This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The official NATO reference is the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and this is the name that should be used in NATO-related articles per WP:MOSMAC. Please refrain from shortening it to "Macedonia". ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 06:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I found this [2] we should use it. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be better to call this summit (and the others) the Bucharest NATO summit? Surely this is how it is known rather than the Bucharest summit? Google test shows NATO summit in Bucharest as the favorite. AndrewRT( Talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
NATO Ijanderson977 ( talk) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We have three issues mentioned in the section:
The first two issues received international condemnation (i.e. not only "Greek", as the article would say before my revert). See the sources about EU's expansion commissioner Olli Rehn for example, who went further on to add that "the act was not in line with the principle of good neighborly relations ... is offensive against the Jewish community in Greece".
Now the third issue, is much more important: It concerns the head of the government of a state which is about to enter a military alliance, bow and deposit a wreath in front of a map with irredentist content against a member of that very alliance! The Greek MFA has noted this action in multiple occasions in the international media (along with the rest of the irredentist propaganda in the country's schoolbooks and govt publications etc), as the major reason behind its veto. I have included two very reputable sources on that Greek concern, and there are numerous others.
If there were something to be deleted due to ...space considerations, that should definitely NOT be the actual reason for the veto. I don't get why this is pro-Greek or whatever, and I really wish things were different. Niko Silver 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Greece had threatened on several occasions to veto the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's NATO bid due to the longstanding naming dispute over the latter's name.[7] Athens argues that use of the name "Macedonia" implies territorial claims on the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia, a claim rejected by Skopje. NATO officials said the country could begin talks on joining the alliance as soon as it had resolved its dispute with Greece.[17]
Agree?
Its NPOV, simple and gives a brief explanation to the dispute, which affects FYROM NATO membership. That is all what is needed
Ijanderson977 (
talk)
20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
These are not really needed on this article, as they are related to Macedonia naming dispute instead, not the 2008 NATO summit Ijanderson977 ( talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
While the article does state Greek claims and stance, it fails to include the Macedonian position and reply to the Greek stance.
For instance, " Athens states Republic of Macedonia has territorial claims" should be followed by " Skopje denies the allegations Athens puts forth, since the Republic of Macedonia has changed its constitution to state no territorial claims towards its neighbors. reference: http://www.constitution.org/cons/macedoni.htm
Another is the wrath under the "United Macedonia" allegation, the whole picture is not presented. Please add "The wrath was placed on a VMRO member grave, who fought for Ottoman Macedonia which was presented above the PM."
Also, the article does not state violation of the Interim Accord with Greek veto. Please add, "With the veto, Greece has violated the Interim Accord, which states Greece will not prevent Republic of Macedonia from joining any international organization as long as it does so with the FYROM acronym reference: http://www.hri.org/docs/fyrom/95-27866.html
The following are not associated with the government of the Republic of Macedonia therefore it is difficult to blame the government for the actions and its allowance of freedom of speech 1.) The cross on the Greek flag replaced by a swastika 2.) Greek PM Karamanlis depicted wearing a Nazi SS uniform
You may add portions, but please do not remove my content. Maktruth ( talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Maktruth
Please make these changes so the whole picture is known, which allows Wikipedia to remain a neutral site, which shows both
Greek and
ethnic Macedonian sides of the veto.
Maktruth
Nikos is right; you need secondary sources that interpret the primary sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have changed a bit the part talking about the Interim Accord that was claimed by FYROM to be violated by the Greek veto, in order to make it objective and to sound neutral in reference to both sides' views on the issue. Please advise if smthng wrong Cdr259 ( talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you refer to my "Greek position on the NEED to apply the veto": i.e. meaning what Greece sees as a need to apply the veto. On the other hand, what you say ("...whn in fact the Greek government broke the accord with the veto") does not sound neutral either. My point was and is that we are not here to discuss who broke the accord, just to document the publicly stated aspects of both countries. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdr259 ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In a situation that F.Y.R.O.M. hangs swastika flags, we have a wikipedia article that only reads "Greece violates an accord". The swastika flag info is irrelevant as well as officials of them encouraging the anti-Greek sentiment that reaches levels of discrimination of the antisemitist type, but the ant-Greek weasel wording is not. Very nice, great success. -- Leladax ( talk) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Unfortunately yes. It says officially that it doesn't (of course), but the actions are louder than words... There's a whole lot more than a mere terminology dispute. See also United Macedonia. Niko Silver 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This week, the most powerful military alliance the world has ever known will meet at a time of growing global threats to international peace and security. But at the Nato summit in Bucharest, issues of Kosovo's independence, tensions in the Middle East, growing divisions with Russia, prospects of resolution of the Cyprus conflict, and membership prospects for Ukraine and Georgia, may have to take a backseat as ministers and generals debate the most weighty issue of all: what the Macedonians can call themselves.
At the summit, the Alliance was expected to extend membership invitations to Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, but Greece is blocking Skopje's bid due to the name issue. Athens' extreme diplomatic inhospitality towards its newest neighbour is rooted in the national indignation that another country should give itself the name of one of its own provinces, especially the one associated with Alexander the Great and Phillip of Macedonia, and fears that Skopje's use of the name implies a claim to the Greek northern province. Greece has already forced on the Macedonians the appalling moniker, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", or FYROM, in all international forums. As if Athens would ever accept to be called the "Former Ottoman Province of Greece".
To break the impasse before the summit, various compromises have been suggested, nearly all of which are as deeply insulting to Macedonians as FYROM. In the last few weeks, we've seen "New Macedonia" or "Upper Macedonia". The Macedonians have reportedly now agreed to add the geographic tagline: "Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)" to meet a previous Greek demand, but even that is not apparently enough for the Greeks today. Talks have moved from the UN to Washington in hopes of a solution before a train wreck this week.
The notion that two geographic locations cannot share the same name would strike many as bizarre. Few would mistake Paris, France, for its counterpart in Texas, or Toledo, Spain, for its counterpart in Ohio. The residents of the Belgian province of Luxembourg have never been threatened by the country of the same name, nor by the Luxembourg Palace in the aforementioned Paris - France, that is. There are so many Springfields in the US that it has become an inside joke on The Simpsons.
Unfortunately, Greek intransigence on the Macedonian name issue is not just an amusing or annoying nationalist throwback. It has real and damaging consequences, not least for Balkan - including Greek - security and stability. Macedonia's membership in Nato would stabilise the region and Greece's relations with its neighbours in the same way that Turkey's membership has. It would facilitate an open dialogue on all issues. A stable, secure and prosperous Macedonia, whatever its people choose to call themselves, will only be good for Greece.
Contrast those strategic interests with the apparent threat that Greece seems to fear. Does Athens really think that the country of Macedonia, with some two million relatively poor people, wants to take over a region in Greece, a country which is far richer and five times more populous? Do they believe that Skopje is pushing the territorial claims of Alexander and seeking an empire stretching not just to Thessaloniki, but all the way to Afghanistan and Egypt?
There are real and practical solutions here. Nearly seven years ago, the International Crisis Group suggested a compromise under which the UN, Nato, the European Union and other international organisations would use the Macedonian-language "Republika Makedonija". This would come in the context of a bilateral treaty between Skopje and Athens in which Macedonia would commit to fair treatment of the Greek cultural heritage in the Macedonian educational curriculum, agree that Greece could use its own name for the state of Macedonia, and commit to strict protection against any Macedonian exploitation of its constitutional name to disadvantage Greece commercially or legally. Alternatively, a solution that includes a geographic qualifier is still a workable option. Both should be considered.
Athens has long-standing and legitimate concerns on key issues being considered in the context of Nato, as well as the European Union, including the futures of Cyprus and Kosovo. These are serious issues involving serious debates. By sticking to a hardline - and, some would say, frivolous - position on the Macedonian name issue, it is risking its credibility on these questions. More importantly, it is risking adding another element of instability in a region that has already seen far too much tragedy in the recent past. Greece should know better: its friends and allies from around the world - including from Athens, Georgia - should tell them this in no uncertain terms. -- Marc KJH ( talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, all this above is mere philology on the issue. We have an NPOV dispute here: "rejected by Skopje officially" vs "done by Skopje in practice". We either mention both in this article, or none. WP:NPOV, not WP:MPOV. Niko Silver 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The "Outcome" section seems to have been written by someone whose first language is other than English. It deserves a rewrite. -- Daysleeper47 ( talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a picture with both of them? I would love to see it in the article. Marc KJH ( talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The article was misleading claiming there was a Greek veto when in actual fact no invitation was extended in the first place. Xenovatis ( talk) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
read title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
With NATO members (at least European), Romania and Albania.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it funny how I wrote a neutral article in the past in regards to the Macedonia portion of NATO summit. I have read the article now, and it disgusts me how much the Greeks have twisted and manipulated wording to favor the Greek side, disgusting. Change it back to its neutral article or I will do so myself. Maktruth ( talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted to Niko's wording. Maktruth, Greece's "allegations", "violation" and the idea that the US security pact is linked to the latter are your personal opinions, not NPOV. ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No, there is most certainly no such argument. We can only report what each side has to say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· ( talk) 07:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that this is one of the few (if not the only) nato summit that had no protests in the street. The police contained all the protests to lecture halls and cinemas where anti-nato propaganda films were screened. This is not mentioned in the article. Is it true?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The official NATO reference is the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and this is the name that should be used in NATO-related articles per WP:MOSMAC. Please refrain from shortening it to "Macedonia". ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 06:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I found this [2] we should use it. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be better to call this summit (and the others) the Bucharest NATO summit? Surely this is how it is known rather than the Bucharest summit? Google test shows NATO summit in Bucharest as the favorite. AndrewRT( Talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
NATO Ijanderson977 ( talk) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We have three issues mentioned in the section:
The first two issues received international condemnation (i.e. not only "Greek", as the article would say before my revert). See the sources about EU's expansion commissioner Olli Rehn for example, who went further on to add that "the act was not in line with the principle of good neighborly relations ... is offensive against the Jewish community in Greece".
Now the third issue, is much more important: It concerns the head of the government of a state which is about to enter a military alliance, bow and deposit a wreath in front of a map with irredentist content against a member of that very alliance! The Greek MFA has noted this action in multiple occasions in the international media (along with the rest of the irredentist propaganda in the country's schoolbooks and govt publications etc), as the major reason behind its veto. I have included two very reputable sources on that Greek concern, and there are numerous others.
If there were something to be deleted due to ...space considerations, that should definitely NOT be the actual reason for the veto. I don't get why this is pro-Greek or whatever, and I really wish things were different. Niko Silver 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Greece had threatened on several occasions to veto the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's NATO bid due to the longstanding naming dispute over the latter's name.[7] Athens argues that use of the name "Macedonia" implies territorial claims on the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia, a claim rejected by Skopje. NATO officials said the country could begin talks on joining the alliance as soon as it had resolved its dispute with Greece.[17]
Agree?
Its NPOV, simple and gives a brief explanation to the dispute, which affects FYROM NATO membership. That is all what is needed
Ijanderson977 (
talk)
20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
These are not really needed on this article, as they are related to Macedonia naming dispute instead, not the 2008 NATO summit Ijanderson977 ( talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
While the article does state Greek claims and stance, it fails to include the Macedonian position and reply to the Greek stance.
For instance, " Athens states Republic of Macedonia has territorial claims" should be followed by " Skopje denies the allegations Athens puts forth, since the Republic of Macedonia has changed its constitution to state no territorial claims towards its neighbors. reference: http://www.constitution.org/cons/macedoni.htm
Another is the wrath under the "United Macedonia" allegation, the whole picture is not presented. Please add "The wrath was placed on a VMRO member grave, who fought for Ottoman Macedonia which was presented above the PM."
Also, the article does not state violation of the Interim Accord with Greek veto. Please add, "With the veto, Greece has violated the Interim Accord, which states Greece will not prevent Republic of Macedonia from joining any international organization as long as it does so with the FYROM acronym reference: http://www.hri.org/docs/fyrom/95-27866.html
The following are not associated with the government of the Republic of Macedonia therefore it is difficult to blame the government for the actions and its allowance of freedom of speech 1.) The cross on the Greek flag replaced by a swastika 2.) Greek PM Karamanlis depicted wearing a Nazi SS uniform
You may add portions, but please do not remove my content. Maktruth ( talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Maktruth
Please make these changes so the whole picture is known, which allows Wikipedia to remain a neutral site, which shows both
Greek and
ethnic Macedonian sides of the veto.
Maktruth
Nikos is right; you need secondary sources that interpret the primary sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have changed a bit the part talking about the Interim Accord that was claimed by FYROM to be violated by the Greek veto, in order to make it objective and to sound neutral in reference to both sides' views on the issue. Please advise if smthng wrong Cdr259 ( talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you refer to my "Greek position on the NEED to apply the veto": i.e. meaning what Greece sees as a need to apply the veto. On the other hand, what you say ("...whn in fact the Greek government broke the accord with the veto") does not sound neutral either. My point was and is that we are not here to discuss who broke the accord, just to document the publicly stated aspects of both countries. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdr259 ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In a situation that F.Y.R.O.M. hangs swastika flags, we have a wikipedia article that only reads "Greece violates an accord". The swastika flag info is irrelevant as well as officials of them encouraging the anti-Greek sentiment that reaches levels of discrimination of the antisemitist type, but the ant-Greek weasel wording is not. Very nice, great success. -- Leladax ( talk) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Unfortunately yes. It says officially that it doesn't (of course), but the actions are louder than words... There's a whole lot more than a mere terminology dispute. See also United Macedonia. Niko Silver 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This week, the most powerful military alliance the world has ever known will meet at a time of growing global threats to international peace and security. But at the Nato summit in Bucharest, issues of Kosovo's independence, tensions in the Middle East, growing divisions with Russia, prospects of resolution of the Cyprus conflict, and membership prospects for Ukraine and Georgia, may have to take a backseat as ministers and generals debate the most weighty issue of all: what the Macedonians can call themselves.
At the summit, the Alliance was expected to extend membership invitations to Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, but Greece is blocking Skopje's bid due to the name issue. Athens' extreme diplomatic inhospitality towards its newest neighbour is rooted in the national indignation that another country should give itself the name of one of its own provinces, especially the one associated with Alexander the Great and Phillip of Macedonia, and fears that Skopje's use of the name implies a claim to the Greek northern province. Greece has already forced on the Macedonians the appalling moniker, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", or FYROM, in all international forums. As if Athens would ever accept to be called the "Former Ottoman Province of Greece".
To break the impasse before the summit, various compromises have been suggested, nearly all of which are as deeply insulting to Macedonians as FYROM. In the last few weeks, we've seen "New Macedonia" or "Upper Macedonia". The Macedonians have reportedly now agreed to add the geographic tagline: "Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)" to meet a previous Greek demand, but even that is not apparently enough for the Greeks today. Talks have moved from the UN to Washington in hopes of a solution before a train wreck this week.
The notion that two geographic locations cannot share the same name would strike many as bizarre. Few would mistake Paris, France, for its counterpart in Texas, or Toledo, Spain, for its counterpart in Ohio. The residents of the Belgian province of Luxembourg have never been threatened by the country of the same name, nor by the Luxembourg Palace in the aforementioned Paris - France, that is. There are so many Springfields in the US that it has become an inside joke on The Simpsons.
Unfortunately, Greek intransigence on the Macedonian name issue is not just an amusing or annoying nationalist throwback. It has real and damaging consequences, not least for Balkan - including Greek - security and stability. Macedonia's membership in Nato would stabilise the region and Greece's relations with its neighbours in the same way that Turkey's membership has. It would facilitate an open dialogue on all issues. A stable, secure and prosperous Macedonia, whatever its people choose to call themselves, will only be good for Greece.
Contrast those strategic interests with the apparent threat that Greece seems to fear. Does Athens really think that the country of Macedonia, with some two million relatively poor people, wants to take over a region in Greece, a country which is far richer and five times more populous? Do they believe that Skopje is pushing the territorial claims of Alexander and seeking an empire stretching not just to Thessaloniki, but all the way to Afghanistan and Egypt?
There are real and practical solutions here. Nearly seven years ago, the International Crisis Group suggested a compromise under which the UN, Nato, the European Union and other international organisations would use the Macedonian-language "Republika Makedonija". This would come in the context of a bilateral treaty between Skopje and Athens in which Macedonia would commit to fair treatment of the Greek cultural heritage in the Macedonian educational curriculum, agree that Greece could use its own name for the state of Macedonia, and commit to strict protection against any Macedonian exploitation of its constitutional name to disadvantage Greece commercially or legally. Alternatively, a solution that includes a geographic qualifier is still a workable option. Both should be considered.
Athens has long-standing and legitimate concerns on key issues being considered in the context of Nato, as well as the European Union, including the futures of Cyprus and Kosovo. These are serious issues involving serious debates. By sticking to a hardline - and, some would say, frivolous - position on the Macedonian name issue, it is risking its credibility on these questions. More importantly, it is risking adding another element of instability in a region that has already seen far too much tragedy in the recent past. Greece should know better: its friends and allies from around the world - including from Athens, Georgia - should tell them this in no uncertain terms. -- Marc KJH ( talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, all this above is mere philology on the issue. We have an NPOV dispute here: "rejected by Skopje officially" vs "done by Skopje in practice". We either mention both in this article, or none. WP:NPOV, not WP:MPOV. Niko Silver 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The "Outcome" section seems to have been written by someone whose first language is other than English. It deserves a rewrite. -- Daysleeper47 ( talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a picture with both of them? I would love to see it in the article. Marc KJH ( talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The article was misleading claiming there was a Greek veto when in actual fact no invitation was extended in the first place. Xenovatis ( talk) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
read title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
With NATO members (at least European), Romania and Albania.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it funny how I wrote a neutral article in the past in regards to the Macedonia portion of NATO summit. I have read the article now, and it disgusts me how much the Greeks have twisted and manipulated wording to favor the Greek side, disgusting. Change it back to its neutral article or I will do so myself. Maktruth ( talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted to Niko's wording. Maktruth, Greece's "allegations", "violation" and the idea that the US security pact is linked to the latter are your personal opinions, not NPOV. ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No, there is most certainly no such argument. We can only report what each side has to say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· ( talk) 07:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that this is one of the few (if not the only) nato summit that had no protests in the street. The police contained all the protests to lecture halls and cinemas where anti-nato propaganda films were screened. This is not mentioned in the article. Is it true?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)