![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right. Examples:
I am adding a POV banner to it. All the users who will come up with their "stop vandalizing the neutral version of the article" are probably the "experts" who wrote the aforementioned sentences. DD1997DD ( talk) 15:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
lol Balkaners fighting over the nationality of a dead person again. Delchev was not an ethnic Mac. -- James Richards ( talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ ShockD: Explanation of all the banners I added:
Mind you that these observations are just made from a quick glance. One source is from an unreliable website (e.g. 87), the number of sources published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is excessive and not a single Macedonian source is cited. The list goes on and on. This brings us to the conclusion that not only is this article brimming with the issues I mentioned, but there are numerous others not so obvious ones. Therefore, we can safely say that this is a parody and a pathetic one at that. DD1997DD ( talk) 20:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
What are those quotes that you are talking about, and where are they from? -- James Richards ( talk) 14:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Lads, can Kromid, Local hero, DD1997DD or anyone else please provide examples of quotes and sources from where Gotse Delchev where he says he is not a Bulgarian or where he differentiates Mac from Bulg. -- James Richards ( talk) 17:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
So let me get this straight:
To me, calling the work of hundreds of editors a "parody" while doing nothing but complain and put labels over it is disruptive behavior.
Lastly, I'm intrigued by your statement about the "users who have no made edits in years". Who are you referring to and what's your point? You do realize that people can watch articles without actively contributing to them right? I see that you're a new user so now you know. And please cool down, this is the second time I'm asking you. The arrogant attitude towards other participants in the discussion is uncalled for. -- ShockD ( talk) 19:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
My statement means that they (so User: Ted Masters, PowerBUL, Jelizover) have probably been recruited by another user since they have given no input whatsoever, but just reverted other users' edits without even discussing. This is a blatant case of canvassing. They might also be puppet accounts of other users who try to avoid violating the three revert rule.
And lastly, nowhere was my attitude arrogant, I am just perplexed that I have to point out the brazen bias in this article with such long comments. And I am completely cooled down, don't worry. DD1997DD ( talk) 19:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@DD1997DD
"Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right." - DD1997DD
This is the first sentence of your talk ticket, so providing reliable evidence that Delchev did not identify as Bulgarian is key. Can you provide these quotes or not? Because multiple quotes by Delchev exist that show the opposite. --
James Richards (
talk)
19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If you are not able to provide such reliable sources then please just say so we can address the other points of concern that are raised. -- James Richards ( talk) 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
"Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right."
Again I have highlighted what you have said above, you can't just throw around adjectives and expect not to have to back them up with reliable evidence. And no,I am not off topic buddy, one of your points is you questioning the neutrality of this article, since his ethncity is the main point of contention please provide some evidence of Delchev not self-identifying Bulgarian. -- James Richards ( talk) 20:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
But if you can't provide any reliable evidence that Delchev wasn't Bulgarian doesn't that mean that Macedonian historiography is 'false and made up'? Since there is reliable evidence of Delchev self-identifying as Bulgarian. "Nowhere did I say that his ethnicity is the main point of contention. The main point of contention is how this article is presented and how much weight is given to belittle certain views." And please stop with the games, the whole point of contention is his nationality, Mac historiography sees him as Mac and Bulg as Bulg.
It's why you should provide evidence to support your views, because reality and POV are not the same thing. If there is evidence that Delchev self-identified as Bulgarian and no evidence that he self-identified as ethnic Macedonian then the only conclusion in this case is that Macedonian historiography is wrong. -- James Richards ( talk) 20:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Historical interpretation is about using primary, secondary evidence and critical thinking not just imagining things. I have asked multiple times for reliable evidence to support the Macedonian historiography and no one wants to/can provide it.-- James Richards ( talk) 21:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
DD1997DD, I sorted out the grammar issues you raised, so is it okay to remove the grammar tag, if any are noticed in the future just correct them no need for a tag. -- James Richards ( talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
My current view is this: If there is only self-published sources by Delchev of him calling himself and fellow partners around him Bulgarians than the Macedonian historiography which seems him as an ethnic Macedonian is wrong. Please if you can provide any contrary reliable sources about this, no need philosophy or crying discrimination. -- James Richards ( talk) 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
and Macedonian Blood Wedding.
This isn't North Korea, if there is reason and evidence for the Macedonian historiography to be criticized as wrong or innacurate or explaining the evolution of this historiography then there is no need to have this information removed as it is a key part of the article and why Delchev is such a point of contention. Provide evidence not empty statements. -- James Richards ( talk) 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Also per Wiki style guide "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."
But keep in mind
"The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It refers to an easily learned and easily applied procedure or standard, based on practical experience rather than theory." -- James Richards ( talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Remaining three tags:
"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
--
James Richards (
talk)
14:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Guys please per Wikipedia policy
"Don't tag an article if you can easily and confidently fix the problem. Your goal is an improved article, not a tagged article."
The intro has been shortened to four paragraphs are recommended by Wiki policy and if you see any spelling or grammar mistakes in the article just fix them. -- James Richards ( talk) 23:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The style guide recommendes that for 'More than 30,000 characters' 'Three or four paragraphs' are enough, I don't really see the big issue with the paragraphs if I am honest. They have already been reduced from 5 to 4.
I don't think you really understand what an 'argumentative essay' is, you can read up the policies on the tag that is on the page. -- James Richards ( talk) 03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This tag doesn't make sense, I vote to remove it. -- StoyanStoyanov80 ( talk) 20:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Ask for unbiased opinions in an wp:rfc or on the talk page of a related wiki project. Not by canvassing individuals . Nightenbelle ( talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gotse Delchev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Гоце Делчев was a macedonian fighting for Macedonia. 92.53.50.170 ( talk) 09:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gotse Delchev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Goce Delcev was a Macedonian revolutioner fighting against the Turks and died in Banitsa, AEGEAN Macedonia Macedonianphalanges ( talk) 21:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
In a letter to Nikola Maleshevski, Gotse Delchev self-identifies as Bulgarian
"Действително жалко е, но що можемъ да правимъ, когато си сме българи и всички страдаме отъ една обща болѣсть!"
English
"It is really a pity, but what can we do when we are all Bulgarians and we all suffer from a common disease!"
I'm writing this because Dikaiosyni has removed the word bulgarian from the article. Why is that? Either explanation should be given, or the article should be reverted. Svetoslav80 ( talk) 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gotse Delchev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to edit certain grammar mistakes on this page that I have found. SinkWiki ( talk) 06:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gotse Delchev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is a historically known fact that Гоце Делчев is a Macedonian, there is no such thing as a 'macedonian bulgarian', and he cannot be what he gave his life to protect his people's interests from as seen from his deeds and recorded documents of his writing. Fighting for an independent state of Macedonia for the slavic people known as Macedonians. 46.217.216.208 ( talk) 23:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'll clarify my recent edits here (see 1, 2 3), to ensure that there is no misunderstanding and since a good amount of information was removed. So most of the information that was removed was irrelevant, unrelated or in news style. I'd like to clarify that I do plan to expand the sub-section “ Post-communism” however I had to trim a good amount of irrelevant information first. Most of the information on Wikipedia is supposed to be relevant, preferably long-term and encyclopedic. Routine or trivial information (ex. details of progress of historical commission or opinions of historical commission's members; see WP:BALASP) will clutter the section and make the readability worse. It also doesn't look encyclopedic. As time passes and things change, even information that was relevant before could become irrelevant. The section can be expanded with information that is relevant, like for example - the common view of Macedonian historians about Delchev (which doesn't entail listing opinions separately), common view of Bulgarian historians, view of international scholars, all significant opinions and etc, which have to be within due weight. Two sub-sections should be enough to cover the controversy. We should include only the relevant details, not every possible detail there could be. The part about joint celebration attempts appears to be poorly sourced, because none of the sources mention IMRO, Delchev or even joint celebrations of historical figures, so the information isn't directly supported by the sources. Unless the information is covered by the Transitions Online source, which I have no access to, but I've retained it since it's still a valid source. One of the sources is dead, which I attempted to fix and find an alternative source. I'd like to think that the article has potential to be improved. StephenMacky1 ( talk) 16:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
We need to accept that Goce is important both for us Macedonians and for Bulgarians. I propose we make a compromise and in the first paragraph we change "important Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionary" into "important Macedonian and Bulgarian revolutionary". As it is now it reads awkward. GStojanov ( talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I support my initial proposal with a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica to change in the first paragraph: "important Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionary" into "important Macedonian and Bulgarian revolutionary". This is exactly the same way Encyclopedia Britannica covers this topic: "Gotsé Delchev, whose nom de guerre was Ahil (Achilles), is regarded by both Macedonians and Bulgarians as a national hero. [1] GStojanov ( talk) 19:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph should contain only simple and non controversial facts. There is plenty of times in this article his self determination is asserted. Here we need to acknowledge only the obvious: he is an important hero for both Macedonians and Bulgarians. GStojanov ( talk) 13:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is more of a idea and if you guys agree we can change it, what if we raise the WikiProject:North Macedonia importance from mid level to high level (or somewhere similar)? this is mostly because he is one of (if not the most) known Macedonian from the IMRO and hes even known to a certain level outside the balkans. I wanna hear the editors of this wikis opinion on this discussion since i didn't wanna raise it without reaching an agreement. Gurther ( talk) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right. Examples:
I am adding a POV banner to it. All the users who will come up with their "stop vandalizing the neutral version of the article" are probably the "experts" who wrote the aforementioned sentences. DD1997DD ( talk) 15:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
lol Balkaners fighting over the nationality of a dead person again. Delchev was not an ethnic Mac. -- James Richards ( talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ ShockD: Explanation of all the banners I added:
Mind you that these observations are just made from a quick glance. One source is from an unreliable website (e.g. 87), the number of sources published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is excessive and not a single Macedonian source is cited. The list goes on and on. This brings us to the conclusion that not only is this article brimming with the issues I mentioned, but there are numerous others not so obvious ones. Therefore, we can safely say that this is a parody and a pathetic one at that. DD1997DD ( talk) 20:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
What are those quotes that you are talking about, and where are they from? -- James Richards ( talk) 14:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Lads, can Kromid, Local hero, DD1997DD or anyone else please provide examples of quotes and sources from where Gotse Delchev where he says he is not a Bulgarian or where he differentiates Mac from Bulg. -- James Richards ( talk) 17:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
So let me get this straight:
To me, calling the work of hundreds of editors a "parody" while doing nothing but complain and put labels over it is disruptive behavior.
Lastly, I'm intrigued by your statement about the "users who have no made edits in years". Who are you referring to and what's your point? You do realize that people can watch articles without actively contributing to them right? I see that you're a new user so now you know. And please cool down, this is the second time I'm asking you. The arrogant attitude towards other participants in the discussion is uncalled for. -- ShockD ( talk) 19:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
My statement means that they (so User: Ted Masters, PowerBUL, Jelizover) have probably been recruited by another user since they have given no input whatsoever, but just reverted other users' edits without even discussing. This is a blatant case of canvassing. They might also be puppet accounts of other users who try to avoid violating the three revert rule.
And lastly, nowhere was my attitude arrogant, I am just perplexed that I have to point out the brazen bias in this article with such long comments. And I am completely cooled down, don't worry. DD1997DD ( talk) 19:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@DD1997DD
"Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right." - DD1997DD
This is the first sentence of your talk ticket, so providing reliable evidence that Delchev did not identify as Bulgarian is key. Can you provide these quotes or not? Because multiple quotes by Delchev exist that show the opposite. --
James Richards (
talk)
19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If you are not able to provide such reliable sources then please just say so we can address the other points of concern that are raised. -- James Richards ( talk) 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
"Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right."
Again I have highlighted what you have said above, you can't just throw around adjectives and expect not to have to back them up with reliable evidence. And no,I am not off topic buddy, one of your points is you questioning the neutrality of this article, since his ethncity is the main point of contention please provide some evidence of Delchev not self-identifying Bulgarian. -- James Richards ( talk) 20:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
But if you can't provide any reliable evidence that Delchev wasn't Bulgarian doesn't that mean that Macedonian historiography is 'false and made up'? Since there is reliable evidence of Delchev self-identifying as Bulgarian. "Nowhere did I say that his ethnicity is the main point of contention. The main point of contention is how this article is presented and how much weight is given to belittle certain views." And please stop with the games, the whole point of contention is his nationality, Mac historiography sees him as Mac and Bulg as Bulg.
It's why you should provide evidence to support your views, because reality and POV are not the same thing. If there is evidence that Delchev self-identified as Bulgarian and no evidence that he self-identified as ethnic Macedonian then the only conclusion in this case is that Macedonian historiography is wrong. -- James Richards ( talk) 20:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Historical interpretation is about using primary, secondary evidence and critical thinking not just imagining things. I have asked multiple times for reliable evidence to support the Macedonian historiography and no one wants to/can provide it.-- James Richards ( talk) 21:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
DD1997DD, I sorted out the grammar issues you raised, so is it okay to remove the grammar tag, if any are noticed in the future just correct them no need for a tag. -- James Richards ( talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
My current view is this: If there is only self-published sources by Delchev of him calling himself and fellow partners around him Bulgarians than the Macedonian historiography which seems him as an ethnic Macedonian is wrong. Please if you can provide any contrary reliable sources about this, no need philosophy or crying discrimination. -- James Richards ( talk) 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
and Macedonian Blood Wedding.
This isn't North Korea, if there is reason and evidence for the Macedonian historiography to be criticized as wrong or innacurate or explaining the evolution of this historiography then there is no need to have this information removed as it is a key part of the article and why Delchev is such a point of contention. Provide evidence not empty statements. -- James Richards ( talk) 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Also per Wiki style guide "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."
But keep in mind
"The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It refers to an easily learned and easily applied procedure or standard, based on practical experience rather than theory." -- James Richards ( talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Remaining three tags:
"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
--
James Richards (
talk)
14:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Guys please per Wikipedia policy
"Don't tag an article if you can easily and confidently fix the problem. Your goal is an improved article, not a tagged article."
The intro has been shortened to four paragraphs are recommended by Wiki policy and if you see any spelling or grammar mistakes in the article just fix them. -- James Richards ( talk) 23:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The style guide recommendes that for 'More than 30,000 characters' 'Three or four paragraphs' are enough, I don't really see the big issue with the paragraphs if I am honest. They have already been reduced from 5 to 4.
I don't think you really understand what an 'argumentative essay' is, you can read up the policies on the tag that is on the page. -- James Richards ( talk) 03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This tag doesn't make sense, I vote to remove it. -- StoyanStoyanov80 ( talk) 20:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Ask for unbiased opinions in an wp:rfc or on the talk page of a related wiki project. Not by canvassing individuals . Nightenbelle ( talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gotse Delchev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Гоце Делчев was a macedonian fighting for Macedonia. 92.53.50.170 ( talk) 09:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gotse Delchev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Goce Delcev was a Macedonian revolutioner fighting against the Turks and died in Banitsa, AEGEAN Macedonia Macedonianphalanges ( talk) 21:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
In a letter to Nikola Maleshevski, Gotse Delchev self-identifies as Bulgarian
"Действително жалко е, но що можемъ да правимъ, когато си сме българи и всички страдаме отъ една обща болѣсть!"
English
"It is really a pity, but what can we do when we are all Bulgarians and we all suffer from a common disease!"
I'm writing this because Dikaiosyni has removed the word bulgarian from the article. Why is that? Either explanation should be given, or the article should be reverted. Svetoslav80 ( talk) 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gotse Delchev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to edit certain grammar mistakes on this page that I have found. SinkWiki ( talk) 06:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gotse Delchev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is a historically known fact that Гоце Делчев is a Macedonian, there is no such thing as a 'macedonian bulgarian', and he cannot be what he gave his life to protect his people's interests from as seen from his deeds and recorded documents of his writing. Fighting for an independent state of Macedonia for the slavic people known as Macedonians. 46.217.216.208 ( talk) 23:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'll clarify my recent edits here (see 1, 2 3), to ensure that there is no misunderstanding and since a good amount of information was removed. So most of the information that was removed was irrelevant, unrelated or in news style. I'd like to clarify that I do plan to expand the sub-section “ Post-communism” however I had to trim a good amount of irrelevant information first. Most of the information on Wikipedia is supposed to be relevant, preferably long-term and encyclopedic. Routine or trivial information (ex. details of progress of historical commission or opinions of historical commission's members; see WP:BALASP) will clutter the section and make the readability worse. It also doesn't look encyclopedic. As time passes and things change, even information that was relevant before could become irrelevant. The section can be expanded with information that is relevant, like for example - the common view of Macedonian historians about Delchev (which doesn't entail listing opinions separately), common view of Bulgarian historians, view of international scholars, all significant opinions and etc, which have to be within due weight. Two sub-sections should be enough to cover the controversy. We should include only the relevant details, not every possible detail there could be. The part about joint celebration attempts appears to be poorly sourced, because none of the sources mention IMRO, Delchev or even joint celebrations of historical figures, so the information isn't directly supported by the sources. Unless the information is covered by the Transitions Online source, which I have no access to, but I've retained it since it's still a valid source. One of the sources is dead, which I attempted to fix and find an alternative source. I'd like to think that the article has potential to be improved. StephenMacky1 ( talk) 16:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
We need to accept that Goce is important both for us Macedonians and for Bulgarians. I propose we make a compromise and in the first paragraph we change "important Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionary" into "important Macedonian and Bulgarian revolutionary". As it is now it reads awkward. GStojanov ( talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I support my initial proposal with a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica to change in the first paragraph: "important Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionary" into "important Macedonian and Bulgarian revolutionary". This is exactly the same way Encyclopedia Britannica covers this topic: "Gotsé Delchev, whose nom de guerre was Ahil (Achilles), is regarded by both Macedonians and Bulgarians as a national hero. [1] GStojanov ( talk) 19:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph should contain only simple and non controversial facts. There is plenty of times in this article his self determination is asserted. Here we need to acknowledge only the obvious: he is an important hero for both Macedonians and Bulgarians. GStojanov ( talk) 13:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is more of a idea and if you guys agree we can change it, what if we raise the WikiProject:North Macedonia importance from mid level to high level (or somewhere similar)? this is mostly because he is one of (if not the most) known Macedonian from the IMRO and hes even known to a certain level outside the balkans. I wanna hear the editors of this wikis opinion on this discussion since i didn't wanna raise it without reaching an agreement. Gurther ( talk) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)