User talk:Laveol/2009/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Human rights in Greece

The BHRM movement is as much of a hoax as the Archbishopric of Moglen. The "party" even claims that "the declared membership in BHRM does not exceed five persons" [1], which clearly does not meet notability. After all the archbishopric had 3 members, these people have 5? (only 2 of which was known). Clearly WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. Unless you can provide adequete sources it will have to be removed as per WP:NOTABLE. Please provide evidence or else it will have to be removed from the article. The funny thing is though, Nikola Stoyanov was the one going round to Panaǵuri waving this flag!? PMK1 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I somehow missed this comment. The split is a fact, no? I've read it on mk sites as well. Even by your standarts since it's on mk press it's not a fringe view ... quite evidently :) --Laveol T 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What split? The members had an argument and set up their own party, which is not in existence and only ever had the support of 5 people. This isnt a party but a Sham! Stop pretending like this is an actuality. The party does not exist. Apart from a website, which has not been deleted yet their is no other information of this parties existence apart from the argument Stoyanov had with Voskopolous nearly a decade ago. You have got to do better then that. PMK1 (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for prompt and decisive action. I was so flabbergasted by this piece of creative historiography that I really didn't know what reaction was appropriate... Best regards, Constantine ✍ 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. A speedy is the least I could do reading such bloody nonsense. Regards :)--Laveol T 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, your prediction was right. The article has been reverted (twice) to its "original" state, including that absurd Botsaris reference... Constantine ✍ 11:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Našinski

Bulgarian is a WP:FRINGE and no serious Serbian scholar claims the Gorani to be ethnic Serbs. The language is either considered Macedonian (to which linguists and the population itself agrees to) or Goranian/Našinski ( to which many Goranci also claim). It is linguistically adjoined to the Macedonian language, and not to Bulgarian. Bulgarian has as much of a claim to it as does Montenegrin or Croatian. Be a bit realistic here. PMK1 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is not. Both Serbian and Bulgarian linguists claim it as part of their respected languages. Gorani intellectuals claim it is Bulgarian. It turns out that Macedonian is a fringe view. Did you finally read the article or are you just throwing arguments a wild.--Laveol T 17:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You know there is no fine line between whether a settlement of 1500 people is a large village, town or small city. This has been taken "out of hand". PMK1 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup, but you chose to be the authority that decides the difference. You could've easily checked the Greek or Bulgarian article, but insisted in reverting. Some style. --Laveol T 13:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on, like an inter-wiki is the final judgement on whether or not it is a town or a large village. Take Labuništa for example, it has c.4,500 inhabitants but is still a village. But, kako bilo, bilo. That is all :) PMK1 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, since both worth it wikis that have articles on it say it was a town, what would you think? Exactly my point with the example of 4,500 - you can't say that only cause it has just 1500 inhabitants, it's not a town. Oh, and I didn't say you're a troll - just that you start to act nearly as one (cause you reverted my talkpage a number of times;))--Laveol T 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well dont worry, I dont get excited by reverting pages. Lol. PMK1 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's no way ?I could be sure about it :)--Laveol T 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant it as seriously as you did. PMK1 (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Negush Uprising

After a short look through the history, I was going to revert it myself, but the IP already had. I would have reverted it to the IP's version anyway. When an IP does something like that with no explanation, I usually revert first, then check the history. After all, I can always revert back if I'm wrong. HalfShadow 17:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavic names of greek cities

Why do you and User:PMK1 go around the last days and change the "slavic dialects of greece: name" to "mkd/bg: name" in greek cities' articles?? I mean the facts are simple. These cities belonged to the Ottoman Empire, now they belong to Greece. The locals (both people who spoke slavic and people who spoke greek) as well as the Bulgarian and Serbian states (and the Greek state) had names for them. Serbia went on to become Yugoslavia. That country with Skopje as its capital went independent from Yugoslavia. Obviously, these cities do have names in both mkd (per ISO) and Bulgarian. I mean, it's only logical. Now, racing to provide those names in wikipedia and then disagreeing as whether the mkd name should be included and/or the bulgarian name is quite comical. I can easily spend the night reverting your edits, and stating once again how people in greece don't speak mkd or bg, but "slavic dialects"... that would be funny, too... so, don't push it... the bulgarian names are pretty much the same as the names of these cities in mkd. I suggest to "live and let live". And, i suggest that if you really care that much, you should add the greek names of cities in that country with Skopje as its capital and in bulgaria, too. Otherwise, let it rest and don't be that zealous. Heracletus (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly, Nikolas

You're right. I don't really wanna remove them, but I'm asking for equal treatment. Places like Plovdiv, Gotse Delchev and Burgas have Greek names, too. But, these names are usually mentioned in the latter parts of the article rather than in the introduction. You and User:PMK1 went so far as to put the slavic names of little villages, which as far as i know, have next to no permanent villages, especially in the winter. I mean places like Neochoraki_(Florina), Milea_(Pella),_Greece, Níki,_Greece and Loutrochori,_Pella. And, then, there is Aetos,_Florina, where the slavic names are clearly same to the Greek one. I mean, i should like go to Sofia and add with great bold letters SOFIA (gr: Σόφια)...
I mean, I know history. I know that people in these places didn't speak Greek and probably thought themselves other than Greek before the Balkan wars. But, that was like before 1912-1913. I know there are still people who speak Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia, but, like, I don't think going around and adding the slavic names improves the articles or does much good. And, I know that according to the Bulgarian state, the mkd is just a dialect of Bulgarian... ;) But, take it easy.
I also know that Bitola was called Monastiri and had a significant Greek population and that the same thing happened with Eastern Rumelia. So, when you open the names issue, i demand equal treament. Heracletus (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Philipp Kirkorov

Care to explain your revert of sourced information? 62.140.253.6 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since you're interested, the previous section sounded better (incidents, not scandals) + you added the cat "Russian criminals" which is ridiculous. Thanks, for your time. --Laveol T 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Since when committing a crime and being convicted of it does not qualify you of being a criminal? Okay, i'm restoring w/o this cat pending your reply. Btw, please note that Twinkle is not a valid reason for reversion, so you should provide rationales when reverti8ng everything but simple vandalism. 62.140.253.6 (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Laveol/2009/April&oldid=1166355988"