Talk:Ahmed Niyazi Bey

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ahmed Niyazi Bey. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016184039/http://www.vecer.com.mk/?ItemID=743D8D72F398FE48BFD9F5CA54FFDC30 to http://www.vecer.com.mk/?ItemID=743D8D72F398FE48BFD9F5CA54FFDC30
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115143327/http://exploringmacedonia.com/?ItemID=7D670A5C9473FA4BBD3C4337BB2C8227 to http://exploringmacedonia.com/?ItemID=7D670A5C9473FA4BBD3C4337BB2C8227

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Further improvement
Hi, i've written the article some time back. In general when i do my edits its very late at night. Often that's when i go on wiki. That said, overall what is in there is what the sources state, written to capture the spirit of the text while not veering off it. There is only so many synomyns a person can use. A complex task. I cast the net wide and everything that i could get my hands on in terms of RS sources i did for the topic. If you did a google search and scholar search on Niyazi, those sources are all there. I would appreciate it if i had a extra pair of fresh eyes that could offer me suggestions on how to fine tune this. Possibly this article was still in draft mode. But there are few, if any people on wiki who have a interest or expertise in dealing with this subject. I can send you the sources, which would you need (as there are many and some of them are accessible via the weblinks ? An additional question. What of the following sections on the actual revolution itself? How much of that requires work, or is part of most of it ok? Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Copied from by Vanamonde (Talk) at 22:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources that you have used look quite solid; certainly those that are in English, which I am better able to evaluate, look good. The problem isn't with the sources, it's with the prose that has been used to summarize and paraphrase the sources, and this problem exists throughout the article. Many sources, particularly non-scholarly books and journalistic accounts, are reliable enough to use, but also have a tone that we cannot use. When they make hyperbolic statements, or statements that are otherwise not encyclopedic in tone, we need to quote, or at least use in-text attribution. Also, when multiple sources say slightly different things, you have to work to make sure your text isn't being self-contradictory. These aren't always easy, so as an example, I've completely rewritten the first two paragraphs . Obviously, individual styles differ; you don't have to copy my style. But in terms of attributing opinion while sticking to the source, this is what we should aim for. I hope that helps. I don't have the time to rewrite the whole article, but I'm happy to give you advice on specific points, and I can chip in more after some weeks have passed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , your style is fine. Thanks by the way. Much appreciated. On sources and contradictions (most on small things), yeah its shitty. The only way around that was by going with the more recent source! I'll go through it over the next few weeks and then ping you to have a look. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)