User talk:Cigor

Ohrid churches

There are á number of monasteries and churches built at the end of the 9th century, as well as throughout the 10th century - the monastery of Saint Naum, for example. Or do you question that? VMORO 19:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)~

1) The monastery of Saint Naum is some 21km (water distance) or 29 km (road distance) from Ohrid. The article is about the city of Ohrid

2) It is true that the monastery was probably built in the IX or X century, but there are no sources of who actually built it.

3) This again is irrelevant because the original church was destroyed presumably by the Turks.

4) On the same location a new church was erected (XVI century)

5) There isn’t a single major church/monastery that have survived the time and has been built by the Bulgarians.

6) There is probably no minor church that have survived the time and has been built by the Bulgarians. Hard to tell as there are so many.

7) If you have some other church ,rather than vaguely saying “there are number of monasteries and churches” do specify it. Until then the part of the article about Bulgarian churches is incorrect. You are welcome to specify about some major Bulgarian churches that were destroyed, if any. --Cigor 00:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Macedonian website an external link to which is provided below the article here (and not a Bulgarian website), the monasteries of Saint Naum and St. Pantaleimon were built during the beginning of the 10th century. They have been exclusively mentioned in the hagiography of St. Kliment, as well, as being built at the end of the 9th/the beginning of the 10th century. These are the examples I give you. Let's not argue that, you know, St. Naum and St. Pantaleimon are not in Ohrid but 10 or 15 km away - they are listed in the article, as well as in all travel guides of Ohrid. So, I am reverting the edit. VMORO 18:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)~

VMORO, even if we ignore if St Naum is not in Ohrid the issue still remains the same: There are no surviving churches from the period IX-X.If you actually read that Macedonian website you would have found out that the original churches were destroyed. St. Pantaleimon was a mosque (Imaret) and recently (several years ago) was demolished (a stupidity of VMRO-DPMNE if you ask me) so that the “old” church can be built. Hardly 10 centuries old church. Similar with St. Naum. BTW there is no knowledge who actually builds the original churches in the first place. I’ve been to in each Ohrid major church dozen of times. If A makes a building and then the building is destroyed, then B make similar building from scratch several centuries latter, who made the building A or B? I am adding “Almost all survived churches are built by the Byzantines, the rest is from the time of Serbian rule during the late Middle Ages.” So there will be no confusion. If you like you can put something about the ones that did not survived.--Cigor 18:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to clarify why did I delete “into As an episcopal city, Ohrid was an important cultural center within the Bulgarian empire during the Middle Ages…” and changing into As an episcopal city, Ohrid was an important cultural center. The reason for that is that Ohrid from the mid XI century all the way to 1767 all church leaders are Greek. Furthermore The jurisdiction of Ohrid church included most of the Ottoman European possesion – Albania, Serbia, etc… Therefore unless you change the wording to include the period -X and part of XI century , I’ll keep deleting it as inaccurate.--Cigor 18:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lezhe

I was annoyed because you deleted information simply because you disagreed with it. The previous information came from gov. websites; could you provide the source for the years currently in place? freestylefrappe 03:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, I came across the article quite accidentally. I have limited knowledge about Albanian history. The only source I have is Skanderbeg article and the article on Britannica 1911 - http://35.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SC/SCANDERBEG.htm, However I deleted the year range because it wasn’t making sense regardless of the source.As for the range I’ve placed, the sentence is:…..For 25 years, from XXXX – YYYY, Skanderbeg's 10,000 men army marched through Ottoman …..Now, if I have to match 25 years then that would be 1443, when Skanderbeg rebeled to 1468 when he died. However this is not quite accurate since apparently there was resistance after Skanderbeg’s death up to 1478 and to some extent untill 1500. So the right sentence should be: ….For 35 years from 1443-78……. And since the article is about the League that was formed in 1444 obviously 1380 -1406 can't be right.--Cigor 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References in Debar

Since you request that I provide my references, (www.macedonia.org), could you provide the source for the info you recently added to Debar? freestylefrappe 22:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem was with the sentence "Debar has been an Albanian stronghold against foreign occupation for centuries." This is clearly not true because:

1) There was not Albanian political entity before Skanderbeg

2) There were Christians other than Albanians that participated in the Skanderbeg's uprising. Skanderbeg himself is claimed by Serbs and Greeks.

3) After islamization of Albanians they are the most loyal subject in Ottoman Europe in political sense, although there were lot of misrule and outlaws there. Albanians first think themselves of independence after realizing how Turkey is unable to protect the Muslims in Balkans after San-Stefan treaty 1878.

So you see, at best we are talking about 3 decades of resistance. "Albanian stronghold against foreign ocupation" also implies continuous Albanian nature of the town. So there you go, 2 inaccuracies in one small sentence.

For references, I am going to put them in the article itself. --Cigor 01:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I have no problem with that...I applaud your recent edits...but you still have not explained what your source is... freestylefrappe 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean; there is Reference section in the Debar article. Is there some particular part of my edit that you can’t find in my references?--Cigor 02:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible numbers

As impossible (insane) as these are, they are the official UNPO statistics. freestylefrappe 15:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see why UNPO would have greater weight than official goverment facts. Even if you don’t believe in census data, that is, there is deliberate attempt to underestimate the number of Albanians, you can not ignore the recurrent results in state as well municipal elections. To my knowledge there isn’t any political party that collects significant number of Albanian votes that do not have character of Albanian ethnic party such as PPD, DPA etc. They get roughly 22-23% in the last 10 years, combined.

It is another story that they WILL be 40% given their current rate of increase as some point in the future. But it’s just not fact NOW. But right now I we have to keep this arguments. Feel free to insert the arguments why Albanians claim to be 40%

--Cigor 15:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth images

Please don't upload Google Earth images - Google has expressly denied permission to use them. I've deleted Image:OP Lakes.jpg because of this. -- ChrisO 20:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all Google Earth and Google Maps images can't be used on Wikipedia. Images you obtained from NASA World Wind, which is very similar, are all public domain and can be used freely in Wikipedia. You'll discover that it doesn't go down to as fine a detail in most places, unfortunately. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians

Why are you reverting my changes? Also what kind of references do you need? For what claim? “Unlike the time before WWII, when Macedonia was hotbed for unrest and terror and about 60% of the entire royal Yugoslav police force was stationed there, “ – this is not disputed by anybody. See VMRO#The_interwar_years. " Numerous assassinations (over 1,000 by one account) were carried out by IMRO agents in many countries, the majority in Yugoslavia. The most spectacular of these was the assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia and the French Foreign Minister, Louis Barthou, in Marseille". Or "contemporary observers described the Yugoslav-Bulgarian frontier as the most fortified in Europe"

“after the war there were no signs of disturbances comparable with pre war times or” I don’t need references for event that never happen. It is the Bulgarians that need to put some kind of references of some kind of incident. Surely if 100 K+ was imprisoned we would have at least one bomb or assassination somewhere?

“post war times in other parts of former Yugoslavia, such as Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia.” Read for example Ustasa#After_the_war. “Ustaše were implicated in over two dozen terrorist acts following the post-war period.” --Cigor 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cigor :-) You must understand that my objections do not come from disbelief, on the contrary between the two theories I think your seems the nearest to truth. But you have to understand that these statements may be contested may be others, all the one you mentioned. When I mean sourcing I mean mentioning scholar xxxx and historian xxxx so to substain the points against possible future objections. Second, context can help: like if you write "Macedonia was very peaceful after WWII, compared to the inter-wars years" and here putting a rapid allusion to the VMRO violence, and if you write "also compared to Croatia and Bosnia", and adding something like, "where ustasa violence was active in the first post-war decade". These are only examples, and I have no doubt you can find something better. If you still have some questions or objections, don't have problems asking. Bye :-) Aldux 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Plot

Hiya -

I'm a public affairs radio host producing a series about fascism in the US. Curious if you could recommend someone who could speak in a scholarly and historically accurate way about the fascist plot against FDR. If so please send an email to < kboo [at] riseup [dot] net>.

Hi :-)

Ciao Cigor, nice to see you back :-) While you were away a Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board has been made; we use it to bring to all editors interested problems. Bye--Aldux 14:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Tēlex 18:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Macedonism. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just warning, The more reverts you make, the longer your block for 3RR could be. /FunkyFly.talk_ 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonism is used in the Republic of Macedonia with the same meaning. It is not a Bulgarian invention, rather Serbian. Bulgarians just popularized it. Your misunderstanding does not excuse your 6 reverts so far. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just broke the 3RR on Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia as well. Expect a block. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have to provide sources that it is used more frequently in Bulgaria than in RoM. This would work, otherwise your conclusion is original research. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are provided by those who claim things. You claim it is used "primarily by Bulgarians", so you have to provide. I'm not making any conclusions about usage. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My statement remains unchanged. Whether the country's population endorse the term or not has nothing to do with its usage. Bulgarism is a nice article to start, I'll be looking forward to it. The only problem is that is simply not used anywhere, much unlike Macedonism. /FunkyFly.talk_ 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on June 19 2006 (UTC) to Macedonism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 06:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You are in danger of violating Wikipedia:3RR on Macedonism. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, did you notice that it is Church slavonic based on the Macedonian dialects, not the Macedonian language? /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, that's so nice of you, warn me after you report me. Republican style! :) /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are truly in danger of violating 3RR in your next revert. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I'm afraid you just violated 3RR, despite my warning, so I will have to report you. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Cigor. Your version of the article didn't look really encyclopedic to me. I think the article should just have "support" and "criticism", not "Criticism to the Criticism" in addition to that. Should we have it like that on the Armenian Genocide article? It would go on forever! That kind of stuff belongs on the talk page. —Khoikhoi 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have Moldovenism for example... —Khoikhoi 03:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, check the article now. —Khoikhoi 03:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that's what you wanted me to do. Nvm. —Khoikhoi 03:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

abakharev 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting wars

It could be very helpfull if we play revert wars like "Funk and Telex" together.--Vlatko 10:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlatko, vistinata ke izleze, a tie moze da pravat trikovi kolku sakaat. Golem pozdrav. --Cigor 17:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlatko, the truth will come out, and they can make as many tricks as they want. Big greets. Really, oh well, FYI the truth came out already, but now you guys try to shove it back in the closet :) /FunkyFly.talk_ 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I see you stated that Greece and Bulgaria recognized ethnic Macedonians in their country. Can this be? And apparently, you agree with this? Thank you! I guess all those Helsinki Monitor reports are wrong then. --Cigor 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a census in Bulgaria from 2001, which shows 5071 ethic Macedonians, and this is a fact. Everything else is speculations my friend. As for Greece, check Minority groups in Greece /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the human rights reports are speculations. There are no harassments if you declare Macedonian over there. I mean, what is the point of your article if Bulgaria recognizes Macedonians as a separate ethnic group in Bulgaria and elsewhere? --Cigor 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My" article? I dont own articles. The point of Macedonism is the irredentism and attempts of falsification of history by the Republic. Plus do not start me on the wonderful human rights record in the Republic, especially their attitude towards ethnic Bulgarians. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You started the article, inspired by your intolerance. Look, you may believe that being an ethnic Macedonian is irredentism. That is your POV. But claiming that Bulgaria and Greece are recognizing ethnic Macedonians without problems is little bit too rich, don’t you think? --Cigor 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now we are splitting hairs arent we. Whether it is my tolerance, or merely a reflection of a large number of people's attitute towards the falsifications of history is not up to you to determine. Lets just say that you dont go to jail for declaring ethnic Macedonian in Bulgaria, much unlike the Republic, which employs long sentences and police violence, which might, just might, be the thing which stops your country from joining the EU. I mean look what's going on in Turkey for example. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my point. It is exactly the reflection of the majority, and you are saying minorities are recognized, no problem, we are a happy family. Kindly revert your changes in the article. If not, why don’t you put similar statement everywhere in Macedonian related article – Bulgaria recognize the distinct Macedonian ethnicity, fully, unconditionally , officially and unofficially. --Cigor 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officially it is recognized of course. At political level. At academic level the situation might not quite be the same. Anyway, I guess no comments on the human rights record in your country, I know it is tough to talk about it. Btw did you check the new links I added, apparently this term is popular in Greece too. Soon I will link to a history book published in Skopie in 1990, which uses the term "Macedonism" in the nationalistic sense. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What human rights violation? In R Macedonia, anybody can be declared as whatever he/she selects. We are not like Bulgaria. As for the links are you also going to publish Radule’s answers to B.Dimitrov? He published them in Bulgaria and he is a Bulgarian citizen. --Cigor 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, denial. In case you have not seen this thing here it goes. You are at step 1: Phases of grief: 1. Denial 2. Anger 3. Bargaining 4. Depression 5. Acceptance. Also, Radule is linked already. Check The Ten Lies of Macedonism. Plus, he does not talk directly about Macedonism at all, he does not support it, he simply attacks "The 10 lies". His credibility however is extremely questionable, since he's not a historian. For human rights violation check this page. It shows you your country needs "considerable efforts" in the areas of "Judiciary & Fundamental Rights" and also in "Justice, Freedom & Security", where you fall in the same category as Turkey. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure denial, whatever. According to Bulgarians we have been living in denial for many, many years. What is the time scale of these stage? When am I going to the last stage according to you, in 300 years? As for human rights, #1 We are not condemned by any human rights organization regarding Bulgarians (i.e. RADKO); #2 I don't have any problem for them existing; #3 I don't see how is that relevant with the original issue [2]. --Cigor 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's unsourced. I don't know about Bulgaria, but Greece has taken no position on the issue. All Greece opposes is the usage of the name 'Macedonian' to refer to them, and officially, the predominant ethnic group in FYROM are called 'Σλαβομακεδόνες' Slavomakedónes. Either way, it's unsourced. --Tēlex 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. You, yourself are saying that you are not recognizing them and you are asking me to provide sources? --Cigor 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not recognizing them under the name of their choice. There's a difference. --Tēlex 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Cigor, the timescale is as long as you choose it to be. Just because you got away with Ratko does not mean you will continue to get away with it in the future, under increased scrutiny from the EU. And dont forget, you'll be scrutinized by Bulgaria as well, as it enters the EU. /FunkyFly.talk_ 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the only reason Radko didn't do anything about it was lack of funds. You see, Macedonian Slavs are less well off in FYROM, the poorer end of Europe, than in Greece or Bulgaria, where standards of living are higher. --Tēlex 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they lack funds. The true reason is however not so much the low living standard, but the fact that Ratko is not financed by the Bulgarian government, unlike UMO Ilinden, and the colorful party, which are financed by the Republican government. /FunkyFly.talk_ 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I didn't know we were so rich to finance parties in Greece (which is X times richer and bigger) and Bulgaria (which is X times bigger). But FF, you remind of this guy [3]. He too had an opinion.. This was back THEN, do you think chances for that last stage of grief have 1. increased 2. decreased ? --Cigor 22:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I dont expect anything but denial on this issue. The official position of the Bulgarian government, for which UMO got banned btw, is that it is a "separatist organization financed by a foreign government". /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until you provide source that confirms that Bulgaria recognize existance of separate ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, all you can do is to avoid the issue. Kindly revert yourself. --Cigor 22:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont get ridiculous again. Look at the census data for 2001. It includes ethnic Macedonians. It is official. /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Btw. Cigor, you can still edit this page while blocked. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Vlatko: I'm afraid you have to shed your spine before being able to do that (according to Cigor at least). --Tēlex 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an logical respond to your actions, only that I did not wrote that trought e-mail. (It was a provocation to you)--Vlatko 10:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Goce Delchev. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. the above applies to me also. We don't want 3RR casualties on such a WP:LAME edit war. --Tēlex 15:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You just broke the 3RR on Petar Poparsov, and I'll have to report you. /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we are out of arguments allready? I am impressed!--Cigor 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to dig out the book, probably while you endure your block. /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can report me, but you are going to have to explain why were you deleting my reference.--Cigor 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Stifle (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

yeah - within a few minutes of posting the article it was defaced and re-formatted! Not being Macedonian or Greek, I wasn't really expecting that kind of intensity, especially since I tried to keep it pretty neutral! Anyway, I think the dust has settled now, and it's been over 24 hours without being defaced!

Just out of curiousity, I am assume you're Macedonian -- what does "Vardar Macedonia" mean? Is it the area within the borders of the Republic of Macedonia?

Cheers AWN2 05:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)AWN2AWN2 05:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Cheers AWN2 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)AWN2AWN2 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia

Hi Cigor, could you help me in monitoring for some time Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia? The article is at present plagued by a fanatic newbie, who refuses to follow wikipedia policies and has added much unsourced and pov material, and claims he will bully it through. I noted you have a certain interest in the article, so I thought you wouldn't like to see it worsened. Bye,--Aldux 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore

Hi, here it is a link about Bulgarian (including Bulgarian from Macedonia) folklore: http://liternet.bg/publish/katalog/knigi/f_antologii.htm, Regards, --AKeckarov 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renewal efforts of the Ohrid Archbishopric

Hi, I understand you're Macedonian, but could you please neutralize this creation of yours, it really is very Macedodnistic-sounding and quite disgusting. I see you're relying on Macedonian sources, which is a thing one should not do when writing about history of the Balkans in general. In particular, the article seems to deal with a non-existent Slavic Macedonian ethnic group in the 19th century, regard the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid as "Macedonian" (whatever that is supposed to mean with regard to the period) and interpret historical events in a very unnatural and biased way. Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Thanks, Todor →Bozhinov 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply! I broughy up the issue on WP:MWNB and we came up with the solution to redirect it to Macedonian Orthodox Church. Sorry for disappointing you, though I don't see how, I discussed the article with neutral parties. As for Gologanov, he's obviously wrong if he's claiming there are no Bulgarians and Greeks in Macedonia — there still are today :) Dunno whether what he's saying is authentic, I think he may have been promoting it rather than believing it, but he was obviously in the minority.

The Archbishopric was indeed Greek-dominated, but its roots and history lie in the Bulgarian Church, even the name suggests it. So Gologanov was trying to revive a Greek-dominated church that was historically Bulgarian?

Anyway, I see my post may have offended or disappointed you, sorry for that. Your article really was very biased and you have to understand you can't expect an article using only Macedonian sources to survive here, since we're seeking neutrality. Regards, Todor →Bozhinov 10:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm more like talking in principle, that Macedonian authors are highly unreliable on such topics and should be generally avoided. Dunno about the "Ohrid Church", but the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid was founded in the 11th century when the Byzantines subjugated Bulgaria and lowered the rank of our Patriarch so they could control our church.

I'm not an expert on the subject, so I wouldn't be too useful in neutralizing and improving the article. Redirecting was a solution proposed by Fut.Perf. and I find it quite handy for now. Maybe you should discuss at WP:MWNB? Regards, Todor →Bozhinov 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, the doctoral thesis of Nick Anastasovski again? It's not going to work. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Doctoral thesis are in public domain? --Cigor 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is plagiarism not to acknowledge it and present it as your own work. Second of all it is not a reliable source, as it is written by a prominent United Macedonian. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If plagiarism is what concerns you that is no problem, I can change that. As for reliable source his Ph.D is from Victoria University so I guess that is not a reliable institution? Also regarding U.Mac. stuff, that would be a valid remark if is interpertation we are talking about. If is merelly quotes from different authors (including T.G) I don't see how is relevant.--Cigor 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is a concern because you're seem to be doing it on a regular basis. I dont know about the institution but Nick Anastasovski is the president of the United Macedonians in Victoria. Also, if you read reliable sources, generally you have to use peer-reviewed publications. If something should be included from that text, it should be quantified "According to the President of the United Macedonians in Victoria, this and this happened...". /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the process of obtaining PhD? The data you present there has to be easily verifiable, and United Macedonians has nothing to do with it. --Cigor 15:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, it makes it a partisan source. PhD thesises are not a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. Where does it say that accepted PhD thesises are not a reliable source? --Cigor 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dont see them on the list of reliable sources, do you? Also check here. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see his work under Secondary_source. Why is under No_original_research accord. to u? --Cigor 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont, however, because the author is partisan. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is why there is verify tags and whatnots, not complete removals. Your edits are very partisan and yet you put yourself into arbitrage position. Anyway, I will wait and see what other think. --Cigor 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are partisan, where? That partisan, or even more? Anyway, this is guy is a United Macedonian. His work is reviewed by his advisor and probably a couple of other people. For making such big claims, you need pretty reliable sources, read the policies. Second, you cannot reproduce his text here witout his permission. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, his work was reviewed by his advisor and probably a couple of other people (probably also PhDs) from a very good university. That has more weight than your writings (or mine, for that matter) with all due respect.

As for LK if you did not see the irony there it's your problem. But I am happy to disuss about him (altough not that much as I don't like him) after we resolve this first. --Cigor 15:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do not write or synthesize original material. It is you who is doing it on regular basis. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Markov2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Markov2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titobroj2

I am a historian of Balkan and military studies. The facts are true. As a Macedonian i find it so sad that people like Kolisevski, who many call a Bulgarian did more for the Macedonians people, and he has no respect for it. And Tito did more for Macedonia, and he was not even Macedonian. Sramota to the Macedonians who can always find them selves under the Bulgarian flag so many times in a nations life. Sramota.

Better Source Request for Image:Ohrid1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ohrid1.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help :)

Hi Cigor :)

Not sure if you remember me -- I accidentally started a bit of a Greece-v-Macedonia flame-war about a year ago with an article I wrote about Macedonia, and you were very helpful in getting some terminology sorted out and getting the article fixed.

I have re-worked the Macedonian alphabet article, but before I post it, I want to make sure I haven't got anything wrong or made any cultural mistakes. Could you look over my article -- I'd be very interested to get your thoughts on it, as I am not Macedonian, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc! The proposed article is in my sandbox, User:AWN2/sandbox.

Cheers, AWN AWN2 06:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MirageFilm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MirageFilm.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mizar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mizar.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Anastasia1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anastasia1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dust2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dust2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GreatWater.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GreatWater.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Anastasia1.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Anastasia1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dust2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dust2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dust2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dust2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]