Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 4 February 2010

Edit summaries and signing comments

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, such as in England, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Working together

I have the impression that you are rather upset with me after our discussions on the talk pages of Bulgaria and Gradeshnitsa tablets. We've been discussing matters for a few days now. I am not trying to make you upset; I am just trying to help improve these articles.

I realize I have removed and changed some text in these articles and that you disagree with my editing actions. This is a normal interaction on Misplaced Pages. Our task is now to work out our differences to our mutual satisfaction while retaining Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic neutral, encyclopedic point of view.

I wish to note that I was not the only editor who has removed your edits. From your comments, I do get the impression you think I am someone actively working against you. Working against you is not my intent - I am trying to work with you. I want to find the proper place, and way, to address your concerns in Misplaced Pages. I do not dispute the evidence for possible ancient writing in the region of present-day Bulgaria. I dispute that we have reached the proper place, and proper tone: I think we should not discuss this so prominently in the Bulgaria article without a lot more care.

Some of the work that resulted in part from this discussion was actually productive - there is now a Gradeshnitsa tablets article, and you have found some very useful academic articles about the matter of early writing in the region. We should definitely continue with this productive exercise and expand the Gradeshnitsa tablets article.

Possible connection to User:Lantonov

I found myself in a discussion with Monshuai, and a few day later I find user User:Lantonov take text I wrote in this discussion and use it in an entirely different context in another discussion altogether (see User talk:Lantonov for more I wrote on this). Both users are interested in POVs in connection to Bulgaria. Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

You are welcome to join the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I really do not think you can pretend to be more experienced by having a longer participation. You may have some excellent experience in being a columnist, but statements in a style, such as Bulgarian scientists have made several important discoveries and inventions that have revolutionized global society.

-The the world's first electronic digital computer (John Vincent Atanasoff), ushered in the digital-information age, which has led not only to mass computing but to the development of a number of divergent modern technologies such as the Internet. and following, simply don't have a place here. You can either change the style, or return to the previous version. Your call. - ☣Tourbillon 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John Vincent Atanasoff

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Vincent Atanasoff. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Alison 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alyson, I understand your concerns and I appreciate your effort to resolve this dispute. As you have seen, this has been an ongoing problem for approximately 2 years. At its earlier stages of escalation, I decided to follow Misplaced Pages rules and take time off from this article hoping that Robert K S will mature over a period of one year and therefore find the strength, intellectual resolve and maturity to neutralize his prejudices. Unfortunately as the weeks turned to months and the months to years, it became apparent that he was not willing to accept the valid arguments presented by other editors. Thus I decided that I would once more attempt to reason with him and therefore made sure to always share my perspectives in the discussion page before proceeding to change anything in the Atanasoff article. This too failed. That said, I thank you for taking the time to look into this matter. I appreciate your objective analysis of the situation and I am sure that both Robert K S and I will do our utmost to be productive members of the Wikipedian community. He is articulate and intelligent. If he becomes impartial and compassionate, he will be a truly remarkable editor. Have a great day and I hope we will talk again in more delightful circumstances. You're what every administrator should be: neutral, polite and conscientious.--Monshuai (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, your repeated goading of User:Robert K S on the talk page of this article has gone on long enough. Your latest comments have descended into personal attacks. It should be clear that Robert K S' use of rollback does not vindicate your position in any way whatsoever, nor does it relate to the content of the above article. Furthermore, your attacks on Bielle and your unfounded charges of racial bias are unwarranted and unfair in the extreme.Consider this a formal warning. Discuss the article and its issues, by all means, but please stop the personalized campaign against the other contributors. We're all there to improve the article and the encyclopedia, so please bear it in mind. Further attacks (yes, attacks) of this nature will only result in your being blocked from editing - Alison 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, you are essentially telling me to stop defending ethnic groups against racism. If I have to I will take this issue to the highest authorities and to administrators of various ethnic and racial backgrounds, because it seems to me that in such a way they will be able to analyze the situation at hand and whether or not I am deserving of being threatened by you. I will not capitulate in the face of racism and double standards. My ancestors did not struggle with prejudism just so it can be used against them and their memory here in Misplaced Pages. If anything should happen to my account because I have been fighting prejudice and racism then I will formally write letters to the founders of Misplaced Pages and I will point them to this discussion. I have already documented all related statements into my hard drive database. I will approach this from every moral and ethical avenue possible and I will do so for as long as I must to neutralize the unfair treatment of disadvantaged ethnic groups.--Monshuai (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "essentially telling" you that. I'm telling you to stop the goading of Robert K S, and stop the ad-hominem attacks. That's all. Feel free to take the issue elsewhere, by all means, but I'm not going to stand by watching you mock and goad another editor. No way. And put the racism card back away, please. My comments had absolutely nothing to do with the content of that page and everything to do with your attitude towards others - Alison ❤ 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you expect me to behave when I see that you have not yet allowed the inclusion of the statement that Atanasoff is the first Bulgarian-American to gain prominence in the science and technology fields of the United States? What do you expect me to think when you haven't allowed the inclusion of a sentence that states that he was the first Bulgarian-American to be awarded the National Medal of Technology? I do not see you having placed the text Bulgarian-American anywhere! What attitude do you think a person who is dealing with racism and prejudism should have? Do you feel that a Black person whose heritage is being denied will simply smile and pretend that everything is OK? Why have you not made the said changes to the Atanasoff article, even reverting the edits of others, while it is clear that the same standards have not been applied to other articles?--Monshuai (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Quit trying to play the race card. Quit blaming me for not adding it (I've no interest either way, thanks). Treat others properly, quick the smartass comments towards Robert K S. Discuss your issues on the talk page, try to come to some consensus, or at least some comromise, because attacking other editors as you are will just get you blocked - Alison 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not quit "playing" the race card. It's not a game Alison and therefore I am not playing. Racism is a real life issue. Racism is the worst of human realities. And if you don't have an interest either way about what goes into the article, why did you revert the edit by Janelle, who wrote that John Atanasoff is the first Bulgarian-American to win the National Medal of Technology? I have already compromised and so have other people who want Atanasoff's Bulgarian-American heritage be shown. Originally we simply wanted him to be called Bulgarian-American in the opening sentence. Then we compromised and stated that it would be acceptable if he is called the first Bulgarian-American to achieve such and such a few lines down...--Monshuai (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you're playing the race card. I'm more than familiar with racism, having worked in Britain during the 80s at the height of The Troubles. However, this is unrelated to anything here, as is your experience and inane accusations. I did not 'revert' your friend Janelle's edits, I partly undid them. Note that I left in the phonetic rendering of his name. The rest - as you know - is currently being debated hotly on the talk page. BTW - who's "we"? - Alison 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is being hotly debated and you are trying to silence by threatening my editorial rights (even whilst I'm not editing but only involved in a discussion page dispute) just because I am able to identify the fallacies in the statements made by said editors. BTW, is it within your administrative rights to threaten or to block people who are expressing their opinions and using evidence to interpret what other editors are saying on the said discussion pages?

Again, why did you revert her edit about Atanasoff being the first Bulgarian-American to achieve ? When Bielle says that I have to prove that no one else before him who achieved such prominece had a "Bulgarian mother or grandmother", did you jump in to say that's ridiculous? Is there really any way to find out every person's genetic background? Why are other articles not including the genealogical proofs for the millions of Americans who lived or are currently alive at anyone time just so we can be sure that there aren't other first Chinese-Americans, first African-Americans, first Italian-Americans etc? It's like me telling Bielle to irrefutably prove that there are no ferries or leprechauns. Likewise it's akin to me telling someone to prove that there is a God. Is that reasonable and are such requests made for other articles? Is that the policy here? I don't think so!--Monshuai (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

← I'm not "trying to silence by threatening editorial rights" - I'm asking you to stop making personal attacks on other editors, in particular, stop goading and mocking User:Robert K S. I still maintain this position and if you persist in attacking him, I or another admin, will block your account. Nothing to do with 'silencing' or racism or whatev - and everything to do with your behaviour towards other editors. It's not that difficult to understand; you are held under the same standards as any other editor (as am I) - Alison 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And don't just take my word for it; "It seems that you have no interest in actually listening to the points of view others express. More than that, you have no interest in understanding that others might actually have a point of view that is worth considering. If the word "bigot" didn't already exist, it should have been coined to describe your attitude. You repeatedly twist people's words to suit your argument and refuse to see what they're actually trying to say. Then you assume a tone that is either condescending, outraged, or failing all else, sarcastic. Then you start making personal remarks in order to completely deviate from the point and irritate people." - that's from a fellow-Bulgarian just now - Alison 01:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are all held under the same standards. Therefore I may request a multi-ethnic administrative investigation of yourself, Bielle, Robert K S, Apcbg, Janelle4elle and myself. If I am being accused of acting in a way that I do not believe I'm acting and consequently threatened to not analyze what I deem to be their biased statements, then it is ethically correct for me to have an international team of administrators investigate your administrative privilidges as well. That's the only way they'll be able to determine who has been acting in what way. That's fair, right? I think so.--Monshuai (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, another Bulgarian is allowed to have this view. He is free to think that way. He after all already stated that he was increasingly embarassed to be Bulgarian. Can I take someone seriously for being embarassed of en entire nation just because of what he deems to be the biased behaviour of one Bulgarian person? I think not.--Monshuai (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's very wise, actually. Let's get some more eyes on the situation here. The best place might be Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests or in the case of admin issues, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not sure if you can vet the ethnic background of the admins, though. People get offended by that stuff, esp. given it's largely irrelevant to editing and to admin work - Alison 01:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will go to various articles where admins of different ethnic backgrounds attend to their duties. I will go to non-English pages and request help from admins who edit in Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Vietnamese, numerous African languages etc. I will build a team of such admins and I will have them conduct an investigation. The background of admins will in my humble opnion prove relevant since some people have felt the oppression of racism and various forms of prejudism. They know all too well how to identify racism/prejudism/bias etc.--Monshuai (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That pretty-much describes the average admin from WP:ANI, so you might do better to capture your required audience there. But whichever works. Admins should be non-partisan by nature. BTW - I spend most of my time editing in a non-English language wiki where I'm also an admin. English is very much second place for me. Jes' sayin' ... - Alison 02:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Alison, I will find many admins (I think 40-60 will be enough) of various ethnic backgrounds from all over the globe. If you thought I was motivated and dedicated on the discussion page, you will be pleasantly surprised to see how organised and focused I will be in building this investigative team. Whatever it takes to defend ethnic groups against double standards and biases. That's my motto.--Monshuai (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Once you build your admin team, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment is probably the forum you need - Alison 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'll ask them about their opinions on where to have the investgation discussed.--Monshuai (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion exists is insanity. At some point assumption of good faith is corrupted into suspension of disbelief. Robert K S (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Something we both agree on, I think :) - Alison 06:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, time will tell. I think this discussion will lead to all ethnic groups and their descendents being treated equally in all Misplaced Pages articles. I don't think that working for that goal is insanity Robert.--Monshuai (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is insanity. African-Americans take great pride in calling themselves such after 3 centuries of staying in the US. Atanassoff took great pride in claiming himself a Bulgarian-American. It is just fair mentioning that. Ferid Murad, an Albanian-American, Nobel Prize is listed as such and he does not deny his origins. I agree with Monshuai's arguments and respect him for what he is doing for his country. Rants against him and advise of how to better use his time are useless: The English Misplaced Pages is the bible of many people today and easily influences people, Monshuai is doing a favor to young Bulgarian scientists who will get inspired by Atanassoff's example. I made the change here , but reverted it after I saw the ANI. However I just wanted to let you'all know that as an editor I will always believe that Atanassof is Bulgarian American and as such he should be presented in an Encyclopedia.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Atanasoff 2

N.B. I may be accused of not using English here, but it is only the "preferred" rather than the required language for talk pages. I would gladly provide a translation upon request.

Здравей! Стана ми неприятно че така се получиха нещата между нас, та реших да ти напиша два реда тук. Прочетох съобщението ти към User_talk:TodorBozhinov и "стила" ти ми стана малко по-ясен :). Аз наистина не влезнах в дискусията защото имах нещо лично срещу теб (Вас?), а просто исках нещата да са по-неутрални. Както излиза, консенсуса не е лесно-постижимо нещо в този случай... а моите чувства по въпроса не са достатъчно силни за да си струва заради тях да нарушавам личните си отношения с други - дори (особено?) с тези които всъщност съвсем не познавам. За сега ще се оттегля от дискусията, докато ситуацията се по-уталожи малко - виждам че поемаш правилни стъпки със искането ти за независимо проучване на въпроса (по-горе), което надявам се ще стигне до разрешение с което всички ще сме доволни. С най-добри пожелания! Tomatoman (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomatoman, if this is related to the Atansoff discussions, I would appreciate a translation. If you have a reason not to put the translation here, my email is active from my user page. Please be aware that, because the original contents are already on WP, it is my view that I may quote the translated version without raising privacy issues. I will let you know first if I intend to do so. I am generally careful about what I post and how I quote. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As promised, Bielle (in fact, apologies for making you ask):

"Hello! I started feeling really unpleasant about the way things between me and you developed, so I decided to write a couple of lines here. I read your message towards User_talk:TodorBozhinov, and your "style" became clearer to me. I really did not enter the discussion because I had anything personal against you, I just wanted to bring things to a more neutral level. As it comes out, though, consensus doesn't seem to be an easily achievable thing in this case... and my feelings on the topic are not strong enough to warrant ruining my relationships with others - even (especially?) with those whom I don't know personally. I will for now withdraw from the discussion, until the situation settles a little - I see that you are taking the right steps with your request for an independent enquiry (above), which I hope will lead to a resolution with which everyone will be happy. Best wishes! Tomatoman (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)"

No need to apologise. Thank you. Bielle (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Atanasoff again

Hi! You reverted my edits to Atanasoff with the following comment:

"We are going to go through this again. This time as many Bulgarians will be mobilized as need be to overcome prejudice. Yesterday I added more info to the discussion page yet you fail to respond to it."

Could you please "mobilize Bulgarians" to come up with a reasonable explanation to where and how I showed prejudice? I also urge you to realize that your actions are bad to Bulgaria's image.

And I ensure you I could not have answered what you wrote the day before ("yesterday"), because it was my first visit.

To sum it all up, many people agree that the person in question, John Vincent Atanasoff, has no significant links to Bulgaria, so please restrain yourself from vandalism in the form of improper reverts, unless you can provide any significant links. My father is Jewish, and I would oppose any claim to my personal success from the state of Israel, simply because I have as much to do with Israel as Atanasoff had to do with Bulgaria.

Enjoy yourself on Misplaced Pages!

LMB (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi LMB! You're probably aware of a discussion on this topic that's been going on for some time on Atanasoff's talk page. I think we may be close to reaching a settlement on the issue - if you want you could have a look at the last couple of comments to get an idea. Anyway, in order to maintain a constructive discussion on this in the future I recommend you first ensure there is consensus regarding your suggested edits on the talk page, prior to committing them. Thanks! Tomatoman (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to him Tomatoman. I should also mention that I will respond to your latest comments tomorrow. I'm especially busy these last few days because I have been spending a bit too much time on a physics paper (seems we have similar interests).

@LMB, being Jewish and having an allegiance to Israel are not mutually inclusive. The last time I checked Israel was not a Jewish state, but rather a secular country. Your father's religious affiliations, his ethnicity and his citizenship are three different things. Now then, since you seem to be equating your personal experiences with those of John Atanasoff, (in regard to you being no more Israeli then he is Bulgarian) naturally some questions are in order. I therefore ask, has the state of Israel given you its highest national award in science and technology? Has the state of Israel named schools and created monuments in your honour? Were you welcomed there by over 200 of your relatives as well as crowds on the street that numbered more than those welcoming foreign heads of state (as Atanasoff himself mentions regarding Brezhnev of the former USSR)? Does the Israeli nation celebrate your birthday? Have you written a biography where amongst other things, you discuss the people from whom you originate? Did you mention in those memoirs how the pride of Israel/Israelis regarding your ethnic background changed the relations between your current country of residence and the state of Israel? Did you ever say that the Israeli blood in your veins kept your spirit? Allow me to speculate for a moment, but I think the answer to all of the above questions is NO... Unlike Atanasoff (who said/did these things and had the highest national Bulgarian honours bestowed upon him), I doubt any of this has happened to you. You should do more research before proclaiming knowledge in a subject you don't seem to be all that familiar with. Thanks.--Monshuai (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Empire

Hello, nice to meet you too! "Due to your recent edits and quoted comment above, I am under the impression that you are not familiar with Bulgar-Byzantine history. Bulgaria subjugated the Byzantine Empire on more than one occasion and it's was recognized as the "Saviour of Europe"." If you take a look at my userpage, you will see that Byzantine history is quite a specialty of mine, so I know what I am writing about. First, your use of the word "subjugate" is inappropriate. It means "conquer, impose political control over something". That never happened. Byzantium was at all times independent of Bulgaria, even if Byzantine rulers paid tribute to it occasionally. Byzantium also paid tribute to dozens other states to not invade its territory, it does not mean that it was "subjugated" by them (it is called "buying off"). As for Krum, Byzantium was defeated several times, yes, and not only by him, but fell never under any sort of control from or vassalage to Bulgaria. If anything, due to its superior cultural and economic power and prestige, it was always the senior partner in the Byzantine-Bulgarian relationship. As for the 2nd Arab siege, Bulgarian help was important, but remember a few things: First, the walls of Constantinople and Greek fire were the main elements that prevented the city's fall, just as they had been in the first and far longer siege, which had been won by the Byzantines without Bulgarian assistance. Second, and more important, if Bulgaria at that one point was indeed in the forefront of the fight against the Muslims, it was also the only time (until the Ottomans came along). Byzantium was at the forefront for practically its entire existence. Consequently, labelling a country which fought one (albeit important) battle as "Saviour of Europe" (which by itself is a heavily loaded, peacockish and best to be avoided moniker) when it was next door to another state which routinely "saved Europe" for 1000 years, is rather unjust. The lede must provide a balanced assessment of the entire period covered by the First Bulgarian Empire. Its role in the 2nd Arab Siege was important, but by no means represents the defining characteristic of the Bulgarian state, so that it should be so prominently emphasized. PS. so that there are no misapprehensions, I have nothing against Bulgaria or emphasizing its culture, history and achievements. It is just that in this particular case, the evidence does not support the rather sensational claims you make. Constantine ✍ 11:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PS2 I strongly suggest avoiding irony in your edit summaries, as well as tit-for-tat edits like this one. If you look closely, you'll see that the fall of the Byz. Empire to the Ottomans is amply mentioned in the lede, and that, contrary to the Bulgarian article, the lede does not open with a chronological summary, but with a definition of the Empire's nature (thus making the end date irrelevant to the opening sentence). Constantine ✍ 11:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Здравей! I see that you are interested in the medieval Bulgarian history and our relations with the Byzantines, so I may suggest you to take a look here and if you want to, continue to expand the article and even move it to your page if you think it would better. I also want to work on it but I am usually out of time and recently contribute mainly to topics on the Third Bulgarian State... Constantine had kindly sent me several non-Bulgarian books and articles in order to have better sources and citations in the article. So, if you have time and wish we may work together in the Bulgarian-Byzantine relations, especially having in mind that I am not very talented in writing :) Поздрави, --Gligan (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Ok, let's take your points one to one. The repulsion of the Arab siege is indeed a very defining, but also unique and unrepeated, moment in Bulgarian history. Now, all the things you mentioned do not indicate political control, except if one specifically wants to read that. Rather, they indicate a very close alliance between a Byzantine ruler and a strong and influential neighbour. There is no indication however anywhere that Tervel exercised any control over the Byzantine government, and indeed, as Caesar and son-in-law, in theory his position was subordinate to that of Justinian himself. If Tervel had continued to reside in Constantinople and/or issue dictates to Justinian which he then followed, then your assumptions would have a basis. Otherwise it is an original viewpoint. In more specific cases: " Tervel overthrew the then Byzantine Emperors Leontius and Tiberius III" not according to the history books, I am sorry to say. Leontius was overthrown by Tiberius, and Tiberius by Justinian and his supporters, with the aid of Tervel. But in all cases, it was a clearly intra-Byzantine affair. "the title Caeser", well, Manuel I Komnenos named Bela of Hungary as despotes and explicitly designated him as his heir. Does this mean imply Hungarian political control? You should know from university that awarding titles to foreigners was seen by the Byzantines as a form of control via flattery, as well as an act placing the awardee within a certain position in the supposed ecumenical hierarchy headed by the Roman emperor. As Caesar, Tervel doubtless stood at the top, but he was still (in Byzantine eyes) a barbarian prince who owed his fealty to the Roman emperor. "Justinian's daughter in marriage", while up till then unprecedented, it is not unique, and easily explicable by Justinian's need to secure his aid if he wanted to regain his throne. Again, nothing to do with tangible political control. "It was because after the Bulgarians defeated the Arabs, the Byzantines had no choice but to appease their saviours...", well, so what? The Byzantines bought off dozens of states in their history, through money, honours, territory or what not. And the very next day, the emperors sent ambassadors to stir up trouble in their rear. That is called diplomacy, not subjugation.

"Furthermore, since you do not place the disintegration and annexation of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Empire in the first sentence, I cannot for the life in me find a non-hypocritical/double standard reason why it should be in the first sentence in the intro of the First Bulgarian Empire article." well, aside from (again) warning you against an un-WP-like tit-for-tat attitude, let me explain how I see it: the Byz. Empire article, as I said before, has a different structure in its lede than the 1st. Bulg. Empire one. It does not open with a chronological review (which by necessity should include start and end dates & events) but rather a definition of the Empire's nature. Hence placing it there is out of context. THe fall is mentioned, well enough, as indeed it should be, in its proper place. In the Bulgarian article, you have the first paragraph providing what is, in essence, a chronological summary. Right now, it reads: "as a medieval state centered on the capital of Preslav, founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by Bulgars and ruled by hereditary Emperors. At the height of its power it spread between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dnieper river in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic. It was succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire, established in 1185. The official name of the country since its very foundation was Bulgaria.". There is no mention at all of when it ceased to exist... The impression one gets is that it ended in 1185 and was immediately succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire. Do you see my point?

As for my attitude towards Bulgaria, ask some of the other Bulgarian editors here, I do feel confident that their testimony will be in my favour :) Regards, Constantine ✍ 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet 23 academic peer reviewed articles to be found at JSTOR counter your hypothesis. Helping install someone to power is in fact a conspicuous use of political control. Without Tervel, Justinian would not have risen to the throne. Finally, Tervel is indeed THE ONLY non Byzantine to be recognized as Caeser. Is there any other such awarding of the highest possible title? The history books, as you say, tell us that there isn't! Finally you have refrained from answering a question I asked before: Other than the Bulgarian Emperor Tervel and his large contingent of soldiers (upwards of 20,000), which other foreign head of state and his battalions marched through the streets of Constantinople? There is no one else, unless of course we fastforward to the 15th century when Constantinople falls to the Ottomans. So there you have it... PS: I am glad you do not have a prejudiced attitude towards Bulgarians. Indeed, humanity is not composed of simple national pawns. You, I and all other humans on this planet share the historical wealth of our species' aggragate achievements.--Monshuai (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, can I see these 23 articles? Also, don't take me wrong: no one disputes that Tervel was crucial to Justinian's retaking the throne. It's just that "political control" implies far more than that, it implies a sustained control over the Byzantine government. And there is no evidence of that. As for the Caesar argument, I already gave you a full reply, which you simply ignored. Certainly, Tervel's gaining that rank as exceptional, but aside from a very high honour, it does not necessarily translate into political power. The same with the parade. These things are indications of a very close relationship, which indeed existed, but not a "subjugation" of one state to the other. By the same token, and drawing my own conclusions, since a "Caesar" was still subordinate to the emperor, I could argue that Tervel submitted to Justinian. That is as patently nonsense as the argument for the other way round. Constantine ✍ 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You certainly can view them. http://www.jstor.org Actually when you start reading through the relevant material you'll note that there are over 140 articles that elucidate what we're debating. A more general search yields even more text that can be incorporated in our holistic discussion of various political factors. The best ones incorporate game theory to interpret past dynamics. Have fun. :)--Monshuai (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know jstor. What I would like to see are the links to the specific articles that support your POV. I do not have the time to go randomly searching for them, unfortunately ;) Constantine ✍ 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have the time to write as much as you do on Misplaced Pages, you also have the time to conduct an academic search. No free lunches in this world. ;)--Monshuai (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

please discuss about ideas not about persons

Please don't insinuate racism or hypocrisy. Discuss the ideas that I present, don't make accusations or insinuations about me or my intentions. Please don't respond on my page. Thanks. man with one red shoe 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, when someone makes hypocritical and prejudiced comments it would be unethical not to respond. To do so would be the equivalent of allowing/encouraging that behaviour to continue. Second, your ideas have shifted multiple times from the onset of our discussion precisely because I have been able to debunk them effectively. One more thing, you are yet again hypocritical by writing on my page and yet telling me not to write on yours. How many more double standards do you have?

To everyone else who is curious about the above comments, please visit the Bulgaria article discussion page for more information.--Monshuai (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)