Germany, Ireland, United States, Vietnam, etc.), and – despite your or my misgivings about this – there are many legitimate references to FYROM. Moreover, this edit is partially and hopefully to forestall others who might be more impassioned to expand on this issue unnecessarily in the introduction, which currently expands on prior manifestations of Macedonia. In your reversion, you also nixed minor copyedits made eleswhere.

Personally, I see little reason why Macedonia should be redirected so (and therein lies the wisdom of the piped link), but nothing exists in isolation. I hope this is sufficient. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your reply. I realise and know that there's been much discussion regarding this. As indicated, mine is more from a neutral perspective, and the current introduction seems mildly deficient in that regard. And I can empathise: take a glance at Canada's name and its talk page/archives for a related issue.

In any event, I'll abide by your wishes for now. However, I think it should be better/more clearly highlighted at the beginning of that subsection in the politics section, perhaps like so:

Further information: Naming issue

Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my above suggestion to include a Further information wikilink in that section highlights it sufficiently but doesn't drone about the issue in the article – i.e., this satisfies our mutual concerns for now. If there are no objections, I'll incorporate this.

As for the article lead, I still believe that it should be included somehow. Like you, though, I'm tired and don't see a conciliatory approach just yet. :) In the interim, you might be interested in a discussion that's currently underway to develop a standard for the consistent rendition of variant names in introductions for country articles. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I've made some tweaks, largely formatting, to the article. Regarding the naming issue, I've added the hatnote above to the relevant section. Also – after a good sleep! – I decided to add a ^{piped/wikified superscript note (*)} to the initial sentence/reference ... this is slight, yet evident and germane. (For example, take a glance at Québec, etc.)

I trust these edits dually meet our concerns; please let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia

Thank you for your help with the Republic of Macedonia article last week. I am not intimately familiar with the politices of Macedonia; might you know why User:Asteraki felt that this content was propaganda material? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, friend! Asteraki thinks that it is a propaganda material, caus' he claims that Macedonia is actually 100% greek, and according to that, the Vergina sun is a greek symbol, which is absoluttely incorrect. He is the one that spreads propaganda material - just look at his user page, where you can see FYROM (Bulgarian dialect). Cheers, Bomac 10:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Macedonia

Bomac, you wrote on my talk page: I want we (Macedonians) to live in peace with all our neighbours (including Greece), and look in the future and leave the past behind us. I was really pleased with this, because peace is one of the most important things. I saw that somebody inserted a label into your page saying that Macedonia should be united. I think that this is despiteful of the part of user:Macedonia. Andreas 22:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No edit wars, please

Please stop revert warring Bulgarian language and use the talkpage to discuss instead of engaging in debate in the edit summaries.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you put up the POV-sign in an article, you're supposed to point out what the problem is on the talkpage. So far the discussion has been held in edit summaries which is very hard for other users to follow. Please engage in actual talkpage discussion or I'll remove the POV-sign.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hello Bomac! How's it been? Where were you all these past days?

I heard from I think User:VMORO or someone else (can't be specific) that Macedonians are Serbinized Bulgarians. While I think that this theory is somewhat propaganda, I want to hear an opinion from someone neutral from Macedonia! (you perhaps).

P. S. Can you understand the Serbo-Croatian language? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Одлично!

Постоји тачан разлог зашто сам те то питао. (ај' ипак ћу Енглески језик): Here there are radical things in Montenegro. We know with certainity that in the past there was atleast some (some claim major) Serbian national element in Montenegro. Today, 35% of Montenegro's population just switched from Montenegrin nationality to Serbian, making the Montenegrins lose absolute majority in Montenegro. The Serbian language is still the official and major language is Montenegr (even the Montenegrin language is a minor one).

So, as you see, the situation with Montenegro is far more complicated beyond anyone's understanding. I heard from some Bulgarian users that the situation is the same in Macedonia, but I doubtfully think that. Are there some similiar things (pro-Bulgarian or similiar movements) in Macedonia? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Питам јер сам ја Сјербов пореклом иѕ Црне Горе. Многи ме због националнога опрељења оптужују да сам националиста, а неки Црногорци зову изродом. Шта ти мислиш?

I saw a map, the first ethnic map that recognized the Macedonians as a distinct ethnic group, but I am doubtful rather that you will like it. What do you think about it? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :)

Actually, the map doesn't present the Macedonians as Serbs. It presents the territories that the Macedonians left with the Serbs in the migrations (nothern Macedonia) as "ethnic Serb", but note that others are presented as a distinct group - Slavs from Macedonia. After all, between 10% and 20% of Serbian are of Macedonian origin: three of my close friends and a wikipedian by the name of (probably) Nikola Smolenski (-surname). It's actually from that same basis that I say that we can simply use: All Macedonians are Serbs or All Serbs are Macedonians both without being wrong (the differences are far too small). --HolyRomanEmperor 16:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portals

Hi, I think you should know that your userpage seems to have a problem when viewed through Internet Explorer and Firefox. Also, I noticed that you are planning a Portal:Macedonia for your country. I think that's asking for trouble, as it will certainly provoke a reaction from Greek and Bulgarian users. If you do have your heart set on making a portal, then I suggest you try a different name; as I'm assuming that Portal:FYROM is out of the question :-) how about Portal:Republic of Macedonia, Portal:Macedonia (republic)? It's not that bad; after all, there is a Portal:People's Republic of China instead of a Portal:China (which is a redirect - Portal:Macedonia could be a redirect if you want).

I've been thinking of a Portal:Balkans, but it sounds like too much work :-) BTW in my opinion, this edit of yours, removing the ridiculous land claims in Greece shows that you do not have an extreme POV agenda, so I'm sure we can co-operate.

--Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK about the portals, and I really don't know what's the matter with my userpage. It seems fine at me. Bomac 15:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So,

basicly, Macedonia is not in any sort of a union with Bulgaria, the majority of it's populace does not speak the Bulgarian language, nor is it the official language of Macedonia; a large contigent of the population is Bulgarian (large enough for Macedonians to lose absolute majority), the Macedonian national anthems do not express Bulgariandom (my case is Onamo Onamo), nor did the current Macedonian national anthem have Bulgarian determinations; Macedonia is not the home of the Bulgarian rulling dynasties, nor did every single Macedonian ruler express himself as Bulgarian, and the Macedonian and Bulgarian cultures are not the same?

Sorry for that long post. :) Correct me if I am right (I chose everything that can be applied to Montenegro). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the two are different.

Here in SCG, we learn a lot NPOV about the Macedonians; to evade conflicts from all sides, we refer to you as Slavs from Macedonia in the Medieval Ages. We say that the reason of the disappearing of a distinct Macedonian group is assimilation from the recently-arrived Bulgar Asian tribe, and the growing Serbian Kingdom, later Empire, which, in the 14th century defined only Serbs, Albanians, Greeks and Bulgarians as its citizens. But, you won't like the following part - we say that the Macedonian Slavs have been peacefully assimilated into the Serbian nation from the Medieval Ages to the Industrial Age. Afterwards we learn about the VMORO movement that turned itself from a national liberation movemenr into a pro-Bulgarian propaganda that eventually killed King Alexander I Karađorđević the unifier. We then say that the Obrenović Princes have continuosly fought for the recognizing of a Macedonian nation, since most international accords noted you as Bulgarians. In the heat of battle during World War I, in the Treaty of London in 1915 Serbia had to give up Macedonia to Bulgaria. After an official Macedonian protest, Nikola Pašić promised the Macedonians that Serbia will always be their protector, and declines. The Macedonians declared themselves as Serbs in 1921 and as Yugoslavs in 1931. We say that that was because it was the most favourite and applicable choice - the Serbs were one of the three constitutional peoples of the Kingdom and were in good relations with the Macedonians. However, we say that the Macedonians did not oppose the government, nor this assimilation.

The rest of the story is pretty much the same like there. What do you think. Is there anything that you do not agree with or is POV? --HolyRomanEmperor 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing is sure. Macedonia is there to stay. :)

I need a favour. Could you find me an exerpt of the Constitution of Macedonia which defines her nations. I want to see the line that calls Macedonia the state of two nations - Macedonians and Albanins to confirm a theory that I heard before. Thanks in advance, mate! --HolyRomanEmperor 10:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC) --Во ред, Преамбулата на уставот на република македонија гласи вака:Република Македонија е држава на македонскиот народ,како и на албанците кои живеат vo nea,и на останатите народи во неa како што се срби,турци,власи итн.===Е сеа ова ја одликува македонија како унитарна држава во однос на распределбата на власта(не е ниту конфедерација, ниту федерација)Но е држава и на албанците и на сите народи кои што се споменати во преамбулата.[reply]

Language

I meant Albanians. Macedonia is a two-people state of Macedonians and Albanians; right?

P. S. I found the official Montenegro's 1931 Yugoslav population census by language:

Србско-хорватско-словеначко-македонски језици 339,955
Албански језик 18,098

Who says the Macedonian language didn't exist back then? Regards!

Constitutional peoples?

Thanks for the constitution. But it mentions that it's the state of Macedonians, also the state of Albanians and other peoples. It doesn't define nations and national minorities, does it? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request

Please see Talk:Arvanites if you can. talk to MATIA 14:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Hi there is a vote going on at the bottom of Talk:Arvanites. Please vote, matia want to revert it to the anti Albanian version, if you oppose that, please vote oppose :-) Zogu 18:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already did that ;-) Bomac 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians

Hi Bomac! I have some issues I would like to inform you about. Have you taken a look at the Bulgarians article lately? If not, embrace yourself. It is clearly denying the very existence of Macedonians. I have been reverting the edits of this annomynous user by my self and it seems that administrators do not care about the content this user has been adding in. According to the article, 1,300,000 Bulgarians live in the Republic of Macedonia, and an extra million has been added to the total Bulgarian population. Sockpupets have outnumbered me and I cannot keep up with saving the article from these internet users. I would appreciate if you can help me do something about it. Thanks, Macedonia 01:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Bomac, no problem :-). BTW, did you here anything about the Macedonian tomb from Alexander's time that the Greeks recently uncovered in Pella. It's the biggist tomb yet ever found in Greece and supposedly "holds the answer to the mystery" of whether the ancient Macedonians were Greek or not. The tomb belonged to a rich or possibly royal ancient Macedonian family which contains 8 chambers full of artifacts. In my opinion, the Greeks shouldn't lay a finger on those artifacts until a certified archeologist from western Europe or America comes and see's what they really are. According to news sources they uncovered jellewery, gold, statues, and other items, but what really stuns me is that another news site reports that Greek archeologists just claimed that the tomb was supposedly "looted over the years" despite its first discovery last Friday. And yet Greek historians are still not saying anything yet whether the tomb proves the Greekness of Macedonians. Anyway can you tell me some feedback on what you know and about its appearence in the media in Skopje. Regards, Macedonia 02:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians included in Bulgarian numbers

I do not see why you continually revert the informaton on Bulgarians. The Bulgarian upper numbers include Macedonians in the diaspora. Either we lose those estimates or we MUST add Macedonia, otherwise there will be way too much repeating of statistics. Look at the note I added. I hope you will comply or find a way to lose the repeating of these numbers.

I dropped some of the estimates that potentially included Macedonians, and removed Republic of Macedonia. Good?

a suggestion

I suggest you stop such actions immediately and not to repeat them in the future. talk to MATIA 14:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Macedonian language

I've blocked you [7] for WP:3RR on Macedonian language. For one reason or another, I have the impression that you are a sensible editor who gets carried away. Please don't! It just won't work, or do you any good in the long run. William M. Connolley 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Question

First, thanks for the classification — I certainly don't regard myself as a nationalist, although I love my homeland and am always striving to learn more about it. Samuil's Kingdom is really an interesting point of discussion, but I believe the Macedonian theory is a bit too alternative and relies on too little evidence and too many speculations.

Basically, my opinion concurs with the one in the Samuil article. An interesting point is, why would Basil II be nicknamed Βουλγαροκτόνος (Bulgaroktonus, Bulgar-slayer), if the empire he crushed wasn't Bulgarian? I know your possible answer, another theory that says Bulgarian didn't mean Bulgarian back then, but had the broader sense of a Slav Christian... but don't you think counting on a theory to prove another theory and having little evidence to prove each of them individually is a bit too much?

Just my thoughts :) Thanks for the question. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 12:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say about the nations today and in the Middle Ages. South Slavs are really a continuum, they just fit together, but the 19th and 20th century nationalism that separated them into nation-states left many border peoples divided and claimed by the neighbouring states, such as the Gorani.

As for Samuil's Kingdom, it certainly was a multiethnic state (it extended west into Bosnia), but many documents and facts prove (for me) that it's a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire.

Basil II was called Macedonian because he was of the Macedonian dynasty founded by Basil I. Where have you read about this "Slavinia"? It's the first time I hear about this and would like to know more.

→ Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I come to other conclusions when reading what you've written. Zara is the Italian name of the Dalmatian town of Zadar in Croatia (held by Byzantium after 812 and significantly connected to the history Venice), and Slavinia is damn close to Slavonia, another region in modern-day Croatia. Also, as far as I know, before the First Crusade (launched in 1095) Venice had little to do with our part of the Balkans and was more engaged in incrasing its influence in the Adriatic. So it's more likely to me that the document describes events in contemporary Croatia, rather than Bulgaria and Macedonia.

→ Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Портал

Здраво! Тукушто го креирав порталот Macedonia, па се надевам на твоја поддршка околу уредувањето и бранењето на страницата! Поздрав Bitola 12:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Да, се согласувам дека треба да направиме се за да остане под сегашното име. Bitola 14:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravej! I can't help but feel that a storm is brewing... What do you think should be done about the portal? We could come to an agreement between ourselves or, we could take it to WP:MFD and get a formal comments on renaming. --Latinus 14:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is called "Zdravo!".

Look, agreement will be fine, but as I can see Miskin "excitates" too fast for an agreement... C'mon, what's the problem - there is only ROM mentioned in the texts, no "Macedonia" and stuff. My opinion is that it should stay "Portal:Macedonia". After all, the example you give with China is about a country. Greek Macedonia is a region of which you can write in "Portal:Greece". Bomac 14:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever - I won't push to have it renamed. --Latinus 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

Hi, as you've probably noticed, we've all got into this endless cycle of verbal jabs on talk pages. Take an olive branch of peace and let's stop worrying about these mysterious ancient Macedonians. There is more recent history to discuss, such as the presumed pan Balkan Alliance against the Ottomans First Balkan War - obviously, we can co-operate --Latinus 11:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sdravo !

Hey Bomac. I think that the Macedonian portal is great ! Its just that I previously thought it was going to be about the whole Macedonian region. But I think it suits the Republic of Macedonia well. Anyway, perhaps this idea (Macedonia region) could lead to the creation of another portal, Portal: Macedonians, just like Portal: Serbs. Take care, Macedonia 23:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Makedonskiot portal e najubavo portal od cela wikipedia! Macedonia 01:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Здраво Бомак, добро е што засега работата околу порталот оди глатко. Само според мене треба малку да пазиме на тоа што го ставаме таму за да не предизвикаме нова едит војна таму и проблеми околу името на порталот. Поздрав Bitola 08:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravo

Bomac,ubavo e toa so portalot,konecno da se zvatime so rabota,jas imav ispiti pa nemav vreme za wikipedia sepak ve molam drzete me vo tek ,pak i poveke editirav kaj hunzite i kalashite vo pakistan i taka,sepak super e toa so portalot. Pozdrav User:Vlatkoto