User talk:Pensionero

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Pensionero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Pensionero 09:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Eastern Orthodox Church. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I will have in mind, thank you. Pensionero 09:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bulgarians. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it was just an accident, I see - no problem :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem )) Pensionero 13:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Slovene nation

Please, see Template talk:Slovenes and a discussion on my talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see which is the flag of the Slovene nation. Pensionero 09:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Population figures

Please stop removing the figure of 3 million Greek Americans. It is sourced to the U.S. State Department, which meets the requirements for WP:V and WP:RS. If you have any objections, please post them on the article talkpage instead of reverting, and we can discuss this. Also in Albanians, the numbers in the infobox add up to 7.4-7.7 million, so why did you reduce them to 7 million? If you add up the figures for all the countries, you will see they add up to 7.4-7.7 million. Going around reducing the population figures of every ethnic group except your own, is, well, what can I say. Athenean (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed this number, beacause census buraeu for 2009 says 1.3 million, in which census every American citizen declare his ancestry if he want and where are the other 1.7 million Greeks, why they don't declare that they are Greeks in the census? They can't be kind of ufo aliens with greek ancestry, census' counting of the population clearly says 1.3 million, so 3 million is unpossible. For the albanians I wrote 7 million, beacause I missed Turkey's 500 000 albanians, for who is saying that they don't speak albanian and that they are only with albanian self-consciousness, but speak Turkish for mother tongue. Regards Pensionero 09:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians article: 3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Your recent edits on the infobox population figure are edit-warring and will be reported if you continue. Discuss it on the Talk page rather than reverting. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will have in mind. Regards. Pensionero 09:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Stop it. Dilma Rousef is not of Bulgarian nationality. There is a difference between nationality and ethnicity. Also, your edits to Balkans were not an improvement, you just made it very confusing. Stop edit-warring and open discussions if you see people reverting you. If you keep on reverting, I will have no choice but to report you. Athenean (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I got that text from nationality: In some areas of the world, one's nationality is determined by their ethnicity, rather than citizenship, how now you can tell me that nationality, sometimes don't depends of ethnicity, rather than citizenship and as you see template ethnicity doesn't exist, it is using template nationality instead. There will not be big mistake if is written Bulgarian nationality instead Bulgarian ethnicity. Pensionero 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Brazil is definitely not one of those areas of the world. Athenean (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here you other text from there: Alternatively, nationality can refer to membership in a nation (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots. Pensionero 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I accidently left your talk page on my watchlist from our earlier interaction, and noticed this. As a "native" English-speaker maybe I can clarify this for you. You are right that "nationality" can sometimes mean "ethnicity" but that is usually meant in the context of a historic national minority living in a country (not recent immigrants). For example, in the case of the UK, you might talk about Welsh "nationality" because the Welsh as a community have lived in Britain for millenia and constitute one of the "nations" within the UK (along with the English and the Scots). However, if you are talking about an individual whose family happened to recently emigrated to the UK from, say, India, but was British-born, you might say that their ethnicity was Indian but their nationality (ie their citizenship) was British. I think the case you are discussing is like the latter. Hope that helps. DeCausa (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

3rr

Today you have now reverted three times at Dilma Roussef (not counting the three times yesterday) without adressing the argument at the talkpage. Please revert your last revert as a sign of goodfaith and begin discussing the issue on the talkpage. If you do not revert your own last edit I will have to report you to the 3rr noticeboard. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the page 2 times today and revert zero times, the first I wrote ethnicity instead nationality, the second ancestry instead ethnicity. Pensionero 15:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You will have to explain that to the editors at the noticeboard.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reported you here. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pensionero_reported_by_User:Maunus_.28Result:_.29·Maunus·ƛ· 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have left a comment for you here. Whenever someone makes a good faith objection to one of your edits, the burden is on you to justify the edit and build consensus at the talkpage. In this case, there is a discussion at Talk:Dilma Rousseff#Ethnicity; continually reverting and communicating only via edit summary is poor form. Additionally, I urge you to read the Edit warring policy. In particular, the key to identifying edit warring is when one editor insists on his or her preferred version over the reasoned objections of other editors. A series of small changes can be part of the consensus-building process, but making only superficial changes gives the appearance of trying to game the system. WP:3RR is a bright-line identification of edit warring - it is sufficient but not necessary; repeatedly making substantively the same edit over a period of days is also edit warring - it has the same effect on the encyclopedia, and is treated the same. Please do not re-insert that material until after there is a clear consensus at the talkpage that it improves the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Toдor Boжinov — 19:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Another revert

Could you please stop doing this ? Details like this are quite unnessecary when respective pages with proper descriptions exist, I think the more intelligent readers and editors are both aware of that. And you should take into consideration the previous warnings on your talk page... - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It shhould not be left with the wrong post that entire the territory is city of Sofia or Sofia with other populated places, it have to be staten that there are large teritorries(probably the most territorries) of Sofia-Capital province, which are unpopulated- parts of Vitosha, Stara planina etc., Other missing in your text is that you delete that Sofia province's adm. center is Sofia. Regards from me Pensionero 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at John Kukuzelis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

Your Edits to Greeks and Romanians

You really are going to get yourself blocked. Please treat this as a friendly warning - you've already had a formal warning from an administrator for edit-warring. You seem to go around the Balkan articles make tendacious edits like this and this today. I really can't be bothered to revert them, but I'm sure someone else will. Why don't you revert them yourself to show good faith? I suggest that for a while you try posting your suggested edits on Talk pages first rather than going straight to the article. In any event, if you make an edit and someone reverts you, try raising it at the Talk page rather than reverting again. Looking at your talk page, you are getting a reputation for being annoying! DeCausa (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh too late! In between me typing my message and posting it you got blocked. DeCausa (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi DeCausa, thanks for the friendly warning. After I was blocked I learned that after reverting 2 times, the dispute should countinue in the discussion page, because every 3 revertings record and you may be blocked suprisly. Don't feel bother to correct my mistakes, I will look not to revert more than 2 times without discussing again. But the edits of Romanians and Greece you state me are not consisting something tendacious, if you remember you tell me above in the discussion page that the nationality may refer rather to resident of a country than to an ethnicity, so Romania's population or the Romanian nation is consisted by varieties of ethnic groups, while Romanians consist 90% of the Romania's population, that the ethnic group Romanians are a nation had to be removed I guess. Regards from me Pensionero 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But don't you think that the Romanian editors are going to react badly to that and think you are being insulting? That's what I mean by tendentious. If you think other editors might strongly object to it, it's better to explain it on the Talk page first - especially if your explanation may be complicated. DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit was a simple contribution to Wikipedia and correctiong of mistake- Romanians are an ethnic group and Romania's population- including the Romanians and the other ethnicities is a nation. I didn't want to insult the Romanians. Pensionero 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour on Wikipedia

Hi, may I please ask you to kindly stay away from edit wars? You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but so far you have repeatedly engaged in reverting other editors and entirely refusing to discuss (edit summaries do not really count as discussion). The way you are treating disputes is really not the right way, and the somewhat extreme POVs that you often insist on are not exactly in accordance with our principles of neutrality. I'd really appreciate it if you post on the article talk page and wait a few hours when your edit has been reverted by a user and you want to revert back. You'll see this really helps. Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 11:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Pensionero, I gave you the same advice above. Read WP:BRD. You need to make a lot more use of the Talk pages. The way you are going now you'll end up permanenly blocked! DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advices guys. The edit wars were beacause in the last days I still didn't know that after 3 revertings edit war becomes and so I was reverting and discussing on the edit summaries rather than on the talk pages. I know now and I think that is not a problem anymore. Pensionero 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't take 3 reverts to become an editwar. Youcan be blocked for editwarring even if you don't break the three revert rule. JUst spend more time discussing your views on the talk page and less time reverting.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! You'll see that this will make for a much more pleasant Wikipedia experience :) — Toдor Boжinov — 13:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. You really need to realize that the unexplained removal of perfectly valid names that happen to be Turkish and the substitution of mosque or Ottoman monument images with more and more churches is extremely immature and not an improvement. This is something that I'd kindly ask you to do: before saving an edit, ask yourself whether what you're doing is actually improving the article and in what way. I really am sick of immature nationalist edits by Balkan users, and it makes no difference whether they are Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Greek, Turkish, etc. Please focus on actually contributing to the encyclopedia, not trying to shift some imaginary balance of power and influence, as you might interpret pictures and references to other nations/religions. And, something extremely important, please attach a coherent edit summary to every edit you make: it is very annoying to see six edits in a row by the same user and have no clue what they actually did. — Toдor Boжinov — 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To explain you what I did with the Turkish names I replaced them simply as siyente how the hills are staten in the intro as not necessarily to state all the names of the hills in the paragraph Geography, which is first in the page, I supposed this will not get problems, but here it got, I deleted the mosques and turkish baths images, beacause I saw the uploader is usually uploading images of Turkish things in Bulgarian cities and put in the main images of articles in some smaller cities than Plovdiv, that may be loading of Turkification in Bulgarian articles and have to be removed if is that. The problem may be that I not always write an edit summary. And to ask you why revert one more my edit these days- [1], you may did it as reverting of nationalistical info, but I copied this info: "It was during his school years that he received the nick-name Kukuzelis. Because he was of Bulgarian birth, when he entered the imperial school he did not know the Greek language very well, once his class-mates asked him what he had eaten for lunch, he replied, broad beans and cabbage, using the Greek word for broad beans koukia and the Bulgarian word for cabbage, zele, hence the name coined first in jest by his school mates, Kukuzelis" from the original source placed after the info for Kukuzelis' Orthodox America, you can see it here: [2]. Pensionero 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Briefly:

• By believing that someone is working for the "Turkification in Bulgarian articles", you are assuming bad faith. Mosques and Ottoman architecture are part of Bulgaria's heritage, erasing such images because you don't like them is extremely immature.
• As for Kukuzelis: you directly copied the info from a website, which is considered copyright violation. Let's just say that copying text from other sources is forbidden on Wikipedia and leave it there. Also, the info from the website was part of two unmarked edits in a row, which also introduced weasel words ("most scholars"; how do you know it's most, who said this?), moved the Bulgarian name first even though the person was a Byzantine and not a Bulgarian subject, and linked to Bulgarians even though we already have this link in the article. As I explained in my edit summary, your edits did not make the article any better, on the contrary.

I regret to tell you, but in my opinion most of your edits are not improving Wikipedia, as it stands. Don't get me wrong, your contribution and energy is very welcome, but you absolutely need to read the policies first and think more before you edit. It is vital that you make yourself familiar with basic Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Start from Wikipedia:Introduction and explore the rules, as you seem to already have a very good understanding of formatting and wikimarkup. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 19:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just add my agreement to the above comments. In the article Plovdiv you took out references to the Turkish past and changed photos of a Catholic and Armenian church to another photo of an Orthodox one. I'm British and I have no connection with the Balkans (or POV to push) other than I find the history and politics of the region very interesting. I want you to know my reaction to those changes: the article with your changes makes Plovdiv look less interesting to me, and tells me less about it. I am less likely to want to read more about the city because you've taken out material which tells me the City has an interesting and diverse history. It's interesting and new information to me that there is an Armenian church and community in a Bulgarian city, for instance. It makes me want to find out how that came about. The fact that there are Turkish baths and mosques makes me think that the architecture of Plovdiv must be interesting and varied, and I want to find out more about that, as well as what happened in Plovdiv during the Turkish period. The reason I and other 'neutrals' are interested in countries like Bulgaria is because of its diverse and complicated history. If it wasn't for that I'd read about Switzerland instead! (Actually, that's completely unfair on Switzerland, but I hope you get the point).

You've had a lot of input from several editors now that you are seen has simply pushing a rather crude nationalist agenda. If you carry on like this you will end up getting blocked - which will be a shame because I can think you have a lot of knowledge that you could add to the Bulgarian articles. DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For Kukuzelis you are absoulutely right for the copyright violation, but is not correct to describe a person with first name Greek, when his mother tongue was Bulgarian and Greek language was foreign to him, you can see above in the original source for his nickname- "Because he was of Bulgarian birth, when he entered the imperial school he did not know the Greek language very well,..."; for "The Slavic word for cabbage", is not explained right it may be Macedonian, Serbian language, etc. Slavic languages, no problem to be writen "The Bulgarian word for cabbage" as the original source for the nickname clearly says "he was of Bulgarian birth". Why I added this "most scholars", it was beacause 6 schoolars and total 8 sources in the article are describing him as Bulgarian and 1 schoolar is placed in the article, which describe him as Macedonian Slav, therefore I judged that most schoolars in the article claim him as Bulgarian. For Plovdiv article I moved the Roman Catholic and Armenian church in the more appropriate paragraph Gallery, now on paragraph Ethnicity and Religion there is an Armenian and Roman Chatolic neither an Orthodox Church, that is not correct when 90% of city's population has Orthodox selfidentification. Yes foreigners interest is important, but the facts now say other for the Armenians, they are 3,140 in Plovdiv province or less than 1% of city of Plovdiv, that means there are other interesting pictures which should be placed in the paragraph Religion and for the Armenian church, its place is in paragraph Gallery on this article. Best, to the both you Pensionero 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:User_Bulgarian

I made a slight change to this template, which seemed a clear improvement. But, perhaps I should have discussed with you? Also, I started a discussion about using a gold background for the UBX. What do you think? --E-hadj (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian Empire template

Greetings! I disagree with most of the changes you have made on the template because:

1. Old Great Bulgaria, the Bulgars and the Slav Souths are indisputedly linked to the origins of Bulgaria. If they are not the only ones, then add the others (if there is consensus) but do not remove them.

2. The division of Bulgaria after the death of Ivan Alexander should be noted, especially having in mind that both Vidin and Karvuna were de facto independent and have articles.

3. Bogomilism originated from Bulgaria and had an important impact on the religious life in the country (and not only) and therefore it belongs there.

4. The Third Bulgarian state was never ever recognized as an Empire and above all the purpose of the template is to include topics, related to medieval Bulgaria.

I agree with changing the year of the foundation of the First Empire from 632/681 to 681. I even wonder why I have written the first one, having in mind that I do not agree with 632. Also I agree with adding Vidin and Nikopol as capitals; although they were only for a short time... I suggest before making such major changes to discuss them first. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I should write first on talk page sorry, but I knew if you don't like them you can easy revert the version. To explain you my edits I take, I removed Old Great Bulgaria, beacause it was only Bulgar Turkic state and the birth of the Bulgarian ethnicity dates back First Bulgarian empire from the uniting of the slavic tribes with the bulgars; For the Vidin tsardom, I saw it as part of the Second Bulgarian empire, more accurate in the article of the Second Bulgarian empire is written 1187-1422, therefore as Tarnovo is conquered in 1393 I guessed Vidin tsardom was also part and I wtote more simple First and Second empire; I removed the Bogomilism as it was never an official religion and not so widepread and also not wanted by the Tsar and the church, in my opinion the Bogomolism should be removed from the template and last my edit I saw in the article "Kingdom of Bulgaria", that it rarely refers to Third Bulgarian empire. Sorry again I will not edit your templite anymore without consensus. Best, Gligan. Pensionero 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
And to add you have to remove these my edits if you don't like them, I first had to ask you Pensionero 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the template in not mine, neither is any article I have created. I am writing to you because I would like to explain why I think the edit is inappropriate and you if have arguments, of course that we will have to make a discussion and make the necessary changes. Therefore, you don't need to appologize. In fact I understand you, when I started editing I have done far, far worse things but fortunately that was only for some time. You are welcome to edit/change any single template/article but sometimes you need to discuss the changes first. For example, in the template for those interested in the Second Empire, the picture you put, as Todor noted, was from 19th century and it is of course better to use and image from the age. That is why he reverted your edit, not because the template is his own.

The idea of the Bulgarian Empire template, as I have written is to provide direct links to articles related to the Bulgarian Empire; the aim is not necessarily to stick to the official possition of the state but also the social and cultural life and Bogomilism, for example had social impact. I also consider the Vidin Tsardom as a natural continuation of the Second Empire but since there is article for it, it is better to have a link in the template. As for Old Great Bulgaria, there is no doubt that it was a Bulgar state and also there is no doubt that the Bulgar are not equal to Bulgairans but they are our ancestors and Old Great Bulgaria is linked to the establishment of Bulgaria, so it is our origin. In fact, that is why it is not listed as a Bulgarian state but only in the section of origin. As for a Third Empire, even though it is rarely refered, it is first not official and second, I actually cannot find a single reference in the Internet, although I have searched previously. In fact, it was me who added that sentence for the Third Empire, because I found a reference but it is no longer available... Best, --Gligan (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hah well then you add this for The Third empire, then it remains entirely your work whether write or not this state. It would be better if the source existed, the fact Third Bulgarian Empire have looked good but anyway. I thought the template is yours, but even is not you can of course catch me wrong. What about Bogomilism, it was not widespread in the empire and is not appropriate to show heressy below of the sentence Christanised Bulgaria, beacause it is not de facto Christianity, if you want to show it I think you have to show it to the Slavic paganism and Tengriism, but it will look ridicilous the Tengriism and Slavic religions were much widespread than the Bogomilism and they were in different periods. For the Tsardom of Vidin and Karvuna, the Second Bulgarian empire may be then only Tsardom of Tarnovo, as the other two got independence from the Bulgarian empire and Tarnovo remains the Second Bulgarian empire with not changed capital, that not means Nicopolis and Vidin have not been capitals as Tarnovo Tsardom have been conquered and after that the Bulgarian empire moved in the only remained Bulgarian state Vidin tsardom. Furthermore only First and Second Bulgarian empire looks more simple and tidy, everyone will realize that Vidin tsardom was Bulgarian state when see Second Bulgarian Empire (1187-1396) and capitals Vidin and Nicopolis, the idea of fragmentation the empire on three when the Empire with capital Tarnovo remained is not well in my opinion. And for the Bulgarians, you know how ar we educated at school, that Bulgaria is estabilished with uniting of the Slavs with Bulgars therefore our orgin dates back 681, Great Bulgaria was not Bulgaro-Slavic state. Bulgars are undeniable estabilators of our state, but Bulgars alone less influenced our ethnogenesis and we have no idea of their Turkic language, also I am sure you know that usually there are not contemporary Bulgarians with elongated eyes. If the paragraph Orgins remains Slavs have to be ahead of Bulgars and Old Great Bulgaria excluded I think. Best Pensionero 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your statements makes sense but nonetheless Bogomilism is considered a Christian heretical movement and as you rightfully noted it will look ridiculous among Tengriism and Slavic Paganism. And we cannot miss it because of its impact which goes beyond the borders of Bulgaria (I personally really dislike Bogomilism but I am trying to be neutral). Leaving only the First and the Second Empire does look more tidy but in my opinion the process of feudal fragmentation was important and was one of the main reasons for the fall of Bulgaria and therefore it makes sense to be added. But perhaps intead of "De facto independent states from the Second Empire" we should write "Feudal fragmentation of the Second Empire" or something of the sort. As for Old Great Bulgaria, it is in origins because it is not a Bulgarian (Bulgar-Slavic) state but the Bulgars, and the founder Asparukh came from there; and Asparukh was the son of the Khan of Old Great Bulgaria. It is also considered a predecessor state of both (Danube) Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria... So, of course, it has to do with the origins of the modern country. I think that there is general consensus among the historians on that. As for Slavs and Bulgars, what you say is true; I have put the Bulgars first, because they come first in alphabetical order and because in the early years of Bulgaria had more important role than the Slavs. They were the leaders of the country, they were the rulers and they fully dominated the nobility, up at least to the rebellion of the boils against Boris I, or even up to the slaughter of 300 nobles by Svetoslav... Best, --Gligan (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Athenean (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Pomaks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision.  Sandstein  20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision.  Sandstein  20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Can you stop with the tendentious editing? I've had to revert most of your recent edits because they are incompatible with Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV, among others. You've just returned from a block and you're going on with your reverts at Pomaks, which no other user agrees with?! You're practically asking to be blocked again. I'm really tired of explaining everything over and over again. Reread the policies, do away with nationalist/jingoist editing, write an edit summary for every edit and always post on talk before making significant and/or controversial edits to an article (Pomaks, Religion in Bulgaria and the like). Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you and you do not have to explain again. Best, Pensionero 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? You just reverted me at Religion in Bulgaria, only one of your edits has an edit summary and it's a bad one, as it basically says "you're wrong so I'd like my version back". You're pretty much ignoring every piece of advice above. — Toдor Boжinov — 07:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure. I haven't reverted you, I fixed the triangle, took some percents in the intro and minortiy religions, 3-4 images and that's all, suggesting that I fixed the mistakes. For the other articles you reverted me I haven't touched them. Best. Pensionero 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You pretty much blindly reverted me and I'm not going to explain this again. Your recent edits are *not* an improvement to Wikipedia. And your desire to constantly try to have things your way without trying to achieve consensus will eventually get you permanently blocked unless you change your mindset. This is not a threat, it's a warning. — Toдor Boжinov — 12:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already done that. Yes, I'm aware there are Pomaks in Turkey, but I'm also reasonable enough to know that many Bulgarian-language speakers in Turkey are Turks. The problem with the 300,000 speakers is not the origin of the Pomaks, it is only fringe theories that dispute their Bulgarian origin. The problem is that these 300,000 are not only Pomaks, many of them are also Turkish refugees, as my wording in the article makes clear. — Toдor Boжinov — 13:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing Ethnologue shows is 300,000 with dialect Pomak, that some of the refugees are Turks from Bulgaria is conjecture and is nowhere written in the source. Pensionero 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, in "Language use" is written "Spoken by Muslim Pomaks in Turkey and Greece" not "spoken by Pomaks and Turks". As the info from the source stands the refugees reffer only to Pomak refugees from Bulgaria, never is saying Turks from Bulgaria. Pensionero 12:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing Warning-Note

Warning

Pensionero you are engaged in disruptive behaviour and have already been noted on talkpage of the Pomaks and talk page of Bulgarians in Turkey. I would like to call your attention to 2 regulations you are currently failing to apply: WP:TE and WP:DE. Hittit (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you doing this I havebn't three revertings, I reverted twice in Bulgarians in Turkey and once in Pomaks. Pensionero 16:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly as you have done in Pomaks. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Hittit (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Check again I reverted once in Pomaks article Pensionero 16:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Pomaks and at Bulgarians in Turkey

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Pensionero reported by User:Hittit (Result: 1 month).

---

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision. -- EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)