User talk:Kluche

June 2022

Hello, Kluche, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jigiby,

I am neither coordinating nor am I using multiple accounts, I am merely augmenting grammatically errors and improving the consistency of the article.

Best regards,

Kluche Kluche (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the removed image - it is a low quality image. You can replace it by converting the page in the PDF document into a image file, then attaching it to the article. Thank you. Kluche (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think that the letter of Dicho Zograf in the infobox is of better quality. Jingiby (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jingiby (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referencing my addition of the "Commemoration" heading in Zograf's page - it was deleted/undone on the grounds that it was "unsourced", despite there being multiple journalistic sources of actual events which have occurred. So I merely restored it. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lyuben Apostolov (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gusfriend was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lyuben Apostolov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lyuben Apostolov, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kluche! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Gusfriend (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Dimitar Talev, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Todor Aleksandrov, you may be blocked from editing. Jingiby (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Kluche! Your additions to Dragi Gjorgiev have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa,

Thank you for taking the time and informing me about Wikipedia's relation with copyright.

I do agree that paraphrasing parts of the article should have been done, and I do recognize my shortcoming on that field.

Here is what I was able to find on the copyright for each source used in the article:

1. At the end of the web page of the first source, the copyright is from 2016, so 6 years expired.

2. I've failed to find any copyright mentions on the second site. Besides, I only used it as proof/reference that Gjorgiev is in fact the director of the Institute for National History (the site in question is the site of said Institute).

3. I've failed to find any copyright on the third source, which is Gjorgiev's publicly-available CV, which I found in the site of the second source used in the article.

I hope this solves the copyright issues, if anything else arises I will get to it in roughly 9 hours, as I will not be available prior to that period.

Best regards, Kluche (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage where I found the matching content is this one, which is marked as "©2016 МАНУ All rights reserved." Are you trying to say that the copyright has expired? It has not. Also, under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright, whether it has a copyright notice on it or not. — Diannaa (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war in Gun law in North Macedonia

Your recent editing history at Gun law in North Macedonia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Carpaniola (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An argument can be made that you have violated this exact same rule - lest we forget your edit was 11 days after my correction, a great time interval. The current consensus is also in favour of 'Macedonian'. Kluche (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you have been reported in WP:ANI Carpaniola (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Слобода или смрт

Здраво. Чини ми се да се на модерном македонском језику овај мото пише и изговара као и мото четника? Чак се спомиње у извору. Хвала унапред. Savasampion (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Savasampion,

First off, to my knowledge the only language to be used in the English Wikipedia is English. Secondly - yes you are correct, the motto is written the same as the Chetnik motto, however I'm unsure if it's pronounced the same. I have also failed to find the motto being mentioned in the source i.e Tchavdar Marinov, Historiographical Revisionism and Re-Articulation of Memory in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia p.7. I also fail to see the relevance of keeping that part.

Best regards

Kluche (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Lyuben Apostolov

Hello, Kluche. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lyuben Apostolov, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About София помни.

Hi, The "Sofia Remembers" project aims to create a database of prominent figures from Bulgarian history, culture, science and politics buried in the Central Sofia Cemetery. The site contains a map with descriptions, photos and biographies of the important people who will introduce the citizens of Sofia and the Bulgarian public to a little-known part of the capital's cultural heritage. For the first time, the cultural history of Sofia is presented from the point of view of cemeteries as "places of memory".The Central Sofia Cemetery was established more than 120 years ago. In the course of time, the monuments of the prominent persons buried there are lost. For many of them, no accurate archive is kept and thus they disappear irretrievably for us. Therefore, respect for the memory of the deceased prominent figures from Bulgarian and world history led us to create a register, including an encyclopedic database of the lives and deeds of those buried there, as well as a map describing the location of their burial places. Most of the important personalities who participated in the formation of the Third Bulgarian State are buried in Sofia. These are revolutionaries, military figures, politicians, writers, people of art, culture and sports, people who occupy an honorable place not only in Bulgarian but also in world history. More info here. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, while the site could be considered useful and reliable in terms where these individuals are buried, I must object that it is a reliable source on other matters, as it gives fairly short and abridged summeries of the individual's lifes. 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Kluche (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Jingiby (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Your recent editing history at Rizo Rizov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Nauka (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alekso Martulkov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Nauka (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Čučkov

Hi thanks for creating this article. When we translate or borrow from other language wikis it’s a requirement to acknowledge the source. The best way to do this is to include it in your edit summary (e.g. “translated from mk.wiki”) and there’s also a translation template you can add to the talk page. If you can confirm where material for this article was sourced I’ll add the template to the talk page for you. Happy editing and please leave a message on my talk page if you need any help Mccapra (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mccapra, thank you for informing me of this rule, I'll keep it in mind for future edits.

I used the Macedonian Wiki article in order to get the general chronology/flow (although the after WWII section I admit is directly translated), coupled with the sources listed in the article, particularly number 1 and 2.

If any more information is needed please do let me know. Thank you again and best regards Kluche (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I’ll do the translation template to the article talk page and you can copy and re-use it for other articles you create. All the best Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

You do not fully understand what vandalism is. Do not call other editors' edits in content disputes "vandalism". It is considered a personal attack, as per WP:VANDAL. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 while I thank you for pointing this out and assure you this will not happen, I never called the edit vandalism, instead stating that it was bordering it (but not actual vandalism), as the edit in question has been happening repeatedly for an extended period of time, each time being reverted to the (then) consensus and stable version. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the "bordering to vandalism" comment is not constructive in a content dispute, especially given the fact that I am an "established" editor with more than 6 years of experience. You also referred to another editor's edit as "vandalism" a few days ago [1]. Anyways, I am happy you understand the issue I raised - that is the important thing now. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, ironically another editor removed the image as well. Just want to point out that I did not do more than 3 reverts (and one of them was a partial revert) on the page in question. Yesterday, I edited the page once. I'd also like to point out you also did 3 reverts - 2 partial one full revert.

Also, casual reminder (not implication!) of WP:EW, specifically the "What to do if you see edit-warring behavior" section. Kluche (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported zillions of edit warriors through the years, I know very well what edit warring is and how to deal with it. You have made 4 reverts on the article, and it is considered to be edit warring. The fact that you have made them in something more than 24 hours does not change that. If you revert again there, a report will be filed. And no, I have 2 reverts, not 3. If I make 2 reverts one after the other without any edit by another editor between them, they are counted as a single revert. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend Alltan (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lyuben Apostolov

Hello, Kluche. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lyuben Apostolov".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation or occupation?

Hi, initially Bulgaria occupied Vardar Macedonia and later annexed it. Check for example "The Bulgarian Army in Yugoslavia 1941-1945" from Boro Mitrovski, Venceslav Glišić, Tomo Ristovski (1971) on p. 40: The annexation was legalized by the Bulgarian National Sobranie which passed a number of laws concerning Macedonia and parts of Serbia as component parts of the Bulgarian state. See also "War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 Occupation and Collaboration" from Jozo Tomasevich (2002) Stanford University Press publication, where he on many places uses this terminology: cheeck here, please. Jingiby (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jingiby, both Hugh Poulton asserts in p.101 of "Who are the Macedonians" that: While Hitler did not allow the Bulgarians formally to annex the parts they now controlled, and the new border between the Italian and Bulgarian controlled portions was not defined, leading to periodic tensions between the two, Bulgaria was given a free hand in the areas which it controlled.

Multiple references of the Bulgarians as an occupying force can be seen in "Territorial Revisionism and the Allies of Germany in the Second World War."

Best regards. Kluche (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you carefully check the second source you have provided, you will see that despite Germany's reluctance, Bulgaria annexed the region anyway. Check here on pp. 118, 162, 168, etc., please. Indeed, the first book really denies this conclusion. It is normal for there to be a difference between individual studies, especially on such a touchy subject. As I've rummaged through the literature, it's really a tough question. However, this is why the prevailing opinion of analysts normally is accepted. If we assume that I gave you 3 sources confirming the annexation, and with you things are 1 to 1, then still 4 publications confirm the annexation and one rejects it. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]