User talk:Wikimk

Welcome!

Hello, Wikimk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Warnings - June 2010

Hello, Wikimk, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Macedonian; did you know there is a Macedonian Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! -- 117Avenue (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My dear friend,
Please, next time before you make suggestions and consequently final conclusions first ask. The proper way of communication should sound like: "Why did you do this?"
And my answer to that should sound something like: “Please excuse me. I made a mistake while coping the template into Macedonian Wikipedia”.
I wish you a lot of fun on Wikipedia.
Kind regards,
--Wikimk (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, it looked like vandalism to me. 117Avenue (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Enjoy the day. Kind regards, --Wikimk (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources and how to use them

Sorry, but it seems you have been around for some time and you are yet to get familiar with how referencing works. I have added the reference at the bottom of the page in the references section. I add the exact in-line citation in the block of text itself. There is no need to repeat the same text over and over again. Please, try to get familiar with citation before performing such edits. You might as well wish to take undergo Mentorship. It would help you get familiar with things. You could have engaged in discussion before removing the refs, you know. Thank you. --Laveol ^T 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and, please refrain from removing referenced text. I have added info from a book much relevant to the article. The book gave details on the situation and I added them. It is called Context. --Laveol ^T 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did not remove the source to the Holocaust encyclopaedia, but just tagged it as dubious, since it is obviously written by an ethnic Macedonian author. It would be much like citing Bulgarian sources for example.--Laveol ^T 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello? I added info and did not remove any. This is well-documented and I used proper ways of citing my sources. Not liking it is no reason to remove valid info. I don't actually see you removing large chunks of info. Neither have I. I just added info which scholars researching the subject have found useful to include in their works. Are you going to argue with them? Or is it just that you do not like part of the info. So, I fail to see the reason for random rants which have hardly any relation to the subject matter. Let us take the sentence: In April 1941, as a part of the Invasion of Yugoslavia the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia, in a strive to recover the region, which it saw as a natural part of its own national homeland.(I did tweak it so it got some proper grammar around it, but in general it was there before my intervention. Now, such a sentence left like that is usually due some questions, like how and why. I saw Mr Chary, who has written quite the work on the subject, clarifying the matter. It is not like I have written something false or unrelated. It is how Bulgarian authorities justified their action, I have not inserted a comment saying it was right or wrong. It simply how it was.

Oh, and, please, refrain from adding silly sentences, like: This means that Bulgarians were not the only bad guys. This is an encyclopaedia, not a comics. Bulgarians have done what they have done in the war and have not done what they haven't. I already pointed you to the mentorship programme. It would be useful, both in terms of getting your way around and helping you write in a proper way (in terms of grammar and style).

Please, read everything I wrote, as I have the impression you did not do it last time around. Sorry, but I will have to regard any further removal of info or references as rather disruptive. You are not new to the project and have received previous warnings.

Thank you. --Laveol ^T 05:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. As you can see I accepted the apology from the person who gave me the warning (here: [1] on this same page).
:-)
I can advice you to be more patient and read everything before making your conclusions. We are not in a hurry here.
Anyway, I asked you something on your discussion page and I am still waiting for an answer. I will repeat the question here.
Could you please tell me what is the point of the following sentence:

Ever since its independence movement began in late XIX century, Macedonia had been trying to get free from Turkish (and later Serb) rule either as an independent state or as part of Bulgaria proper

in the article about History of Jews in Macedonia?
:-)
Thans for the answer. --Wikimk (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you haven't read my comment yet. I will wait until you finally decide to do so. Thanks in advance.--Laveol ^T 04:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, if I gave you that impression. I read your messages. Thanks for the suggestions and the comments. But, let me remind you about the question I asked you.
Could you please tell me what is the point of the following sentence:

Ever since its independence movement began in late XIX century, Macedonia had been trying to get free from Turkish (and later Serb) rule either as an independent state or as part of Bulgaria proper

in the article about History of Jews in Macedonia?
Thans for the answer. --Wikimk (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It seems like I will have to quote myself:

Let us take the sentence: In April 1941, as a part of the Invasion of Yugoslavia the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia, in a strive to recover the region, which it saw as a natural part of its own national homeland.(I did tweak it so it got some proper grammar around it, but in general it was there before my intervention. Now, such a sentence left like that is usually due some questions, like how and why. I saw Mr Chary, who has written quite the work on the subject, clarifying the matter. It is not like I have written something false or unrelated. It is how Bulgarian authorities justified their action, I have not inserted a comment saying it was right or wrong. It simply how it was.

It is part of my initial comment. I hope this makes it clear.

P.S: Please, read it. --Laveol ^T 09:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse me, my English is probably not as good as yours but i still do not understand what is the point of the last sentence in the following paragraph (taken from here [2]):

In January 1941 Bulgaria adopted antisemitic law called "Law on Protection of the Nation". In March 1941 Bulgaria became an ally of the Axis Powers. In April 1941, as a part of the Invasion of Yugoslavia the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia, in a strive to recover the region, which it saw as a natural part of its own national homeland. Ever since its independence movement began in late XIX century, Macedonia had been trying to get free from Turkish (and later Serb) rule either as an independent state or as part of Bulgaria proper.

This paragraph is about the introduction of antisemitic legislation in Bulgaria. Not about the Bulgarian historical rights for Macedonia. Changing the last sentence with the one proposed by you will not make this paragraph better. In addition to this, someone might conclude that Bulgaria introduced the antisemitic legislation and sent Macedonian Jews in Treblinka because of its historical rights on Macedonia. We both know that was not the case, and that there was strong opposition to this in Bulgaria. In Romania and Yugoslavia at the same time the antisemitism was on rise. As i said, I think it is better to remove the last sentence from that paragraph. TKind regards, --Wikimk (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I really hate to repeat myself. I have not replaced any sentence. The previous sentence was there. It says that Bulgaria saw the region as part of its homeland. Since left like that the sentence makes no sense, I added the reason for such a view. As I said (and this must be the 10th time I say what I have already said) one of the prominent authors in the field has followed the same line. When writing about the Jews of the occupied lands he mentioned why Bulgarians sought to occupy exactly those lands and not any others. This is context (also something I said) and it helps a reader unfamiliar with the topic understand the situation. And again - this is an encyclopaedia and its aim is to help readers, not omit facts that are of somebody's dislike. Thanks for not reverting anything, btw. --Laveol ^T 11:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not ask you to repeat yourself. I am only sharing my opinion that the last sentence of the discussed paragraph to someone could sounds as the justification for the deportation of Macedonian Jews to Treblinka. I tried to remove it, you put it back. The choice is yours. Regards, --Wikimk (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To justify what? Nothing could justify that. And the sentence is not meant as a justification, neither does it sound like one. It just explains why the country decided to occupy those exact territories and not for example Southern Greece or something like that. I have nevertheless re-arranged it to make it sound less like that. See if you like it now. --Laveol ^T 11:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That is you opinion. I tried to remove the sentence which sounds to me as a justification of the deportation of Macedonian Jews to Treblinka and you put it back. I do not share you opinion and I do not think that this discussion will help you change your mind. Regards, --Wikimk (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, did you see the latest revision? Btw, people usually go into an argument to see the other point of view and not to persuade their opponent (insert other suitable word) in their rightfulness at all costs. I am really amused at the part: I do not think that this discussion will help you change your mind and I am really sorry if that is truly what you meant to say...--Laveol ^T 14:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I do not mind the fact that we have different opinion. I am sad knowing that you do not mind the fact that someone might consider the end of that paragraph as an excuse for implementation of anti-Semitic legislation in Bulgaria and consequently as the justification for the deportation of Macedonian Jews to Treblinka. Please keep your opinion. I will keep mine. However, it is always good to have a chat. Regards. --Wikimk (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2013

I'm Jingiby. I wanted to let you know that I undid your recent contributions because they didn't appear constructive. If you believe the info you have changed was correct or/and biased, please discuss the changes on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wikimk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wikimk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)