Komitata

Welcome!

Hello, Komitata, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Latinus 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to cite your source in the article 'Macedonian Slavs'. Miskin 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal

Prroba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.217.2 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Kindly read my comment in Miskin's talk page. I hope you make the introduction of the site in the talk page that Miskin suggests, so that he can comment. If you do not know how, please message me or, better, e-mail me. NikoSilver 23:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't caught up with all the edits... (I guess you are too far ahead after all...) NikoSilver 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No translation needed. Thanks. The title is enough by itself. I just hadn't seen the talk page before I messaged you. NikoSilver 19:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians

U are right,Komitata,the discussion there is a waste of time...he asked for sources,we gave him.we asked his,he doesn't give anything(how could he,since he has not).anyway,the greek arguments and all the problem started with the claim of ancient heritage and symbols.noone disputes that the geographical area is called Macedonia.I,personally,cannot discuss the source,cause i do not know bulgarian:-(it would be very interesting,i guess,if u translated a small part and placed it in the discussing page(i would advice u,do not bother to translate much and not to edit anything in the article yet,cause more probably it will be removed withing minutes...).btw,u are Bulgarian?(i assumed this cause of your username)--Hectorian 22:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am a Bugarian of Macedonian descent, all my life at home in the family we have been discussing these problems. The family of my father luckily escaped from Kukush/Kilkis during the battles of the Second Balkan War. Do you know for example, that there is a discrimination over the Macedonians/Bulgarians who fled from the Aegean Macedonia into Jugoslavia/Republic of Macedonia for generations? They are always being susbected of Bulgarian sentiments and are a subject of "mild" discrimination. I can find you a source if you wish (It'll be in Macedonian, though)--Komitata 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

check your mail--Hectorian 23:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Здрасти, Komitata. Корисник Комита на Македонската Уикипедия ли си? --Latinus 23:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Не, аз съм Komitata от българската версия.--Komitata 23:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Правилен - аз съм Латинец, но никога не допринасям там. Аз не говоря български доста добре :p Разказваш ми нещо; българи харесват ли гръци след тези че случиха тогава? --Latinus 00:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek

Realek has been blocked for 24 hours. See also 3RR so as to avoid getting blocked yourself. If you have any questions, ask me. --Latinus 12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One is blocked, more appear. I'll handle the talk. DO NOT REVERT OR YOU WILL VIOLATE WP:3RR. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PS put something in your user page, for your name not to show red. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting link!Thanks;-)it would also be useful in the discussion page,if things lead more towards this direction about Bulgarian-Macedonian. PS:it's nice that your username does not appear red now;-)--Hectorian 19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Great link, and from their own very prominent people. Please post it, since you are the one who found it. I'll be glad to support!! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...i guess i was not that sincere:(...i presented the links although i should had let u do this...(but it was more a spontaneous act of mine,that not a good will:)...)--Hectorian 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe me brother Hector, that was NOT a MPHXTH for you, but thanks for letting our friend know he must step up! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I know NikoSilver,but i just needed to say that,so as not to be misunderstood;-)--Hectorian 13:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

-Knock-Knock. -Who's there? -I! -I who? -I FYROM you!!! (adaptation from old Greek joke) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What may that be? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophers are always correct. However, you mentioned something else. (?) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, wait for that. Let tham answer one-by-one... They are still puzzled about the previous one! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks:)check your mail--Hectorian 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Will u pls help me and revert the article Adana to Khoikhoi's version?--Hectorian 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--Hectorian 02:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the anon on Adana. I've had experience with other editors who have been trying to do this to Turkish cities. See the Trabzon article for example. I don't see why they are so offended by having the previous name in the 1st paragraph. This is very common on Wikipedia, see Gdansk for example. Anyways, thanks again. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said that, the anon has reverted again. Please help. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Здрасти. По твое мнение, това издание, лош ли е? Те ги връщат и не зная защо :-S --Latinus 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation е добра идея. Проблемата е че не искат да сътрудничат. Аз не имам проблема с неизчерпаеми войни на версите, но е хабене на време и вреден. Можеме да ги питаме и да надяваме че ще казват да. --Latinus 20:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Също, ако ти не ми разбираш, казвай ми. Правя много грешки? --Latinus 20:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes - but that is allowed according to the policy: WP:SOCK. --Latinus 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

WHAT? WHO'S? WHEN? Please reply asap! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Torlakian dialect

Very interesting!i know that getting involved with south slavic identities is difficult,but,honestly,i am not surprised of what some people say in their effort to make 'black seem white'...so,our fellow neighbours try to change reality...but the sentence about mutual intelligibility between their language and the Bulgarian,has to stay,if not to be emphasised more!the similarities between serbian and croatian are mentioned,those between dutch and flemish too,in the respective articles.the same should happen here too.

Will u pls tell me something else? does the Torlakian dialect has to do anything with the small territories that bulgaria had to give to serbia? is that part that this dialect is spoken a '3 nations' part' where identities can change according to politics? hmmm...south slavic identities is really a hard issue!:)--Hectorian 20:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you the official Bulgarian position and what I know from personal experience. Traditionally the Bulgarian dialects are generally divided to East and West and the dividing line passing roughly around Pleven - Pazardjik - Drama (in Greece). It's about the pronunciation of the old Slavic grapheme ѣ - the east usually replacing it with Я (Ya) and to the west with E (E), like Byal - Bel - meaning white. There are 4 main groups of western dialects (North, Torlakian, Shop, Macedonian).

And here we have the first controversy - the Bulgarian scientists put the border between Serbian and Bulgarian where the border between the analytical and synthetic dialects lie (analytical meaning lost its case system, I hope I use the proper terms). The same position holds the most prominent Serbian philologist - Vuk Karadzhic, who puts the dialect border west of the Torlakian dialects. Gradually the prevalent Serbian opinion became that everything to the west of the "E" border is Serbian, meaning entire West Bulgaria, including the capital Sofia (which is the center of the Shopa district), entire Macedonia and several cities in North-West Bulgaria.

My personal observation is that nowadays Torlakian is clearly in middle position between Serbian and Bulgarian - lexically its much closer to standard Bulgarian (that's why those viewers wanted subtitles), but gramatically it uses cases (a Serbian feature), although not always (as you have read in the article) and not always correctly. Also in Torlakian Serbia the consciousness of the local population is clearly Serbian, although they feel a sentiment to Bulgaria (I know some such people - they try to talk in Bulgarian to me, like to know about Bulgaria - which is absolutely not the general Serbian attitude, and generally prefer to spend their holidays on the Bulgarian seaside. I don't know if they are a majority or not)

Until 1878 the territories, the language, and the self determination of the people were Bulgarian. That is the region traditionally considered to be Bulgarian and was given to the Bulgarian Exarchate, which is considered to comprise all ethic Bulgarian lands (except some territories in Macedonia, which were at those times severely contested with the Constantinople Patriarchy).

The historic fate of the region - it was a part of the Bulgarian Renaissance, giving church leaders, politicians, writers and famous teachers to Bulgaria. In 1878 part of the region was given to Serbia (Nish and Leskovac) - as a reward for its participation in the Russo-Turkish war of 1878. The church authorities were expelled and everyone who had a clear Bulgarian sentiment emigrated to Bulgaria. The second part (Pirot and Vranje) was given to Serbia after the catastrophic for Bulgaria Berlin Congress, when practically the same happened. At that time Bulgarian or Serbian identity was not considered animous, but just "brotherly", although there was a growing concern in Bulgaria about the Serbian claims to whole Western Bulgaria. Actually the hot period of the Serbo-Bulgarian rivalry and animosity can be dated to 1885 - the year of the Serbo Bulgarian war. The Serbs attacked Bulgaria, claiming as a compensation for the Bulgarian unification the whole of Western Bulgaria, including the capital (Serbians in history generally are known for making outrageous claims)

After several unsuccessful wars, some territories that were granted to Bulgaria even by the awful Berlin Congress were given to Serbia. For just 40 years (1878-1918), the national consciousness on the both sides of the border was like cut by a knife so people from those little territories had clear Bulgarian consciousness (and recognised as a minority by Belgrade), and maybe because of 40 years of Bulgarian rule had learned to speak good literary Bulgarian which they speak even today, and their neighbours, who had been all that time under Serbian rule have clear Serbian consciousness, although they speak at home very similar dialects. So this is generally the Bulgarian academic view on the question. Politically, there were no Bulgarian claims for Torlakian regions after 1878, because the main attention has been always concentrated to Macedonia and especially Ohrid, which is generally considered the birthplace of the alphabet, the sanctuary of the Bulgarian statehood and a vital centre of the Renaissance. Generally, that's it. Gosh, I'm tired! --Komitata 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey!thanks for the long analysis:)it was enlightening!i am not surprised that the people of that region easily passed from the one self-identification to the other...I mean,their dialect is in the middle of the 2 languages,their region too,they do not have religious differences with the too bordering states...so,their similarities were the reason for their unrest past.and i understand now why the bulgarians are so much concerned for RoM rather than been concerned about southern Dobrouja or southern serbia or northern greece.but what i did not understand well enough,is how the bulgarian academic community sees the case: are the people who speak the Torlakian dialect in serbia,those who speak slavomacedonian and and the pomaks in thraki considered bulgarians or not at the present?except for the political manifests and the disputed national conciousness that varies according to what source would be used,are they traditionally considered Bulgarians?take your time and answer in brief...do not get tired again:)

PS:i guess that there is a sentiment against the serbians there(i mean against ruling class,not against the people)--Hectorian 14:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw,beers are ready!:)

and i do not know how to archive a page...there has not been a long time since i came in wikipedia,so,i guess someone more experienced will decide to do it.--Hectorian 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course - Serbian in the above text is attributed to governments and national ideology, not the people. I have some Serbian friends, too. --Komitata 15:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Asia Minor Greeks in Greece

I will give u a small list about the places that the refugees settled in greece,according to the names they used for their new cities/suburds:in Kavala there is a village called Nea Karvali,were the people come from Cappadokia.the same happens in Nevrokopi,in Drama,close to the borders with your country.in Thessaloniki,whole suburbs consist of refugee population:Kalamaria,Maenemeni,etc.villages in Epirus,Peloponnese and Crete: New Trabzon,New Kyzikos,New Halicarnassos.two towns in macedonia and thessaly have the name New Aghialos(cause the people are mainly descendants of refugees from eastern rumelia).but the largest number settled in Athens:new smyrni,new ionia,Nea Chalkidona,Nea Filadelfeia,Drapetsona,and many many more.Greece received almost 1.5 million refugees,with many of them inhabiting places other than Macedonia.the claim that the pontian greeks are the majority in the greek macedonia is clearly ridiculous...

btw,i know that u were not refering about the serbian people in general above...--Hectorian 15:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you often use Eastern Rumelia as a reference. Is it popular in to be called in this way in Greece? The General view in Bulgaria about its name is that its deliberately misleading and artificial about the ethnical character of the land (can you believe otherwise:-)?). I also know some names Nea Mesamvria - for the people coming from Nessebar etc. But the numbers would be more interesting. For example Bulgarian sources claim 1 000 000 refugees from Macedonia and Thrace, which were distributed mainly in the big cities - and on the seaside - in the formerly Greek coastal towns. On the seaside were those from the population exchange treaties. You can still hear Bulgaromacedonian dialects in Nessebar for example :-) I might even find a map of the settlements --Komitata 16:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the only name i know for this region.i could also refer to it as 'Southern Bulgaria'...it would be the same.the name 'Eastern Rumelia' is not used a lot in greece,but mostly in history books,cause this is how we used to call that region.i am using this name for reasons i have explained u in email before:)I know Nea Mesimvria as well...there are hundrens of villages,towns and neighbourhoods in greece that have names given by the refugees,and to be honest,i know not even the half of them...When u are talking about 1 million refugees,i guess u are talking about the present population of their descentants,right?the numbers about the similar case in greece would be indeed interesting...u can take a look in the respective articles of the settlements i mentioned above(they are not show the accurate number though,since there has been migrations withing greece as well:rural->cities).i will try to find something more...--Hectorian 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, no. I am talking about the refugees themselves being 1 000 000. 1 200 000 to be precise. I've just read a source. Otherwise in some recent sociological surveys 3 000 000 Bulgarians claim ancestry from the region of Macedonia. --Komitata 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC) BTW, I have found a source of beautiful maps, on the site of some crazy nationalists, although here - the map I need isn't here. Have a look (I admit I find one particular map to be really crazy) although they are in Bulgarian:(( .

Greek nationalist policy in Macedonia

I have found a Bulgarian source on the Greek politics in Macedonia here. It's hardcore. You may feel insulted if you read it, I warn you. The author is a Bulgarian politician and former chairman of the IMRO in Bulgaria.

The book is called "Macedonia 90 Years Greek Ethnic Cleansing- Macedonia". The site belongs to one of the older Immigrant communities of Bulgaromacedonians in USA and Canada.

I have came across such articles many times.some of them may source some actual events,some other may be by far exagarrating...But all of them look at the case only from the one side...And,honestly,i do not believe what politicians write or say...they change their ideas according to the circumstances:)--Hectorian 18:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with you. This is one of the main reasons that Wikipedia exists and I take part in it. --Komitata 18:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

FYROM or Republic of Macedonia

You must see this comment.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Bulgaria

Hello! WikiProject Bulgaria, devoted to better organizing, maintaining and developing the network of Bulgaria-related articles, is currently gathering members in order to be started. If you're interested in participating, add your name to the "Interested Wikipedians" subsection of the proposed project's section in the list of proposed WikiProjects. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Project started — WikiProject Bulgaria! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 13:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bulg-view-mac.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bulg-view-mac.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. 82.83.96.252 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bulg-view-mac.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bulg-view-mac.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.96.252 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bulg-view-mac.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Komitata. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Komitata~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)