Hi! Bilateralism comprises the political and cultural relations between two states. This is from the Wikipedia's Bilateralism article. You said Germany-Japan relations are not English but i think there is nothing wrong with it. You re-moved it to German-Japanese relations. But German and Japanese words are not states' names. German-Japanese relations are the relations between Japanese people and German people and this is not bilateralism. Because a german might live outside of his/her country... It have to be Germany-Japan relations. Because agreements, protocols etc. are signed by countries, not by japanese or german people. I hope i could explain myself. Good editing! --Turkish Flame☎16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
In the otherwise excellent and informative map you made and posted in Northern Epirus,you included Corfu in the Greek Periphery of Epirus, but as far as I know that is not the case. It's part of the Ionian Islands Periphery. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, thanks, Kekrops already told me. Didn't find time yet to make those corrections. There are a few others too. Fut.Perf.☼07:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. Assuming that your description of the status of each image is correct and the one is really non-free and the other free, my opinion is, the non-free image of the medals is out, because it would be purely decorative. The purpose of the article is not to discuss the artistic design of the medals, so it is not really important for understanding it to have a visual representation of them. Hence, that image would fail WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't make a crucial contribution to understanding the article). As for the other image, I can understand why people wouldn't want an all-American winner image up there at the top. So, I hate to say it, but my own advice would be to have no image at all. The page is really supposed to be just a data table anyway, isn't it, so illustration is not really crucial either way. Fut.Perf.☼17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you 'Future Perfect at Sunrise' for your piece of advice, I'll use it. I like Damiens' image but the atmosphere at 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is pretty tense so somebody would argue: "POV because it's only black people, women, Brazilians, judo fighters etc." --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk)19:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that Future Perfect at Sunrise's argument is false in one respect. A picture of the medals is not "decorative" it is "illustrative", and the question of whether it is "really important" for the reader to see the medals or not is an editorial question which has nothing whatsoever to do with image policy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that how a colloquial description of NFCC 8 would sound? If the picture doesn't help the reader understand the subject then it doesn't meet it? Protonk (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
But "illustrative" does not mean "does not help the reader understand". It's an everyday event that an image can suddenly enable a reader to understand what has not been made clear by text alone – it's why we have that expression about a picture being worth 1K words. To "illustrate" something is to show something, to "decorate" is to make something look pretty. Colors, border designs, nice looking models in swimsuits -- these are decorative; a picture relevant to the subject, which provides additional information visually, whether or not that particular information is mentioned in the text, is a legitimate and legal fair-use of an image. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't contest your first point (rereading my comment I can see how I didn't really make that clear....whoops). Illustrative definitely isn't decorative. What I contested was the gist of the second point. I think that it is a reasonable (if very rough and exclusive) reading of NFCC 8 to say that the inclusion of a non-free image to an article must illustrate the subject in a significant fashion or (and I don't think FPS would use the word or, but I would) in some fashion that can't be replaced by a textual description. that was my point, and I made a mess of it. :) Protonk (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
One can almost always provide a fairly reasonable approximation of the contents of an image by the use of text, depending on how much text you're willing to squander in the process. One could replace the picture above with a long paragraph describing the person, what she's wearing the position of her body, the shape, texture and luster of the medal, etc. etc. etc., but it would be a rather empty exercise, since the image presents itself much better than any description, no matter how detailed and nuanced, can do. This being the case, your final criteria "can't be replaced by a textual description" really isn't very practical.
Yes, certainly, I agree that an image in an article should illustrate the subject of the article in some reasonable fashion, but I would disagree that the "rough and exclusive" reading of NFCC policy favored by FPS and others is "reasonable" by any, um, reasonable definition of "reasonable". In fact, by holding to a strict and unforgiving reading of the policy, FPS seeks to be quite "unreasonable", since he uses it to subvert reasonable IfD debates, wields it as a weapon to allow him to ignore consensus, and counters reasonable discussion with dogmatism. I don't call any of that kind of behavior "reasonable", by any stretch of the imagination. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this only balloons into the problem (for article writing) that you mention if we presume that the information conveyed in the picture is necessary to be conveyed in the article. In some cases it certainly is, and FPS's interpretation of NFCC 8 would be extraordinarily constraining. In many cases (e.g. the Paris Hilton doing stuff with regard to McCain campaign ads images), it isn't. This (I think) is where FPS's "decorative" statement stems from. In cases where the image represents something superfluous or trivial, replacing the image itself (e.g. Barack Obama entering a particular building for an organization. In an article about Obama's dealings with that particular organization the image might be useful. but seriously, We know what (and have free or released images related to) Obama looks like and we know what the building (or a building) looks like. so replacing the image doesn't require the artifice you suggest but just the text string "Obama went to building X to meet with organization Y"). I may be ascribing nuance to FPS where none exists. I'm not attempting to defend his actions in a wholesale manner. But I don't think the issue of his behavior or his interpretation of the NFCC is an open and shut case. Protonk (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, in specific cases, text can be used to replace non-free images without serious damage to the article -- although in your Obama example (which, I'm sorry, I'm not certain if it's a real case or a hypothetical) it's certainly possible that something about the way he enters the building (smiling and waving to the crowd vs. stiffly, with clenched jaw and fierce expression) can conceivably make a considerable difference.
The problem with FPS's method of dealing with images is that by trying to deal with them in a cut-and-dried manner (that I generally refer to as "dogmatic", which I don't think is particularly hyperbolic), there isn't a chance for those editorial nuances to be considered, because the images get caught up in the ringer of his absolutism and get the axe. That's why the IfD is the proper process and not FPS's admin/policy override of it. In the IfD, questions of balance, context, relevance, nuance, replaceability can all be considered, and the outcome of the debate will (hopefully) be influenced by those factors, in a way that FPS's axe-wielding cannot be.
To put it another way, while the IfD is analog and can vary from +1 to -1 with every value in between, FPS's process is essentially digital, thumbs up or thumbs down, and he's the guy deciding. No way is that in harmony with the essence of this project as I understand it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)06:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we are too far divergent on your main point there. FPS certainly doesn't appear to be too interested in nuance with regard to image deletion. But his underlying interpretation of the NFCC is not as extreme as it is made out to be. Assuming that FPS were receptive to consensus, deferential and precise rather than blunt, peremptory and prone to unilateralism, his views on copyright would not be too far from the mainstream of users at IfD. So I think the issue here is very much conduct rather than interpretation. As for the Obama example (which was hypothetical, at least AFAIK), the caveats you mention are things that should be visible and noted in the FUR (as well as the IfD/DRV. For most of the deletions and deletion reviews I saw, that sort of justification was non-existent. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
But, as I said, that's an editorial decision, not one of policy, and our process for making that decision is an IfD, not an admin's power to delete.
Anyway, I'm apparently being kicked out, but I agree, we're not too divergent. I'm not a strict inclusionist by any means, lines do have to be drawn, its just that the community needs to draw them, not self-appointed image police. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)07:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Yone Minagawa3.JPEG
Hmmmm – missed that by having too many tabs open at once, thanks.....all gone now. As for the howling, I had noticed and you have my sympathy – though you do fight long and hard. All the best – Peripitus(Talk)13:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Jingiby, A drama
Future what must be done about Jingiby, the person is copying/pasting his newest argument onto multipleuser IDs and talk pages in a disruptive manner. He has also allowed his emotions to get the best of him, causing him to revert-war with multiple users using Bulgarian biased sources such as Pro-Macedonia and Macedonia-Science. I have tried being reasonable and create dialog, but the man is too impatient and too obsessed with proving Macedonian=Bulgarian, even going as far as stating offensive wording such as Macedonist several times. Up to now I have refrained from using offensive behavior. Mactruth (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've blanked the copy at User:Quoth nevermore (unfortunately with a mistaken edit summary, because I thought the original had been deleted, which is wrong). For the other editors, as far as they are still active, it would probably be good to ask them first if and why they think they need these pages. Would you do that? Fut.Perf.☼17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You'd need to go to WP:DRV. Since your upload was essentially a re-creation of the same content previously deleted per IfD (and not by me, mind you), you really ought to have done that previously, rather than re-uploading in the first place. Fut.Perf.☼06:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have created this map, according the ethnic composition of Albania, as for 1989 census. I do not have photoshop right now, so I will make it better in about three hours. But, what do you think, is it a good idea?balkanian (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Having that kind of data represented in a map is definitely useful. The technical quality is of course not yet very satisfactory. And by the way, could you choose a different file name and get that one deleted? "Kkk" could be read as Ku Klux Klan, and it's always better to have something really descriptive, like "Albania ethnicities 1989 census" or something like that. Fut.Perf.☼12:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, how did you make that one? Just make sure you are clean copyright-wise, by not using copyrighted maps as a basis. Fut.Perf.☼12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Future, here is a problem again! Please, take a look. An unregistred user reverts the topic repetidly, without constructive discussion. Regards. Jingby (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I'm bored. If these two guys don't learn to solve a minor issue like this constructively, I'm going to give them both enough rope to hang themselves another time. Fut.Perf.☼12:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the rope. I am shure, you are tired, me too. But you have to bring your administrator's cross. Please, read the talk page from this article and estimate the objectivity and the arguments of both sides, before to take your difficult and NEUTRAL descision. Thank you, again. Jingby (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
And again;
According to Hugh Pulton in 1903 in Krushevo ...despite these promises the insurgents flew Bulgarian flagseverywhere and in many places the uprising did entail attacks on Muslim Turks and Albanians... "Who Are the Macedonians?" – Page: 57, [1]
Hello Future! I feel that I should have a say in this argument. He isn't fighting with one person, Jingiby is fighting with three people on this page. It's very annoying and time consuming since Jingiby and I already discussed this issue in the past, and now that he has a new argument he wants to see if it will work this time. I don't have the time to repeat myself over and over and over again, and seeing that Jingiby simply won't stop until he finds an argument that works, I won't keep wasting my time. I already now Jingiby's motives even if he does try to mask it Mactruth (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Future, this people are talking only. They think this is nationalistic website and they can do what they want, whithout any scientifical background. This is inadmissibly.Jingby (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That's unfair. How many "Macedonian" editors contribute in "proper" English? Who aren't really Canadian or Australian like you, I mean. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh people. I sure ken lee without you, I luv u all so much. But I won't solve your dispute over that flag, and I also won't solve your English problems. Some people are heading for a renewed topic ban, is all I can see. Fut.Perf.☼07:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Jing, perhaps you should reconsider the flag thing. I mean, even if they are the Bulgarian flags of Bulgarian uprisings (which I agree they are), they are still part of the history of the Republic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess Kekrops has a point. You guys need to come off your fixation that an historic event is "owned" by either this or that nation. That Krushevo republic episode is clearly part of the history of the Republic, and also part of the nation building process that ended up with the establishment of the present situation, even if it was (naturally) not yet fully framed in the same ideological terms. Fut.Perf.☼08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This is why I cannot comprehend Bulgarians "already made up" minds. Look we all know your views are Macedonian = Bulgarian Jingiby, considering you went as far as to call me a Macedonist, and you won't say anything that may hurt that argument. But honestly, I am tired of repeating myself over and over:
Britannica: "By the end of World War I, however, IMRO’s indiscriminate and unprincipled use of terror had alienated both its Macedonian and Bulgarian supporters."
Britannica: "The organization split into two rival factions, which engaged in frequent gunfights in Sofia in an effort to annihilate one another."
Seriously Future: Wikipedia is turning into a joke, which source should I use: Britannica which is written by professionals in the subject of history or Wikipedia which has biased views on the argument because their are more Bulgarians/Greeks then Macedonians. Jingiby sorry your not a historian buddy and I have been stating all along IMRO was 2 branches and that it wasn't JUST Bulgarian, but I guess we can ignore the experts since you "found" flags from "Bulgarian army.com" Mactruth (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Future, what to do? Jingiby has realized that he cannot remove the flag of the Krusevo Republic anymore, but he continues to remove the IMRO flag? I do not want to get topic banned, but I know if I "undo" it he will simply repeat the same action with a different argument. I would like your opinion before action is taken Mactruth (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
PS Future: Aren't you proud of my behavior? I am not exploding like I had before my ban. My God... I am maturing :) Mactruth (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I can remove the Bulgarian flag from Krushevo, my frend, but I take into considerationthe the meaning of my opponents. But the flag of IMRO /now surprisingly you recognised the flag have described as ILINDEN UPRISING flag is IMRO – flag/ is political not national symbol!
Academician Ivan Katardzhiev, Director of the Historical Sciences section in the Department of Social Sciences in the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the Director of the Macedonian State Archive Ph. D. Zoran Todorovski have said on that account:
Academician Katardziev:
"... All Macedonian revolutionaries from the period before 1930-ies considered themselves as "Bulgarians" and asserts that: "... separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was only political phenomenon without ethnic character..."
Ph. D. Zoran Todorovski:
"...It was any difference between the left and the right revolutionaries from IMRO in ethnic sence, all of them declared themselves as Bulgarians..."
And in summer of 2007 the former Premier and Vice-President of RoM Georgievski published his book "Facing the truth". In it he reveals his attitude to Macedonian identity and Bulgarian past in the Republic of Macedonia:
..."Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionary tradition comes exactly from exarchist part of Macedonian people. We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Gjorche Petrov, Pere Toshev – must I list and count all of them – were Bulgarian's Exarchate teachers in Macedonia..."
Let's get one thing straight, don't call me your friend since not only do you call me your "opponent" (this isn't a game) in your next sentence, but you have also called me a Macedonist, which I view as racist. It is clear you are hear to debate, which if that's the case goto a forum. Trust me I giggled just a little bit with your statements, but the fact of the matter is I'm not hear to debate with someone who has a predetermined view that "Macedonian=Bulgarian." Let's get one thing straight, I won't change your views and you probably won't change mine so there is no point in wasting my time to convince just one person that Macedonians exist. Believe me, I know who I am and the mere idea of spending all day everyday convincing one Bulgarian at a time the same thing is just a waste. Anyways, keep changing the article, but I'm not the only one "undo"ing your edits. Most of your contributions are for Macedonia related issues, so it is clear why you are here. But, lets get off Futures talk page already. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The today flag from Bulgarian political organisation was added again as flag fron Ilinden Uprising, when it did even not exist. It is presented as historical flag from a country. This is nonsence.[5]Jingby (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Jingiby the only thing I see is impatience to discuss issue since you already have a pre-determined mind about all the issues. Future, I cannot have an intellectual conversation with someone who is narrow minded as Jingiby, this is why I did not respond to his comments in the first place. I provided sources for the flags, and each time when he was shown to be wrong, he changed his argument. Recently he has again changed his stance to stating FOTW is not a reliable source. These are things not worth wasting time on. Future, I'll wait for your response.
Reliable sourced articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Regards! See:Wikipedia:VerifiabilityJingby (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you use of the "Bulgarian flags" with the source of "Bulgarian Army" qualifies as Reliable right Jingiby? In any case, you have flip-flopped your argument so many times that it is already known the more time I spend on you, the more new arguments you come up with to suit your agenda. Anyways Future, I replied on the talk page of Flags of the Republic of Macedonia. Mactruth (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposal of national flag – Image by António Martins, 19 February 1999
A red over black flag was proposed as the national Macedonian flag in 1903 but was never officially adopted.
Jaume Ollé, 24 October 1998
The black and red flag is used today by the football club Vardar from Skopje. His supporters are called Komiti (fighters for freedom).
The real Macedonian flag was red with a golden gun and knife crossed in saltire in the middle of the flag, or in the upper left corner of the flag. The red background symbolized the blood of all Macedonians who had died or were about to die for the freedom of Macedonia. The golden gun and knife meant fight till death, and death for every one who will spy and betray the oath they had given in the name of freedom of Macedonia.
Goce G., 18 March 2001
The traditional Macedonian flag had two equal horizontal parts, the upper half being red and the lower black. This traditional Macedonian flag shad also a symbolic meaning – the same meaning as the slogan of the Macedonian fighters from the beginning of the century: "Freedom (red) or Death (black)". During the 1903 Ilinden uprising and the Kruševo republic the formal flag of Macedonian fighters was black and red.
Željko Heimer, 13 March 2002
Red color might mean freedom, but the original meaning was the blood of all Macedonians who died fighting for the freedom of their motherland, Macedonia. The black color symbolized the death of Goce Delčev, the ideologist of Macedonian freedom movement in the late 1890s and the beginning of the XXth century, more accurately, until 4 May 1903, when he was killed after having been surrounded by the Turk soldiers in the village of Banica, now in Greece.
Flag with initials used on it. The Bulgarian/Macedonian name that sounds something like "Vnutrashnya Makedonska Revolucionarna Organizacija." BMRO fought primarily against Turks for the independence of Bulgaria and Macedonia, and as might be seen from the flag, the ideology was anarchic-revolutionary (as were the methods). The group was soon (at the beginning of the 20th Century) split between those wanting Macedonia as a part of Bulgaria and those struggling for the independence of Macedonia. Therefore, to cut the story short, today we have VMRO both in modern Bulgaria and Macedonia (where it is called VMRO-DPMNE), both being modern democratic parties that have long forsaken their anarcho-revolutionary methods.
Željko Heimer, 24 February 2002 Jingby (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Party has a coat of arms, a flag and an anthem.
The Party coat of arms is a stylized-shaped lion with a crown in gold colour pictured on a red shield. Above the shield is a red ribbon with yellow letters inscribed 1893–1990, and below the shield on a red ribbon is isnscribed with yellow letters the name of the party VMRO-DPMNE.
The Party flag has a ratio of 1:2, divided along the length in red-black halves, in ratio one to each other as one to one, and in the upper left corner on the red field is set the Party coat of arms.
The flag and the coat of arms of the party are shown on the party website. However, the statutes mentioned above clearly state that the emblem should be placed in upper left corner, not in the middle as shown on that image.
Željko Heimer, 20 November 2001
1893 is the year when the Macedonian national-liberation organization called VMRO was formed and the year 1990 symbolizes the year when VMRO-DPMNE was formed, claiming to be the successor of the historical VMRO.
The statute of Bulgarian Party VMRO-BND, 2008 (in Bulgarian) Art. 3. Par 1. Знаме с правоъгълна форма, разделено на две равни части, като горната част е в червен цвят, а долната - в черен и със златен надпис в средата ВМРО-БНД. Rough translation: Banner with rectangle form and divided in two equal parts. The upper part is in red and the lower part is in black colour.
[6]
The statute of Macedonian Party VMRO-DPMNE, 2008 (In Macedonian) Article 5, Par. 3: Партиското знаме е со димензии со однос 2:1 по должина, поделено на црвено-црни полиња, чиј сооднос е еден спрема еден, а во горниот лев агол на црвена основа е поставен партискиот грб. Rough translation: The Party flag has a ratio of 1:2, divided along the length in red-black halves, in ratio one to each other as one to one, and in the upper left corner on the red field is set the Party coat of arms.[7]
According to an article from the Macedonian journalist Spase Shuplinovski in the Macedonian mainstream daily newspaper Utrinski vesnik – issue 1166, October 16, 2006 [8] the flag of the Macedonian party VMRO – DPMNE was adopted from Ivan Mihaylov's IMRO, which was established in 1920 and was banned in 1934. Jingby (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Mactruth starts again the stupid, nationalistic, groundless edit-war and changes the name from the uploaded banner of IMRO, after the speedy deletion of his copyright violated image. [9] Now he claims again his non – sourced bulshits.[10]Jingby (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of the articles on the Skopje template under the 'Sports' sub category sound amazingly alike. Is this allowed? They're almost all created by Cukiger and are all stubs and feature no citations. Also, my nomination for deletion of the template failed because, coincidentally, him and the creator of the template voted to keep it even though there is obviously no need for the bloated template as there is a category specifically called 'Skopje'. P.S. Forgive my laziness for not making sure, but I think Jingiby broke the 3RR rule on Flags of the Republic of Macedonia. Thanks Köbra | Könverse09:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
First, Köbra, I don't know why you brought this up again it was decided that the template should be kept. Second, if you (Future Perfect at Sunrise) think this template needs to be deleted, then delete it, but then you will also have to delete many other city templates because they are just like it (examples: Template:Thessaloniki, Template:Ljubljana, etc). I created this template because it is useful and easier to navigate, and I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. --The Last Kingof Brush Park01:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Why did you remove my Starfleet insignia image? It looks exactly like all the other images I have uploaded. It is mine and I am trying to share it to make the article better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by flans44 (talk • contribs)
It isn't really yours. Not if it shows an authentic design from Star Trek. Because then the copyright belongs to the Star Trek producers, even if you took the photograph. If it were really yours, that would mean it's unauthentic, so it wouldn't belong in the article.
Also, it didn't seem to be doing anything crucial in the article it was used in. There were lots of other images in there, but those were really commented upon and their significance was discussed in the article. Yours wasn't. Fut.Perf.☼22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You must not really understand copyright law. Any picture I take with my camera is my property. The picture that I took is of a piece that I own, that only furthers my cause. It pertains to the article as it is a starfleet insignia and is worn on the uniforms. Have you ever seen Star Trek? --Flans44 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in Star Trek. But I know a bit more about copyright law. If the design of those insignia was made by the Star Trek authors, then the copyright is theirs, and if you take a photograph of it, its a "derivative work" and still belongs to them. Fut.Perf.☼23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but you are absolutely wrong. That is why people are able to take pictures of celebrities and not have to pay the celebrity money. --Flans44 23:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
A celebrity isn't a copyrighted item. Sorry, please go and read up on copyright, I can't keep explaining it to you all day. Fut.Perf.☼23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Try explaining it to yourself all day then. I've got my lawyer on the phone right now. Apparently you can't copyright a pin either. This is public domain. The item is mine, the camera is mine. You need to go read up on copyright before deleting any more images. --Flans44 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want it reviewed, please take it to WP:DRV. As I said in my deletion summary, I wouldn't mind restoring it if a good case under fair use and our criteria for non-free content can be made for it. That basically means: if the article were made to contain some substantial, sourced discussion of these insignia, as it seemed to do for the others. In that case, no problem. But I maintain it doesn't work as a "self-made" image. Fut.Perf.☼23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Now you are changing the topic of discussion. What does discussion of the picture in the article have to do with copyright? I don't have the time or know-how for all of this appeals junk. I am just trying to make a contribution for the article. There was a drawing of the image for YEARS in the article in the exact same place and I replaced it with an actual image. There was never a problem with the drawing or anyone understanding what it was there for. It should not have been taken off for copyright violations in the first place. If you don't like that there isn't any discussion of it that is another story. The whole article is based on Starfleet insignia and that IS the Starfleet insignia during the movie era! --Flans44 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking back at the history of the article I see that there IS in fact discussion of what the pin is. It was clearly stated that this is the Starfleet insignia of the late 23rd century! --Flans44 23:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring between Macgruder and Masonfamily on Liancourt Rocks
Hello, Fut.Perf. It appears that Macgruder (talk·contribs) and Masonfamily (talk·contribs) made edit wars on a caption of some image as reverting twice or third. Macgruder first reverted total 4 times) [12][13][14][15] and Masonfamily reverted also 3 times (though he alleged that his last one is a comprised version)[16][17][18].
This were occurred just within one and half hour, and they broke 1RR, and other ArbCom rules. (the talk page is for discussion not for a ground to just revert other's edit and making personal attacks). Their conflicts still are ongoing on the page, and Macgruder's reverts constitutes 3RR, so well, your attention is needed.--Caspian blue (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, your help is appreciated. I think I've fixed the article name links. By "deprecation", I basically just meant we don't want to encourage uploaders to add the template to yet more images at this moment. Fut.Perf.☼11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm going to dump the list in User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and then use "preview" to view a gallery of the images. Visually, some will stand out as obvious no-nos, or ones needing further investigation. Some have already had IfDs. I looked at the images that had talk pages and spotted one IfD notice. Is there a way to scan the history of the images on a list and work out which ones have been discussed before at IfD or tagged with speedies or whatnot? Ditto for the image logs as regards deletion and recreation (happens sometimes). Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. Have a look at this. I think, at the time (back in February), there were 1070 images in non-free historic. So about 75% have been deleted, just to put the numbers in perspective. :-) Also, those numbers seem manageable when compared to the numbers in the larger non-free categories, but that is not really an argument for avoid the work needed to clean stuff up, so I'll go back to reviewing the images. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It is so true that the addition by Masonfamily is poorly written in English as much as does Opp2. Even if I rewrite and trim the addition, would you revert it? Because if you do, I don't risk for it and don't care much about the article. However, I think the addition is quite relevant to the main subject. I still quite don't understand that why Opp2 is still not topic-banned from articles related to Liancourt rocks. He got warning several times already, while Masonfamily made edit wars with Macgruder who violated 3RR and he was only banned from the article. That seems not to look very fair. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely, feel free to rewrite that article, especially if you can trim it down and clean up the English. I'm not going to get involved with the content debates there. As for Opp2, well, I know he's problematic. I've been watching him for a long time; I'm convinced his activities are utterly unhelpful to the quality of our articles, but somehow or other I can never seem to catch him at something that's really so egregious as to be obviously blockable. Don't know how to deal with him, honestly. Fut.Perf.☼13:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. Maybe Masonfamily's addition would be cut off more than half, and as for Opp2, hmmm.. but per your comment, if he is getting out for the verge between blockable disruptions and acceptable ones, you and other admins would take care of him. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, that's bad. Can you identify which parts are affected, or when it was inserted? You could either cut back the contents, or revert to an older unaffected version if there is one. If you do so, please indicate clearly what you're doing, and if possible provide a link to the original. Legitimate copyvio removals are generally exempted from the prohibition of edit-warring. If you meet resistance, let me know. Fut.Perf.☼18:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
IPs (socks?) are constantly reinserting that paragraphs. I'll stop reverting them because I don't want to be blocked for 3RR by a less experienced admin. Maybe semi is needed.Xasha (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've semi'd now. As I said, in this particular case you wouldn't have to worry even about reverting, but I guess with the protection it's better. Fut.Perf.☼22:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Insulting those with whom you disagree, while an RfC regarding just such conduct is ongoing, is probably not the best idea. Why not engage with people in a way that would not leave them feeling as if you hold them in utter contempt. You and I have had both productive discussions, and discussions in which I felt like you were seriously disrespectful. All I want to really see is a move away from anger when you're disagreed with (at IfD, especially), and a move toward finding common ground with those of us who do not share your extremely strict interpretation of NFCC. S.D.D.J.Jameson03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Engaging in productive discussion with you, S. Dean? Sure. With Sumoeagle? Thanks, but no thanks. And "move toward finding common ground"? Well, hardly. Contrary to what some believe, my view of the policy is not on the extreme anti-NFC end. I want the policies to be taken seriously and not to be dodged, is all, and I'm not going to compromise about that. Fut.Perf.☼08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful explanatory note and action in finding a replacement better suited to wiki's needs. I have deleted the old image now not in use. I'd be pleased to discuss with you any image uploads where you think improvement can be made. My particular interest is in art images: anything relating to them can be brought to editors' attention on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Ty23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No not about active FUR issues,more about resolved ones..
I would appreciate someone checking 'resolved' images , (i.e. Kept PUI, IfD, DFU) etc, for
TWINKLE artefacts on thier linked articles :)
In places I've found that those 'resolving' haven't had time to remove the speedy captions
TWINKLE helpfully leaves.
I can check my own contributions, but an extra pair of eyes looking for 'artefacts' would
be appreicated, as would someone to check for 'resolved' but not detagged images..
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Image deletions
Just so you know, as made as I hate to admit it, I think you are right about many of the images that are deleted. Unfortunately the removal of many of the dubious fair use images often compromises the quality of the article. However, I think you should pay more regard to the views of others if the deletion of an image is contested, evne if you believe they are wrong, and should refrain from speedying something until it has been discussed fairly. Copywright isn't up for the vote but it completely defeats the object of the IFD process if it is by-passed. Regards The Bald One White cat 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Shit. He certainly broke it on 25 August (when I didn't have the energy to look into it), and his current editing may well be seen as a continuation of the same contentious editing pattern. Fut.Perf.☼08:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay guys, having looked into the flags page history a bit more, I think the best outcome will be to put all the participants in the 20-27 August revert war on a revert parole. As far as I can see, that's at least Mactruth, Cukiger, Jingiby and Laveol. Cukiger also clearly broke 3RR on 25/26 August. I haven't counted the others, but they were all obviously revert-warring wildly. Fut.Perf.☼08:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
When you say 1/rv every 48 hours on all articles, does that mean only 1 revert for all articles or 1 revert per article? Mactruth (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have to know something – will BalkanFever get the same revert parole as all of us that made 3 reverts each on a single Macedonia-related article? Just look at this – 4 reverts in 2 days and 3 on 30th August. I'm only content with your decision if all editors get the same treatment and no one is spared for some reason.--LaveolT15:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
With the dialect issue, I'm "involved", as you well know. You'll need to ask someone else to take action on that. Fut.Perf.☼15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Lexico's Original Reserch
Hi, I am understanding that you hate me. But I do not understand the reason why you do not stop the edit of Lexico. He did not stop ORIGINAL RESERCH. Do you think that his citation is corresponding to his description? (ex.Dokdo#1904 Japan-Korea treaty He only show the article of treaty and he didnot show the citation of logic.) He only changed the subject and push his logic though I confirmed about citation.[23] I think that it is necessary to return it to a simple previous version for the peace of the article. --Opp2 (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
RFC
Oh sorry to have put this in the wrong place ... Its not an uninvolved editor comment though. Any other suggestions about where to put it .... ahmmmm....let me reword that :0)....I guess I'll put it in "uninvolved editor's" under its own heading ... thanks FP.(olive (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
TBN Logo
The last admin that started mass deleteing those logos stopped because of opposition and also there hasn't been consensus reached. Perhaps you should follow his lead and talk about it on the AN/I thread first. - NeutralHomer • Talk06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Missed images?
Hi, Fur.Perf. There were two more images listed on this nomination. Did you skip them on purpose? Should they be re-listed in IFDs by themselves? Should they be kept? Thanks, --Damiens.rf14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Sarre86.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks . In my view, there was only one constructive outcome; and it flows from something Taemyr wrote: "Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project." Taemyr's suggested mentorship option seems promising. In that context, I construe the following as an initial topic for discussion with a mentor:
... [I]s there any substantial dispute yet to be settled ...?
... [I]s it really just mutual bickering dragged on and on?
Among the things I don't understand is how it happened that the substantive dispute was so devalued as to become unrecognizable. I'm also blind to something else which must be clear to you -- how did anything about WP:V come to be perceived as mere bickering?
In any case, thank you for that terse edit in what Guy described as a "whole festival of Stupid" .... Avoiding the appearance of bickering will stay in my thoughts as I begin to figure out how to improve the effectiveness of my Wikipedia contributions. --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Tendentious Duplicate Page editing or what?
Hi, i would like to report a possible tendentious Duplicate Page i run in to. The original page is Republic of Macedonia and its attack clone page is Fyrom i have noted that History,Talk and the Edit page of the ...wiki/FYROM are linked to ...wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia page... Can you take a look plz? Tnx Alex Makedon (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Cukiger
Sorry to be a bother Future, but can you take a look at this guy's edits, he seems to be a bit off his mark. For example, he keeps removing reference tags and notability templates from his stub articles without providing sufficient information and/or reasons. Also, he made a personal attack which I warned him about but I'm guessing he's being ignorant and continuing to remove these templates. Köbra | Könverse08:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Mactruth
I am too sorry Katze, but he is strictly required to precede every revert with a meaningful explanation and attempt for discussion on the relevant talk page, allowing for a minimum of 3 hours for discussion before he revert. He is going again with the blind reverts on the Flags of the Republic of Macedonia. No talk, no logical explanation, nothing. I do not know how to communicate with him. See here, please: Talk:Flags of the Republic of Macedonia. Jingby (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Now that a free image has been made available I can have no objection to the deletion of the Empire Galahad painting. I've added an external links section to the article with a link to the painting and also the photograph ov the MV Murillo. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
One of our helpful souls is campaigning against your map on this article. He insists that you meant it for 400 BC. Since it excludes Lemnos, this seems doubtful; would you comment on talk, and revert as necessary. Perhaps a caption about "Mainland Greece and the Aegean" will settle the nonsense. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi..
The given map was captioned "400BC" when I checked the article. If you had initially characterized it somehow else I cannot know.
IF the map was showing the Greek dialects in 400 BC then the numerous Greek colonies of Thrace, Illyria, Samothrace, Lemnos and Maceddonia should be included.
IF the map was meant as a map of the Greek dialect distribution around 800 or 900 BC then it would be much nearer to the truth and the image would of course be acceptable, since anyways Macedonia, at least the Argead Macedonians did not yet hold the lands they held in the future. So, even in this field we would have no problem with pro Greek or any other faction of Macedonian advocates.
The caption "Macedonia" on the given map is north of Chalkidike, CLEARLY dating the map not even in 400 BC but during Phillip II's reign. Again, the name Macedonia has nothing to do with the known debate but it is a sure dating factor and this dating would be incorrect even for those who claim that the Macedonians did not speak Greek...
Since you based the map on a book I saddly do not have in my library, could you also provide the information on what the map actually depicted?
Pmanderson changed 400 to 600 and then more to the past (700 BC). I agree with all this, 800 or 900 would be more approrpiate according to my opinion but in order to accomplish this we have to remove the caption "Macedonia" from the map because first of all, thus far back it did not hold these lands, it was but a minor kingdom partly within what is depicted as Greek speaking world in this map. So... if we continue using the same map but with a caption that reads "800BC", then we have two problems. A. We conclusively state that Macedonians were not Greek speaking and B. That the map is not showing Grece of 800 BC but Greece in the 4th century BC.
So, I propose to let the map be, change its caption to 800 BC and remove the name of Macedonia form the map to avoid the aforementioned problems. Since you are the one who made it, I hope it will be easy for you to produce these changes. As for this "nonesense" characterization, I only have to say that this damn debate clouds the clear thinking of many people even within the Wikipedia family, thus making them unable to judge the historical arguments and easily deny to seriously look into such matters.
The August 2008 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message about this image. The individual who took it off the Merlin article identified it as probably a Goshawk. I consulted a bird guide and believe this is correct, it looks like a Northern Goshawk. Of course, I was mistaken before, but at least I have another person agreeing with me this time! Do you know how to change the image title, to "Goshawk on fence.jpg", then I'll post it on the Goshawk page. Thanks for your assistance. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As you previously blocked this user, perhaps you should have a look at the message on his talk page which states he is bringing charges against another wikipedian. Maybe the block should be re-enforced? Verbalchat18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my apology for disappointing you in my train wreck of an RfA (there is a scrap metal sale going on now, if you're interested). I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The source is a US federal government publication, that's in the public domain, so no, there shouldn't be a copyright issue. One should consider merging though (just my personal editorial view). Fut.Perf.☼12:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your work, comments on the list talk page. Sorry for not responding earlier, but I had some rather annoying other business that kept me occupied last night. Fut.Perf.☼10:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No problems. I've separated out the initial batch of historical portraits (do have a look at the results – some possible examples of overuse). There is also a template, Template:LAC, that is used on about 32 images (not all on your list – but quite a lot are). You might want to check out how that template is being used as well. I think the box started as a tag for PD Library and Archives Canada images over at Commons, and was copied over here for use on the "historic" images. See Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada – a category that show be switched to "no gallery" – can you remember how to do that? Will drop off a note for User:Franamax as well, who copied the template over here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I created the LAC template as part of a project to fur-ize a set of images pending deletion at commons. Discussion is here, also note the first two links in that discussion about what LAC's "Restrictions: Nil" really means (I'll come to that later).
The purpose of the template is to:
Group LAC images into a category for navigation/sorting purposes
Provide a handy spot to put the LAC repro number and a clickable MIKAN reference number
Contain the disclaimer "does not allow free use", which LAC does not do, along with a link to the LAC website which explains its terms of use.
As such, I think its existence is valuable as it brings some semblance of order to LAC images and it makes no expansive claims as to usage rationales. In fact it is valuable because it helps to sort out the misinterpretation people are applying to that "Restrictions: Nil" bit. For instance File:Ellen Fairclough.jpg has {{attribution}} which states "Redistribution, derivative work...is permitted" – which is untrue by my reading. Looking at another one, File:Molly Lamb Bobak painting.jpg claims Canadian PD (btw, does that matter on a US server?) which I think is dubious as there is no proof the subject was less than 27 years old when the picture was taken (thus created before 1949). I say this because I clicked on that handy link in the {{LAC}} template to check its provenance. Handy template isn't it? I wish all the LAC en:wiki images had it, it would make it much easier to review them all! Franamax (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you clarify for me whether a Canadian PD work is free-use on en:wiki, or is it still subject to the more restrictive US rules? See here, thank you very much Disney Corporation! Franamax (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, that table is a nightmare. But I get the impression, except in some rather rare circumstances it mostly boils down to: US status equals home country status. There can't be that many cases where somebody published something outside the US but went to the trouble of registering the copyright in the US. And if there was, it would be for them to prove, wouldn't it? The only other case would be if a foreign country had a copyright term shorter than 70y pma, and that term expired only recently (after 1996). In that case, the US 70 y term would kick in rather than the home term. That would push Canadian works (50 y pma) back to "author died before 1946" rather than "author died before 1958", if I'm calculating right. Fut.Perf.☼20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh shit. It just occurs to me that this goes for Argentinian-created photographs of the Falkland War. I know of one wikiproject that will hate me for this discovery even more than they already do. Please tell me I'm wrong. Fut.Perf.☼20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, ask yer congressman who voted for that insane law. However, take a look here for a kick in the nutshells. I think US law overrides other countries PD's. The Canadian case has some extra twists too, want to see another flowchart? [25]. It's enough to drive one quite insane. Franamax (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean in handling my draft template? Looks fine to me. Although I'd probably "subst" it, because the user page might not always remain there. Fut.Perf.☼19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please, let's find some pretext for declaring it PD! I want to be using that for underlining my posts on ANI! Fut.Perf.☼21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriously though, that image seems to be a fake anyway. Here [26] is the same image, but without the shoe. He's standing at a desk and just banging his fist on the desk. When he did that with the shoe, he was presumably not standing at a desk, but sitting behind a table. Here [27] is an authentic image with shoe – but commercial and hence off-limits. And by the way, the Shoe-banging incident article needs to be stripped of the textual copyvios too. Fut.Perf.☼21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you have time to look at the images I've flagged up for IfD over here? If you like, I can nominate them for IfD myself, but I was hoping someone had a script... I've also separated out some of the images by type, so the original list of 264 is now 153. There are still some groupings within that (WW2 photos, film photos of child stars) that can be extracted and dealt with as a group, but I haven't got round to that yet. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Templated fair use rationales
Am I the only person who thinks that a templated rationale is ludicrous? {{Logo fur}} is possibly valid (because most images of logos have the same logic), but there's over 30 more in Category:Non-free use rationale templates which are a stretch to agree with. The whole idea of non-free rationales is that they are specific to each use and this contradicts that concept completely. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I sometimes wonder if the whole decision of enforcing rationales wasn't a mistake in the first place. It's been an abject failure. In the case of the routine classes, like the logos, we don't really need them (unless we were to finally take the rules seriously and get away with the de-facto silent consensus that logos can be effectively used in any and all article about an organisation that has one, as a matter of routine, insisting instead that we use them only were they do something actually useful, as we should but everybody seems to forget). And in the other cases, as you observed, people just put in nonsense drivel boilerplate without any regard to accuracy. At least 99% of all the rationales I've seen, be they boilerplated or not, are utterly useless. No uploder ever does what they really ought to do: explain in simple words what this particular image is supposed to be doing in that particular article, and how they'd defend it if it were to be challenged.
The problem why I think rationales may have done more harm than good is that for over a year now they have thoroughly averted attention away from the actual substance of fair-use justifications and focused far too much activity on the purely formal side of "compliance". Fut.Perf.☼15:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I know exactly where I6 and I7 came from, as I was mostly responsible for implementing them over two years ago. Originally, I6 only applied to tags like {{fairusein}} — back then people uploaded just any old image, slapped "fair use" on it, and carried on merrily. At some stage, it morphed into what we have now, and that's probably what helped spawn these nonsensical rationale templates.
As for I7, it originated as a deletion criterion for ludicrous fair use claims (e.g. {{logo}} on a publicity photograph), and ended up splitting three ways. I can't tell between the second and third items myself. But that's where we are now.
Dear FP, I just stumbled upon a discussion concerning the map with the dialect distribution of Ancient Greek. If you really plan to re-edit your map, would you be so kind as to include Cyprus as well? Surely the Arcado-Cypriot dialect deserves to be mentioned. I can understand that every similar map is bound to present things in a rather simplified manner, but not including an approximate time span would be a mistake (I have to say that the constant changing of dates strikes me as a bit funny, to say the least). You can always consult these maps as well [28], [29], [30]. They are not much, but you may find them helpful. Thanks in advance--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Numbers one and three of the book links you gave are in fact the exact same map I used as a source for mine (leaving out both Cyprus and the northern shore of the Aegean, and leaving Samothrace blank.) Number three is the original, number one refers to number three as its source, as did the book I used. I think mine was following it pretty faithfully after all. Number two is probably too poor quality. As I said, I think I'll probably go for the Cambridge Encyclopedia map as a source for any corrections. Fut.Perf.☼08:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not sure at the moment when I'll have time to do this. I first have some penitentiary psalms to upload, as an act of penance for my sins [31]. Fut.Perf.☼08:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that you did not follow it faithfully, but not including Cyprus is in my mind an omission that should be rectified. As for the provenance of these maps I am fully aware of the situation. Actually, most of them originate from early 20th century prototypes. The reason I cited these versions is that the accompanying texts contain further information you may want to use for verification and/or approximate dating. After 1955, the consensus on the distribution and classification of Greek dialects has been quite shaky and now most of these maps are seen as oversimplifications of a rather complex situation. I' ve been told that Spanish scholars are currently working on an ancient Greek dialects mapping project but I haven't managed to find anything so far.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. 1 You can always try the Opus Dei approach for faster results... P.S. 2 Renaissance Western Polyphony is absolutely amazing
I must, having been reminded of it, agree about Cyprus. (This does not mean having to include all Anatolia; a box below Rhodes would be fine. Color as Arcadian, IIRC.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Images
When you are back from your image hiatus, I have some images I'd like you to take a look at, not entirely sure their use is legit. Narson (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The images that I'm not sure about are those on the Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) page (Specifically images like this one). They are the pictures of the Heavy Metal painted miniatures (An in house painting group for Games Workshop who do the example miniatures and such) and they are on the page under the rationale that they were released to advertise the product, however I've seen no evidence here was an distribution of them outside of the Games Workshop website or Games Workshop magazine. Does that count as distribution for advertisement or is that merely in house and thus the items are sill covered by copyright? Narson (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was an accident- I send a lot more images to PUI than IfD, so I instinctively tick the box on Twinkle. If you've fix that, thanks, if not I'll fix it in a second. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
RFC bot
The alternating between "no discussions" and "1 discussion but it happens to be a blank space" has to do with my failed attempts at improving RFC bot -- I used the language RFC as a test bed. --harej10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fut. Perf. Let me mull on this until tommorrow...I have a skype conference starting about now and have to divert my attention there. - Peripitus(Talk)12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that the talk page archive comments that he's messing with are Wikinger's, which set of the advance warning bell!
Then he sent me a talk page message asking me to get User talk:Wikinger deleted, the Wikinger detector went off big-time! I have asked the deleting admin to restore User talk:CBMIBM as I suspect that there is stuff there that is relevant.
Hi Future, can you help me please semiprotecting the Himara page, becouse some anons are reverting a sourced material, in which established editors had agree to be added.balkanian (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
How about being a good sport and finding us a decent source discussing language in ancient Epirus (say Pierre Cabanes), mr. Anderson? ;-) 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I know. I'm not even sure if the case of Epirus is certain (or at least, to what degree), hence my question on the other page. Newer dialectological maps tend to include, whereas older ones tend to exclude (observation – might be wrong). 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That appears to be primarily a question of mapping convention. Buck's text expresses certainty that Epirus and Acarnania spoke Greek, and fair certainty about which dialect, but his map shows them blank. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
deletion of "Image:Ajl772WikiExample.JPG"
if you're going to delete that one, then you might as well delete "Image:Ajl772NonWikiExample.JPG", "User:Ajl772/link-title/doc/old", and "User_talk:Ajl772/Archives/2008/April#helpme".
It appears that you've deleted File:Ann Beattie.jpg, an image that's part of a dispute in which you're involved. I was wondering if you'd be willing to restore the image and allow a less-involved party to make the deletion decision? I want to emphasize that I don't believe your decision is necessarily incorrect, only that there seems to be a diversity of opinion which would suggest using the deletion process, or at least not deleting the image yourself. What do you think? --SSBohio04:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no legitimate "diversity of opinion" for me to be "involved" in. The person who last edit-warred for its inclusion explicitly confirmed that he was treating it as a "substitute" for a possible free portrait. This makes deletion mandatory. He then went on with a torrent of drivel claiming that it being a "substitute" didn't mean it was "replaceable" with a free image. The fact that I pointed out this piece of sophistry was self-evident nonsense doesn't make me "involved in a dispute". Three or four admins agreed this was a legitimate speedy deletion candidate. Fut.Perf.☼05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, I really do understand your point, and I'm not here to be part of any attack launched by other parties. Personally, I couldn't care less whether the image appears on that article, on another article, or anywhere at all. What concerns me is your involvement with the matter, followed by your deletion of the image as an apparent means of enforcing its removal from the article, however well-intentioned the deletion was.
When I see phrases like torrent of drivel, piece of sophistry, and self-evident nonsense, it weighs against considering this to be an entirely disinterested deletion. Some combination of the presence of the image in teh article and the way the previous editor approached you has, presumably, raised your ire. That's not bad or wrong, but it does create doubt in your subsequent deletion of this image.
But it was put through the correct process, exactly the one you named: WP:CSD. The rules were followed exactly. CSD is not linked to any conditions of being uninvolved. CSD is meant to be handled by a single admin, so there's no problem if the same admin does all the tagging, removing, orphaning, explaining, hearing and juging of objections, and deleting. That's why it's called speedy. Fut.Perf.☼20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Advice
I'm trying to gain consensus at this discussion, but all efforts to bring in some uninvolved opinions has been in vain. I think the infobox has been improved to the point where it really is NPOV (I even created an infobox specifically for use on disputed island articles—there seem to be more and more that I'm finding—in order to present the information in a neutral way), but it's impossible to gauge any sort of valid consensus from only those who have participated to this point. Any ideas? I've tried to work with Caspian blue, but s/he refuses to work toward a compromise and refuses to AGF. Any thoughts or assistance is appreciated. Thanks.
Could you have a look at this page User talk:Romaioi for me and tell me whether its a candidate for speedy deletion as an attack page? Background is User:Noclador and I were investigating a sockpuppet circus, this guys edits fitted the pattern but he was cleared by a checkuser. Unfortunately posts by another sockpuppeteer seemed to implicate him again but again he was cleared. It has been to WP:WQA (here and here and WP:ANhere. I've tried to explain to this guy that it was nothing personal and to move past this but only been accused of shit stirring for my troubles. For info, there is more on the Talk Page but hidden as comments. To be honest I'm not sure what to do about this, it would appear that any action I take is only going to inflame matters. Justintalk15:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry I didn't react earlier. I lay low with a bit of fever last evening and didn't feel fit to take on a new conflict case. I gather you've now got other admins' advice, right? Fut.Perf.☼06:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Fancy more mediation in Bulgarian-Macedonian disputes :) ?
Hey FP, sorry to hear you are ill. I wanted to throw your way a potential new hotspot developing in the long standing Macedonian/Bulgarian feud on wikipedia :) I have edited the Macedonian Patriotic Organization to reflect more the views expressed by the MPO themselves on their web site www.macedonian.org and less the Bulgarian wishful thinking, but the faithful and dedicated Jingby has spotted me even while I haven't finished the complete edits and is deleting parts of my article (properly sourced I believe) and adding pro-bulgarian non-sourced speculation. I was wondering if you might lend us your impartial eye and mind and maybe we can bring yet another controversial article in wikipedia to a balanced and objective form through your leadership. I am signing out for the day as the weather is too good to miss the beach, but will check in tomorrow. thanks! Capricornis (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to ask you do you have any evidence about the last changes you made into this article. Please, contact some administrator to check suspicions about sock theatre. It is truth that I know Grigor from the network, but we are different persons. --AleksandarH (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
A little problem
Do you think diatribes such as "I’m interested (as an old hobby) in the socio-cultural behavior in the post-soviet space and you provide a perfect sample to observe whatever makes this space a reservation of identity crazed, culturally twisted and inadequate (albeit sometimes intelligent) conspiracy consuming individuals. I won’t have time to stay long, though." [32] merits some higher intervention? I've been blocked for less, but I'm realtively "young" on Wikipedia and I'm still not sure what personal attacks are pursued by admins, and what aren't.Xasha (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Lt Clayton
Sure, no problem. It was taken by a bloke called LS Middleton (The "LS" is for Leading Shipman, I think), he was HMS Cardiff's official photographer. At a place called Port Howard, taken on the 15/06/82. It was published in the Navy News just after the war. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Peripitus, but this closure I really can't accept. You know I usually respect your judgment, but here, for me, it's an absolutely straightforward case of a policy that is crystal clear and can't be overridden by consensus. Can you see any merit in the arguments that this case met some accepted exemption of the no-living-persons rule? I just can't. DRV? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the late reply. Playing in snow, good company food and wine, kayaking and contract negotiations all beat Wikipedia in the precedence race. Had I entered the discussion rather than closing it I would have been on your side, as I see that an adequate free image of him is clearly creatable even now and the image is not iconic of him. In this case the I see that consensus of the discussion is that the image meets the requirements for keeping. Much as I disagree with the opinions proffered, I am constantly watching that I do the admin fandango in line with what appears the consensus interpretation of policy, rather than my own. Perhaps in this case I have given too much to weight of numbers ? Given the back-and-forth in WT:NFC it is clear that it's not clear what wikipedians mean the clarification phrase to mean. Still want me to launch this up at DrV (better from me than you....I think) ? - Peripitus(Talk)12:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Future, I think that you have the babyniotis lexicon. Is that true, becouse I would like to find the etymology of the Thyamis River?balkanian (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Uhmmm ... If you could in turn stop trying to get the ones deleted that I already made... ? That's one thing I don't like, you know. Anyway, what exactly do you need mapped? I'd need a good model to work from, because I'm not really too knowledgeable about those military campaigns.
I'll probably also have a problem in that I don't have a good base map that shows geographic relief for Greece. It would probably make such a map much more informative. Fut.Perf.☼17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Closing of Images and Media for Deletion Debates
I think your closing of the debate for the deletion of two images: File:KravisRoberts.jpg and especially File:MilkenPredatorsFall.jpg and File:BoonePickens.jpg was inappropriate. As the arguments laid out (and I don't want to rehash them all here), the context in the articles was in compliance with the exceptions for magazine articles. The purpose of the article is in violation if it is intended to depict the subject but if the cover itself is the subject of discussion in the article (which it was) then it is considered an appropriate fair use. What I would have preferred would have been to have two or more separate admins evaluate the arguments and make a determination. By closing all three debates without providing a real synopsis of your reasoning this leaves the argument open. While I understand these debates are not votes, the number of voices on both sides making appropriate arguments should indicate that perhaps more consideration should have been used. Given the number of articles in which the images appeared it seems tome hasty simply to delete the images rather than removing the image from certain articles. I am all for deleting non-free content that is unjustified but these images were used properly in several places and these unfortunately fell victim to the ambition of certain editors to remove all non-free content from wikipedia despite justifiable claims of fair use. I am going to reconsider how best these types of images can be used but I think ultimately there will prove a place on Wikipedia for them. |►ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK◄|23:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the consensus in the collateral discussion, especially that at WT:NFC, was quite clear enough to make the deletions an obvious decision. If you insist, I can of course add individual closing rationales to each IfD case, but I don't think it would change much substantially, sorry. Fut.Perf.☼05:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Sinbad Barron
FYI, I've upgraded the block of Sinbad Barron (talk·contribs) to indefinite. I've done so after reviewing his contribs history – really ugly, it seems like he's been here on a pretty much non-stop mission to vandalise. My gut feeling is that this is a "contributor" who we can do without, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
images.suite101.com/185696_picture2.jpg
Remember this image – images.suite101.com/185696_picture2.jpg – I've managed to identify most of the people in the photo, they're Scots Guards not the Paras as I first thought. If it is PD I can use it in a couple of articles. How do I confirm it? You mentioned that the website indicated it was public domain but I can't see that anywhere. Justintalk11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, the claim about the PD status must have been somewhere on the accompanying page where that image was embedded; can't find the link right now, did I not cite it at the time? Sorry I can't be of more help right now. But in any case, IIRC, it didn't really state why and how it would be PD, so it wouldn't be very reliable anyway. Fut.Perf.☼14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I completed the assignment of taking photos of Skopje landmarks, weeks ago! I just can't decide which ones to upload because they're too large and there's too many of them. I have some nice images of Ohrid and some other cities and towns as well. By the way, I already uploaded the image to commons. --iNkubusse?15:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Quaternionenadler
Thank you very much for your help with the Quaternionenadler on my user page (N.B. the user page is wrong, I accidentally missed out the first n). I originally created it for the Graphics lab, and I was planning to move it into the main space when the names were completed, so we could make an image map. Anyway, thank you very much for your assistance.--23230talk16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been fun doing. Note, however, that there are still two or three real bad gaps or problems, most notably "n. Sachsen" (which just possibly can't be "Niedersachsen"), I'm also not yet quite certain about the technical meaning of Vicarii. Fut.Perf.☼17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you deleted the article Millennium Cross and marked it as copyright infringement.
I don't know what it looked like immediately before you deleted it, but in the recent past (checking the google cache of the page) it had no similar content at all to the page you claimed was copied (http://www.accordions.com/cia/winter_08.htm). (Actually this page only briefly mentions the Millennium Cross, so I do wonder what could have been copied.)
Was deleting it correct? Maybe if it had been changed recently, reverting to an older version would have been more appropriate? --David Edgar (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
As a postcard collector and dealer I've got thousands of postcards which I could use to illustrate various articles. As far as I can tell, any postcard published in the UK before 1929 is free to use (correct me if I'm wrong).
What happens if:-
a) it is impossible to tell exactly when a postcard was published?
b) a postcard was published after 1928.
In the case of b), would I just upload it on wikipedia with a valid fair use rationale? As the postcards were not published by news agencies, would I be right in thinking that we'd avoid the discussions such as happened with the Chillenden image "stolen" from the BBC?
I don't want to keep having to go through IfDs with images I've uploaded, so would appreciate your advice first before I upload any that fit in either category mentioned above. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks, good questions. Give me a bit of time to look at the public domain issue first, that's always terribly confusing. Fut.Perf.☼11:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, after looking at the PD rules (which as always are quite confusing), it seems that UK postcards would probably mostly fall under the rules mentioned at commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown. Note, however, that the 1938 date isn't fixed, it's just "70y before X". And there's a complication: in order to qualify as PD not only in the UK but also in the US, we need to make sure they are not just PD at home now, but they already were so in 1996. So, you got to calculate not 2008-70=1938, but 1996-70=1926. Which ends up near the 1923 cutoff date we have for the US anyway. Confused? Don't worry, so am I.
So, pre-1923 is safe, pre-1926 is safe, pre-1938 is so-so. For items known to be younger than that, or where there's a substantial likelihood they are younger, you're basically on your own. With fair-use claims, you are probably right that there wouldn't be a lot of issues with commercial interests; other than that, NFCC would of course go by individual cases. Fut.Perf.☼14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Naturally any fair-use postcard image would need to follow all the rules for fair use images. A rationale would be given for each and every article said images appear in. I have a few cards where it is impossible to give an age, and will therefore treat these as being in copyright as I cannot prove they are out of copyright. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a picture to the Black Mill, Barham article. Have a look over it and let me know what you think. The photo could be as early as 1910 or as late as the mid 1960s, so I've treated it as a copyright photo but noted in the description that it could be out of copyright. The only problem I think there could be is that it is not a small image or low resolution. Both of these can be attended to later if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Greek Language
Could you have a look at the history section. I made some changes in the definitions of Medieval and Modern Greek, but I may be confusing the Greek Terminology with the english one. I am not sure whether η Βυζαντινή Δημώδης correspronds to what the English call Byzantine Greek. The previous version confused the vernacular and the archaising forms used for different purposes during the byzantine period. The statement that the 11th century corresponds to late Byzantium rather than the middle Byzantine Period is most certainly a mistake--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
CU clarification: Wikinger/Aminullah
Hi, just for clarification: you did actually verify that User:Aminullah (the original user active since 2006) was the same as User:Wikinger, right? Because the CU request was most certainly done by Wikinger himself, who has been waging an absurd socking campaign to get Aminullah blocked as his own sock – a campaign that I had the feeling looked a good deal like a joe job / impersonation stunt, in revenge for Wikinger's own ban. He had just recently created impersonator accounts like AminuIIah (talk·contribs) (capital-i-for-l name spoof) for the same purpose, and several other really nasty little impersonation attempts with other users.
Just wanted to make sure you really checked the right accounts there, because Wikinger is quite adept at muddying the waters with forged "evidence". Fut.Perf.☼09:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, could you stop your trolling? If you are not what what you claim is him then you should be the other one. Either way, you should stop it. Next time, I'll block your IPs. Understood? fayssal / Wiki me up®19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you were insulting other participants. Don't do that. Your comments were also quite futile, as they were directed at a discussion that was dead for two years. Fut.Perf.☼13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of articles, Finders Keepers (computer game) and Nicholas Evans, that are currently being vandalised regularly by an anonymous user. I've been reverting the vandalism when I see it, but it's becoming rather boring and this pest seems to be very persistent. Would you mind protecting these articles for a while? The Stickler (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The lingua franca article is a mess. I have removed some of the most flagrant boosterism, but it really needs some guidance from someone who knows the literature and who can propose a crisp definition (or definitions) which will guide the content of the article. Or perhaps the term has been abandoned by the sociolinguists and thus can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean? --macrakis (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hopeless soapboxer
Hi!
I want to ask you for your opinion on something if you don't mind. GriffinSB (talk·contribs) is an editor who started editing in the ex-YU area of articles about a year ago. In that time, I don't think he has made a single solitary edit on anything not related to Serbs or Croats, ie not a single vandalism revert or formatting a reference or !voting in an RfA. That in itself is not my issue. My issue is that GriffinSB seems to be motivated politically rather than being here to actually improve Wikipedia. He spends most of his time on here soapboxing about "Serbian ultranationalists" this and "Serb apologists" that ([43], [44], [45], [46]). From some of his comments, such as this one, I have a hard time assuming good faith that evey time he uses words like "nationalist", "apologist" etc after the word "Serbian", he actually means to only say "Serbs" or "Serbian". His rhetoric is starting to sound almost blatantly hateful towards Serbs to the point where even Croatian editors point out to him the racial conotations of his comments ([47]).
I've warned him a few times about some of these things but then I tried to stay away from him as much as I could because, in the ex-Yu realm, it is next to impossible to be persistent on something without being reported to the WP:ANI as a POV pusher or stalker or even to the WP:AIV as a vandal. In all honesty, my skin is not thick enough. I'm on here (Wikipedia) as a hobby. It's just something to do while work is slow. Having said that, I think he may have just went overboard with his hatred of "Serb nationalists". He made a series of edits to his userpage recently where, I'm guessing, he tried to post a non-existent userbox advocating a death penalty, through various means, for Serb-somethingorothers ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52]). The biggest problem with advocating the death penalty for such a group of people is that his definition of these "nationalists/apologists/propagandists" is very broad and he has accused several Wikipedia editors of falling into these categories. In addition to some of the soapboxing diffs I provided earlier where he accuses editors of being "Serbian nationalists", he also left this very specific message for an editor, calling him an apologist. I don't think that calling people "apologists" and "nationalists" and then advocating the death penalty for those same "apologists" and "nationalists" is conducive to a collaborative environment.
So I guess what I'm asking from you is an opinion on whether his soapboxing is just annoying and harmless or if it's causing more unnecessary friction in an already volatile area of the encyclopedia.
Hi. Me again. I see that you're probably not interested in this issue which I completely understand. Do you think this is even worthy of an RFC or should I just drop the whole thing? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Please don't think I'm badgering you about this because it's perfectly understandable if you're not interested. Your input is much appreciated and respected, though.
Hi Fut. let me ask you the same question I asked to Pmanderson, I'm Macedonian living in the UK, why I'm not part of the "Macedonian diaspora"?--Avg11:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I honestly cannot understand how a third person can define what I am and what I'm not. Isn't this what you accuse the "nationalist" Greeks of? --Avg11:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not "defining" what you "are". I'm describing how native speakers of English use their language. When they use the term "Macedonian", in 99% of all cases they do not mean you. You, personally, and your fellow country people, are of course free to describe yourselves in whatever terms you wish. Fut.Perf.☼11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this enough for such an article to be deleted, if created, even if it has valuable and encyclopedic information? I doubt. Such an article has every right to exist, as do all the similar articles I had mentioned above. --Hectorian (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have explained the reasons of the removal of the map in Talk:Greece. You are welcomed to do the same if you want to keep it. Do not be disruptive, trying to have everything "your way". PS: an advice: Wikipedia rules apply to all (even admins). Be careful. --Hectorian (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I will read the link you provided, but this does not change the fact that the map is wrong in a number of cases. If there is something that can be understood, be sure that I will understand it, και μάλιστα σε λίγο χρονικό διάστημα. Have in mind that I do not like threats; so, do not threaten me again. Such attitude isn't gonna do any good. --Hectorian (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hard to begin from a point, but there has to be one; so: You are asked if you have used Ethnologue as a source and you reply: Of course I did. I said so a couple dozen times above. Allow me to say: not so. Then you say: As for the terminology, I haven't heard any serious objections. Really?! You say: But why the heck should we??? (:use a term other the one you want; for example a term mentioned by other editors or even Ethnologue). This map is about languages. Then why Pomak is on it?. An editor tells you about Arvanitika and Corinth. You reply: Thanks for spotting the Corinth thing. I hadn't seen that detail on the map. Can easily be changed. Didn't see it, right? Then why haven't you changed it afterwards? ΚΕΚΡΩΨ points to you specifically the case of the Meglenites. Yet, you choose to use an image dated in 1925 [53]! Is there any need to continue? You did not make corrections that you said you would. You claim to have used Ethnologue, and you did (to the extent you wanted). You have used sources almost a century old and you have placed them in the modern article about Greece. More or less, all the things I have pointed out in Talk:Greece. --Hectorian (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Still no answers for your actions, though I have given plenty for mine. I advice you again: cease the threats, stop treating users as if they are stupid, do not provoke, and do not even think about abusing your powers. Rules apply to all of us. --Hectorian (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Futper, you just tried to remove a large section of my talk page (correction)userpage. As I said.. it is mostly a to-do list of facts (which Wiki user page guidelines explicitly allow) but I would be willing to deal any specific issues you may have to put it into a form you find more appealing. (since I'm a newb I'm open to constructive criticism... not personal insults) However, instead of responding with specifics you decided to just unilaterally chop away a huge section.
I realize you are a FYROM supporter but I would like to remind you that Wikipedia has an an admin code of conduct that states you have no special rights to intimidate other Wikipedia users. I have therefore put back my page until you (or someone else) decides to address the issue with line-by-line specifics rather than generalities that (given your seemingly anti-Greek posting history) seem more like attempted censorship than a sincere attempt to assist users to meet Wikipedia conventions.
Just some more I would like to add. You just inappropriately threatened to block me (again) on my own user page when the admin code of conduct specifically states...
An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest. For instance, an admin blocking a user for an edit war involving that same admin is abusing his or her power
As I said... I would be happy to revise my page if you provided specifics. Since you don't and appear to show a pattern of prejudice/censorship/name calling against me I formally request you hand this issue over to another uninvolved admin. Right or wrong in this instance I believe you are clearly in a conflict-of-interest and have no interest in resolving editing issues with me without inappropriate blocking threats and name calling. (IMO an abuse of the admin code of conduct)
I will give you a few days to respond in detail to my concerns at which time I will revert my user page back if you haven't. (I will make a few edits to deal with the scant info you did bother providing me). If at that time you feel you still need to block me then please do so. I will immediately file an appeal and we can bring up our history of run-ins (and specific diffs that I feel demonstrate a conflict of interest) with WI:AN. Let others decide how "neutral" you are. (you'll even have a few days to prepare to get friendly admins on your side)
I really don't want to go about this the long hard way Furper but if you just offer me blocking threats at every turn (rather than try to deal with the edits) you leave me no choice. Your call. Crossthets (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey FP, nice to see you're now patrolling user pages. Care to remove the "Christian Turks" slur from User:Mactruth's page while you're on a roll, along with the rest of his "political soapboxing"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Falklands War Montage
Could you temporarily restore the montage page so I can copy across the origins of all the images I used. I didn't keep a record and I need to update the PD information on the new version. Justintalk08:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of SE European wiki editing. The only solution in my experience is to use WP:ARBMAC to its utmost force: hand out topic bans liberally left and right. Hand them out for the basic disruptive act of being tendentious. Don't wait until they edit-war or attack each other, ban them for not striving for neutrality, which is in and by itself blockable disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to fully explain what was 'basic disruptive act of being tendentious' in the 'fully-protected Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara, Ante Starcevic, Petar Brzica, Ljubo Miloš and Magnum Crimen'. Please, give us for each of these articles full account of the 'for not striving for neutrality' remark. Support your explanations by valid knowledge each of the counted subjects.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
About my involvement on "reinstating political soapboxing" material.
I noticed you used "trolls" (plural) on your lock edit summary and just wanted to clarify if you include my edit [56] too. I'll save your time by not trying to describe my intentions in detail and just say that it was an (maybe light minded) attempt for "mediation" based on the assumption that wikipedia is free to edit in good will ( we could discuss details but you probaly are not interested). I don't want to take part in any conflict involving the judgement of your or any other editor's "bias", "abuses" etc as i find them painfully useless but i can't help thinking not leaving a margin of doubt for my intentions on this issue was overdue. I also don't understand where did my block helped since you reverted and locked the page (you could have done this from the start, leaving no doubt). I would appreciate a response (even stating that you disregard what i have said and have nothing more to add so that i don't have to speculate about it being your position by not answering). Thanks.--Zakronian (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
To be frank, I didn't even notice at the time that you had significantly modified the material. To me, it was just reverting with an utterly incomprehensible edit summary. But even so, the version you wrote still blatantly failed WP:USER. Fut.Perf.☼06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i admit that i had that in mind when saving my edit, i took the whole situation very differently and considered my version a sample for Crossthets or others to work with (of course i wouldn't think to do something like that on a wikipedia article with a similar dispute). Thanks for your response.--Zakronian (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Political soapboxing
Like Kekrops mentioned up above, could something also be done about Mactruth's and MacedonianBoy's user pages? I feel highly offended, to the point of seizing admin power and blocking them indefinitely. 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see that much offensive on User:MacedonianBoy, am I missing something? Except for the usual silly user poxes. Tasteful use of decorative elements borrowed from ancient Greek artistic craftsmanship is not really something I'd want to intervene about. With User:Mactruth, could you politely approach him yourself first, perhaps? Fut.Perf.☼09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"This user is fighter(sic) for United Macedonia"? Don't worry, I was mostly joking. Macedonians are no more fragile than Greeks, though, just so you know. ("tasteful use" sheesh, selective aesthetes) 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I rather liked "soapnoxing", you shouldn't have corrected that. It's a good portmanteau of "soapbox" and "obnoxious". Fut.Perf.☼09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
No need to be prosaic all the time. So this is for you. I really hope you like greek poetry because I couldn't resist the temptation...
Στο ταβάνι βλέπω τους γύψους.
Mαίανδροι στο χορό τους με τραβάνε.
H ευτυχία μου, σκέπτομαι, θά 'ναι
ζήτημα ύψους.
Σύμβολα ζωής υπερτέρας,
ρόδα αναλλοίωτα, μετουσιωμένα,
λευκές άκανθες ολόγυρα σ' ένα
Aμάλθειο κέρας.
(Tαπεινή τέχνη δίχως ύφος,
πόσο αργά δέχομαι το δίδαγμά σου!)
Όνειρο ανάγλυφο, θα 'ρθώ κοντά σου
κατακορύφως.
Oι ορίζοντες θα μ' έχουν πνίξει.
Σ' όλα τα κλίματα, σ' όλα τα πλάτη,
αγώνες για το ψωμί και το αλάτι,
έρωτες, πλήξη.
Ά! πρέπει τώρα να φορέσω
τ' ωραίο εκείνο γύψινο στεφάνι.
Έτσι, με πλαίσιο γύρω το ταβάνι,
πολύ θ' αρέσω.
Hey, thanks! Looks beautiful... But don't overestimate my Greek, I'll need some time to work this out. Kariotakis, is it? Fut.Perf.☼13:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Just some help: it is Karyotakis and it is considered among his poems that clearly illustrate his will to commit suicide.
Well it is so, but this is not what I had in mind. No need to misconstrue my gesture. It is simply a beautiful poem actually meant as a playful comment on my part --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Good you're saying this now, because here I was already me to skoini sto xeri ... But for the lack of a stuccoed ceiling, who knows... Fut.Perf.☼13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that a lot of people in here would be more than eager to offer both the room with the stuccoed ceiling and the rope... και μη χειρότερα!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Palávra
I found a reference that listed palávra as a modern Greek word. I could not find an online source for the etymology of modern Greek words. The wiktionary entry for "palavra" does not list the Greek word although it lists Portuguese & Ladino (it is also in Turkish & Greek (?) & Romanian with that spelling, "palavra"). Do you recommend any websites for the etymology of modern Greek words? The original form was "parabole" so I'm wondering how it changed to "palavra" in Greek, or maybe "palavra" was borrowed into Greek later. A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. That idea occured to me. From Ladino it went into Greek & Turkish, then from Greek & Turkish into Romanian and maybe Aromanian and Bulgarian, I haven't checked South Slavic. If anybody has any online resources for finding out the etymologies of contemporary Greek words, drop me a note or somethin' ;) A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've undeleted this one, as I've actually got the license confirmed after all, supposing you wouldn't object. Fut.Perf.☼19:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The source, which shows that Greece situates partially in Asia: Around the world: Countries that exist wholly or partially within geographical Europe, inter alia From the Black Sea coast, the geographical border of Europe passes through the deepest parts of the Black Sea to the mouth of the Bosphorus; on through the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea; through the deepest parts of the Aegean Sea to the Mediterranean and around to the Straits of Gibraltar. The line through the Aegean Sea divides the Greek Islands between continental Europe and continental Asia.
--WPK (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am currently working on an image upgrade for those images with more detail and better color patterns. I don't appreciate the fact that you don't see his agenda – uploading an image that does not contain the all-around language solution that was agreed upon (and these guys push POV for years now). He isn't an image creator, but he is using MY image to play games.
I will replace ALL those images with better quality – today or tomorrow.
FPaS – you just stated, on my talk page, the exact reason why my image exists! After all the turmoil, the most logical input from neutral admins and such was to make one that had all the names for everyone to be happy. Only now, after some time, is Supparluca restarting the POV push. The image existed for a long time without any protest until this.
I am finishing the new image – which will have border country labels, border province labels, and the municipalities outlined. This detail should trump the old image and will hopefully be accepted – and it will have all the names, like before. If you could please explain that this new image will be more than worthy to the article, I would appreciate it. Rarelibra (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You are an admin and admins can revert edits by banned/blocked users. So I thought that may have been the case. You are right: they were unencyclopedic material. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing constructive in that section. It's just the usual "OMGZ evil FYROMian history thiefs" off-topic rants. From a person who has never done anything more constructive than that during his whole career on this project. The assertion that these topics are something that is "missing in the article" is tenuous at best; even if they were, he isn't discussing how to constructively integrate them; he is arguing (for the millionth time) why his side is right and why everybody else is evil propagandists. Which is the only thing this person is interested in doing here. If you don't believe me, just check [59]: he wants his posts to be read as evidence that "what I am saying about FYROM irredentism/propaganda has truth to it." Also look at this. As far as I'm concerned, this person is one step away from an indef-block. Fut.Perf.☼06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Instead Futper turns it into the newb-is-trolling meme. And this is exactly why I've had to come to you Todd (and Mark.. and more admins as required). I haven't lied to yet Todd. He constantly edits against Greek positions. All you need to is to continue going through his diffs that relate to Greece. I've provided a few already --Crossthets (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Crossthets, you are now half a step away from an indef block. The next time you feel you have to spew out the same rant again, against me or the FYROMians or a mixture of both, on whatever page, make sure you have previously at least done something, for once, to actually improve this encyclopedia. Because that's why we're here, and that's why those of us who actually try to improve the encyclopedia have no time to listen to your endless repetitions. So now go away and edit an article, and for chrissake try to make it not yet another piece of stupid POV-pushing. Until you have shown you actually want to do encyclopedic work here, please stay away from my talk page. Fut.Perf.☼07:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know what the heck is going on here. Fut, as one admin to another, I'd recommend getting another admin to do any further blocking on Crossthets to avoid any RFCs. You two definitely have history and I've been in your shoes before (but free advice can be worth less than you pay for it.)
Just a point of clarification, I'm not sure who the "he" was above, but I can assure any readers that I neither edit for nor against greek issues.
Hi, I know you are an admin, and I don't know who else to ask about this issue. I want to ask you what's the WP policy in the case of talk pages, please see Talk:Hungary and the reverts done there. I've been putting back comments that are removed from that page -- BTW, I don't agree with the comments and they are kind of trollish, but at the same time we don't remove content from talk pages only because we don't like those opinions, I consider this a matter of principle. Tell me if I'm wrong and I will stop re-adding the comments back, but again, I think this is a matter of principle, if you don't like what other people say in the talk page you are free to rebuke or ignore the comments, but removing them is censorship. Thanks. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Aegean Macedonia
I think that the article about the geographical and historical region Aegean Macedonia is way too politicized by tags as "irredentistic term" and similar. They are literally killing this article. Its so badly written that it will take a general rewriting and a massive editing/deletion even of quoted reference information. Since the editing of that kind can be easily taken for vandalism im looking for arbitration, tnx Alex Makedon (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all I do not accept at all those accusations against you and I do consider you as a well respected editor. Now about the map...I strongly believe that its place should be at the article about minorities, or about the slavic dialects, but not at the central article for Greece.
And a proposal: why don't you replace the vertical lines in the map with different coloured circles to show the area of each language? You will avoid making the reader think that all these areas are areas with minority languages even now.
Let's avoid as I said before useless accussations and work together.Example:
Hmm, I see what you mean. This would introduce an additional level of intentional vagueness, thus (perhaps, hopefully) reducing the danger that the less perceptive among our readers would read those false implications into it that everybody seems so afraid of. At the cost of losing some information detail that (to a large part) actually happens to be precise and reliable. There's an upside and a downside to that.
By the way, "that all these areas are areas with minority languages even now" is not a false implication. That's what's actually meant. In most of these areas the minorities are severely reduced, marginal, perhaps close on extinction, certainly not publicly visible when you travel through those areas – but my understanding on the basis of the literature is they are still there. Even if it's only on the level of the oldest rural generation or only semi-competence with most remaining speakers.
Anyway, I guess I could agree to your suggestion for use in the main Greece article, but keeping the more detailed version at the detail article(s). It's true that this vague level of information is pretty much enough for the main article, if you come to think of it. The article text legitimately has a reference to Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavs, Pomaks and Turks; the reader has the natural question: "where are those guys?", and at that point it might actually be sufficient to give an answer along the lines of: "somewhere around Athens", "somewhere in northern central Greece", "somewhere around the corner with Albania and RoM", et cetera. I don't really see why we need to dumb down our treatment in this way, but if that's what people want so badly, I could live with it. Fut.Perf.☼08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I really mean what I said above about you being a well respected editor with good faith and I do not question your motives at all, as others might do thus I find your comment The article text legitimately has a reference to Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavs, Pomaks and Turks; the reader has the natural question: "where are those guys?" , as exactly what this project must do: create questions and giving informations. From that point of view, I support the keep of the map in the central article of Greece, but allow me to try to explain you what not all admins and editors think like you...Imagine what will happen if someone starts adding let's say in Austria's main article, maps with Slovenian, Crotian and Italian vertical lines, or to Germany's, lines with Frisian, Sorbian, Danish, Limburgisch, Polish, Polabian, etc (not to mention various dots of Turkish).... So some of my fellow Greeks, in a rather harsh way I must admit, say, Hey! why so much interest on Greece only?Why don't you add similar maps in other articles too, what's so special about Greece? (And of course, a response like Here we talk about Greece is not enough)
Thank you for your time.
Kapnisma?11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And a correction, I was trying to say that all these areas are areas in which most people speak minority languages even now, you have to excuse my English, but I can speak French better, if you like!
Kapnisma?11:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've said before that I would like to have such maps for other countries – whether on their main page or in detail articles depends on article structure, of course. What would happen if we did that? Well, you'd be surprised: in the case of Germany or Austria, I'm pretty sure, nothing much. I cannot for the life of me imagine German editors making a fuss like the Greeks have. You know, we really are a bit more relaxed about these matters. (The German map would be a bit boring though, because the minority areas are just so small: Polabian has been extinct like forever, Polish isn't spoken on today's German territory at least as far as I'm aware (except by recent immigrants, of course), Limburgish is typically perceived as just a local dialect; Turkish is of course also just a recent immigrant community (those are typically treated separately from autochthonous minorities in linguistic geography.) Leaves us with just Frisian, Sorbian, Danish, to the best of my knowledge. – As for "why so much interest in Greece"?, part of that is possibly Wikipedia-internal. Since every attempt at treating minorities in Greece meets with extreme amounts of debating, the result is, like so often in Wikipedia, that the overall quantity of treatment grows far beyond what we'd have if everybody just went easy about them. But there's also something inherently special and interesting and unique about Greece: the very fact that these groups are so invisible. There can hardly be many more European countries that have gone from very substantial ethnic heterogeneity to this extreme amount of perceived homogeneity in such a short time. Fut.Perf.☼11:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if I wanted to be a bit indicative, which I do not, I would respond you that many other european nations had similar examples of reaching rapidly into substantial ethnic heterogeneity to the point of fully absorbing indigenous population and if we were to show on a map the traditionally inhabited areas of them, surprisingly many editors that we would characterize as moderate, would react very much.
Anyway, I can understand your furstration on this matter and it's the last time I bother you with this, but since I respect you as editor I would like to clarify my position to you on this matter.
I believe the map should be removed from the main article for the explained reasons but not from relevant ones, like the one on minorites, and also to replace those lines with something like the coloured circles as the example above to avoid something that could be perceived as nationalistic reactions. On the other hand, I fully reject naive accussations against you of being biased or whatever else and be sure that you will have my full support, if something like this happens again.
May the force be with you...
Kapnisma?16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. And here was me thinking I could, just once, hold a reasonable discussion undisturbed with a person who actually understands what you tell them. To everybody else: come back to my talkpage when you've organised your thoughts into something remotely coherent and can meaningfully participate in a constructive talk between adults. Fut.Perf.☼14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back from sort of a much needed wiki-break. I started with reading some articles (guess what the topic is:)) and got to the one about Macedonian Americans. All was going as usual until I decided to read one of the sources which happened to be almost the exact text. I remember seeing it before on the Mac-Canadians page (such a copyright violation that is). --LaveolT19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's my detailed elaboration of the problem w/sources. I admit that it can be partialy labeled "original research", but if you filter-out the subjectivity, and take only the bare-bone facts, Im deeply convinced that Im right.
We have disagreements (not edit-war) with Grk1011 about Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. This is going nowhere (as always) and I kindly ask for your help. He insists that the article must cover the both entities called "Yugoslavia":
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (appeared only once in the ESC, in 1992, but under very questionable circumstances. After its establishment, that state was not recognized as a legal succesor of Yugoslavia by UN or by any relevant organization, incl. EBU).
Grk's only rationale is simply that both entities were called "Yugoslavia", completely disregarding the complex situation in ex-Yugoslavia in 1992. An opponent of that merge is Imbris, but when the case was previously discussed at: Mediation Cabal, subject: FRY in ESC, he was outvoted by several other editors, who, IMO, didnt provided convincing rationales for the merge.--Dzole (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Sub Arturo plebs
On 10 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sub Arturo plebs, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Please, before an other nationalistic edit war erupts again, inform this editor, that before renamimg articles and deleting its content replacing it with dubious claims from extreme websites, without even discussing it, it's quite annoying....
Not to mention that this constant fabrication of sources is madding...In his POV fork article he is even manipulating his own sources. I am not going to involve in nationalistic edit wars as I told you, but you have to do something.
Take a look at your watchlist and you'll see that both Jingiby and Rašo are listed in the protection log as having protected Zajdi zajdi after moving it. Seems you've passed down the sysop powers to mere mortals... :-) BalkanFever11:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Yes, those two are very "protective" personalities, for sure :-) (I think I've heard about this glitch before. It's apparently when you move a page while it's protected, the system has to re-establish the protection with a new log entry after the move, and it credits it to the mover, not the original protecting admin.) Fut.Perf.☼11:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
We can't "delete" accounts, technically. The account will always exist, so that your old edits are properly attributed. What we can do though is to redirect your user page to your new account.
I know, I firstly created the page User:Balkan and than tried to creat such account, but there it could not been created. So I created the new page. Confusing, I know...:-)balkan (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've pasted a temporary copy of it to your userspace at User:Balkanian`s word/Ilirida. Please bear in mind that this is really only temporary, let's say for a week or so, and that I'll have to delete it again afterwards, unless you start doing some substantial work on it to meet the concerns that led to its deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilirida. If it gets improved to a point that we can consider bringing it back to article space, it will have to be history-merged with the history of the currently deleted page, for adherence to GFDL. Fut.Perf.☼18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As the nominator, I feel I should explain my reasoning. This is not really an "unofficial region" since there are no borders. This is a term used by very few, and even less by reliable sources. The article at the point of deletion (the info currently in Balkanian's userspace) does not discuss the term much, but mainly repeats info about the ethnic Albanian population in Macedonia, the Ohrid agreement and the NLA – content forking. For this article to be viable I think it would need more sourcing and info on the use of the term "Ilirida", maybe some more about these apparent proclamations and secessionist demands of the NLA. In other words, new info as opposed to stuff we already have. BalkanFever10:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, a year. I leave for Iraq soon, for 400 days (tick tock). That year will go fast. Will you, as an admin, ensure that their POV motives are kept in check? He took my map (which sufficed all of the naming) and changed it to his whim for the articles/topic in question. Why did it go on this long for this to be finally in check? They have pushed the POV so hard to have their names (and refuse to recognize the legitimate proof given that Sudtirol is fully recognized (popular usage/common usage) as South Tyrol in English) that this is all convoluted. I fix the map and improve the design, and he still pulls the same crap. I can deal with it – do what you need to FPaS, but deal with the situation going on as well. This is outright harrassment by him – he didn't ONCE contact me about the map to request an improvement or suggest working with me on it (something that is always suggested in Wikipedia, something that I have followed when noticing needs for improvements on images). This is outright POV pushing – my part is merely protection of the image that was agreed upon and used for a LONG TIME before he decided to, again, push his issue. This is bully movement, backed up by gangs and socks. Just ask other admins that were involved before. It's crap – it's an image that already exists in Commons and exists under a modified name? That isn't supposed to happen. So I ask – what are you going to do about the others involved in this? Or what will you do to ensure Supparluca stays clear away from the topics? (that bleed over into many other pages)? I'll be in Iraq, doing better things (aside from Supparluca and company, who are only working to push POV and destroy valid images and articles). Rarelibra (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be trying to pull you back into the Rarelibra/Supparluca mess, but I'm a comparative noob and I think I may have bitten off more than I could chew by speaking up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban needed for two edit warriors. From what I can see, Supparluca's got a point about both names being recognizable – in fact, Rarelibra's choice seems to be the minority usage. Before I get any more involved, what would you suggest I do or not do? arimareiji (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
rarelibra is just a troll on this issue, can't say i'm sorry to hear he is going to iraq. he is simply obsessed to have it his way -- and only his way. Bolzano, Bozen, and Alto Adige are all legitimate terms. South Tyrol is just another one of the legitimate terms, and in fact the most recently used as a political name (1919-). people like rarelibra should be ashamed at their one-sided and only ONE-sided view. iraq, eh? i guess karma is indeed a bitch. (Anonymous user suspected by Rarelibra to be User:Icsunonove).
Rarelibra – If you have evidence of your assertion that Icsunonove is anony-socking you, you need to take it up directly rather than claiming it in multiple threads and inserting Icsunonove's name as a signature. arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to pretend to be a straw man who's hating on you, you might want to remember to not argue your own point while doing so. ("South Tyrol [versus Südtirol] is... the most recently used... (1919-) [incidentally not true, AFAIK]") arimareiji (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Additional information
FPaS – to add to what I have already told you, you can see from both my userpage and the thread on ANI that Icsunonove is claiming that he "doesn't know me" or my name. He and I communicated quite a bit offline when he was under the username of Taalo. At one point he even added an entry to my userpage [60], and he later updated it when he changed his username from Taalo to Icsunonove [61]. I am not trying to go any further or make this a big deal other than the fact of what I have already mentioned. Icsunonove is attempting to allude to something legal offline (which I have not) – and it seems Arimareiji just keeps getting confused. Rarelibra (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
My previous user account was Taalo, I've never tried to hide that. Rarelibra and I have communicated on Wikipedia under both accounts. I have never communicated with Rarelibra offline, that is completely false. Rarelibra, you told me you communicated regularly with Gryfindor, what others, I have no idea. I simply do not communicate offline with any users on here (even the ones I consider friends). I have kept my discussions "online", for better of for worse. Don't tell me you delete all of your e-mails, because I'd truly love for you to show me even one thread where we discussed things offline. I can't believe you go as far as to say "quite a bit", when it was in fact.. never! Dude... this is getting silly. Icsunonove (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Cute, Rarelibra. After Icsunonove deleted your edit which pretended to show him as the author of the anonymous comments bashing you, you claim that I'm "confused" because I commented on its inappropriateness while it was up. If FPaS gives a crap for all this idiocy, he can look that up and verify it himself. If he doesn't, I don't blame him. arimareiji (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Arimareiji – you are completely lost in your tracking and assumptions. And BTW – for your information and for Icsunonve's, you CANNOT remove comments like you did. You have gone after me before for removing comments, it is best you respect others fairly. If you do so again, you will end up becoming an issue for your actions. Rarelibra (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I would love to hear input from FPaS as to the whole matter... an admin whose judgment I trust and who initiated the entire thing at ANI. In fact, I would love to hear FPaS's opinion on Arimareiji's accusation above that I was the one who placed an anon comment as the whole "straw man" comment (which, by the way, is insulting). I don't think Arimareiji is an admin, capable of looking up IP addresses – nor does it seem he has any knowledge about usernames with IP addresses versus anon IPs. So it is interesting to see an offensive attack against me from this user. I do not acknowledge comments made by Arimareiji as he has displayed a lack of skills necessary to actually (1) follow the facts, (2) sort the facts out, or (3) present a viable argument. Rarelibra (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
So would I, but I don't blame him if he ignores it. This has gotten way past ridiculous.,
Yes, I did assert that it's suspicious that the anon bashing you was simultaneously arguing your case. Once. You've repeatedly claimed across several threads that Icsunonove is the author, and you have a long history of this type of behavior with other people – impugning them when they contradict you, with insinuations that they should be slapped down for it. When people confront you about your lack of evidence instead of giving up and leaving, you back down and pretend you were just misunderstood. Once the hubbub dies down, you can come back and repeat the cycle.
Also, please stop conflating me with Icsunonove. I didn't delete your claim of "Anonymous editor proven to be Icsunonove," I put it on strikethrough and left it in place. If you think that's disrespectful, perhaps you could show why it shouldn't have been struckthrough for lack of evidence. arimareiji (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, guys, sorry for not responding earlier. Rarelibra, the only thing I can see that could help here is if you officially request a checkuser on the IP. You are very right to be upset about the IP, those were some extremely abusive posts, they must obviously have come from somebody who is an insider to your dispute and was deliberately hiding from his account, so it's abusive sockpuppetry. If we can nail the identity of the IP poster, I promise there will be sanctions. But publicly throwing out the name of a suspect like this with no evidence you can substantiate is also not quite okay.
I can't promise the checkusers will take the case, it's just that none but they can do anything at all.
I don't quite see what the significance is of this new issue of whether Icsunonove used to be in e-mail contact earlier. That seems to be sidelining the discussion and I have the feeling it's not really a very important issue.
Arimajreiji, I can't see what you base your assertion on that the anon was in effect "arguing Rarelibra's case". The idea the IP could have been Rarelibra's own agent provocateur seems rather bizarre to me. Fut.Perf.☼07:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I can see why you would say that the idea is bizarre; it's a destructive action you would not associate with an editor you respect. But even though it's bizarre, that type of behavior is common enough to be the first category listed under typical sock puppetry. At the time that this occurred, Rarelibra's own behavior was being called into question for lack of civility. Since then he has begun changing the topic as much as possible from his behavior (which has only grown more abusive and threatening), to the anon's behavior. But what I initially tried to point out was that it seemed bizarre that this abusive anon used Rarelibra's own arguments and terminology three times while purportedly attacking his viewpoint.
Since that tangent, the core point I've tried to make which hasn't been addressed, is that Rarelibra's recent behavior fits a well-defined pattern of trying to intimidate others away from "his" articles. When someone doesn't give up and leave, but calls him on it instead, he continues until on the verge of getting in serious trouble – at which point he backs down and pretends it was all a terrible misunderstanding. My own words were uncivil in publicly saying I believed the above was possible, as opposed to privately finding someone who could check it. But it was a singular event which I'll try to learn from and not repeat, as opposed to doing it repeatedly despite several formal warnings.
Last but not least, I'm a relative newcomer and don't know how to go about petitioning the checkusers to look into this. I'd appreciate any contact / petition information you could offer. arimareiji (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Arimareiji – I would appreciate it if you remain civil and not accusatory next time. Also, check away – you can find out from the anon user quickly that the IP is from LOS ANGELES, CA. I live in Chicago. Rarelibra (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
My comments were not directed to you, Rarelibra. And considering that you started the incivility in other threads long before my own words, I think I'd prefer to take my lessons from the Wiki guideline pages rather than you. Especially since you seem intent on keeping your accusation against Icsunonove up and uncontradicted, despite refusing to show proof. arimareiji (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay people, please give it a rest now. The checkuser on the IP didn't turn up anything, so we now please lay both sets of suspicions to rest. Arimareiji, I still fail to see how the IP argued Rarelibra's case. For all I can understand, those were in no way Rarelibra's arguments. Unless you understand this conflict much better than I do. – About methods of requesting checkusers, there's a formal channel at WP:RFCU, but it's also considered legitimate to contact individual checkuser people with requests through whatever other channels if appropriate; in this case I simply asked Lar on his talk page, as he was already involved with the case anyway. Fut.Perf.☼19:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to help
I see that you are quite familiar with old music so may I ask if you have received any formal musical training? Despite 11 years of music education I myself don't feel confident enough to browse through the critical commentaries in CMM (especially when it comes to comments on older notation systems and the evolution of flemish and italian polyphonic peculiarities). You seem constantly full of surprises, so I think I 'll just start hating you. Till then here's a treat from one of my personal favourites (it is of course a rather later kind of music and a bit banal but Scholl and his interpetation of "Erbarme dich" are simply unsurpassed) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlyIhnqujQ --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Actually, yeah, I did some music history during my first years at university, before I took my specialisation in linguistics. (The last motet article I did, Sub Arturo plebs, was actually mostly based on an old term paper I wrote back then.) I'm also a bit of an amateur performer. I'll try and get hold of those editions, no problem.
By the way, if you're interested in these kinds of Renaissance music – Greek history links, I was just reminded there's yet another "Byzantine" motet by Dufay, Vasilissa ergo gaude. We could do that next. It's about some Italian princess being shipped off to marry one of the last Palaiologos rulers in Mistras. Poor girl. Might be fun to do together if you wanted to do the history part and I the music. Fut.Perf.☼15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, there seems to be some interesting literature out there about that Cleopa or Cleopha girl. [62] Silvia Ronchey, a Byzantinologist, has written stuff about her. We definitely should have an article about her and her marriage. Fut.Perf.☼15:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! I had heard the story of Cleophe Malatesta or Κλεόπη or Κλεόπα Παλαιολογίνα (there is even a recent work of historical fiction written about her) and in fact there is another work by Dufay with curious Byzantine connotations. It is the motet Balsamus et Munda which may also merit an article. There is also the interesting case of Fragiskos Leontaritis whose article should most definetely be expanded. Have to leave now but I' ll be back--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately have to leave again, but I would appreciate it if you could also have a look at another motet by Dufay, entitled Apostolus gloriosus composed for the foundation of a catholic church in Patras (the church was actually consecrated by Pandulfo, Cleofa's brother) and a ballata by Lantins entitled Tra quante ragione. Thanks...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fut Perf, we've often disagreed (sometimes agreed), but this behavior from Rarelibra is totally unacceptable and smacks yet again of WP:LEGAL (see his comments at the admin page). I haven't used Wikipedia in months, and I still do not have time to come on here but once or twice a week to look into this latest fiasco. My opinion on this is simply to have someone like Lar come in and hold the children apart when they start revert wars. This current dispute is already obviously a waste of time, we need to put all the terms into the map and be done with it. Anyway, I do take issue with Rarelibra making all these threats of off-line action to users (such as myself) on here. His extreme temper warrants cause for alarm. He even went as far as to say I used his real name, but I have never ever met or spoke with him off-line, and I have no way to know his name! Anyway, I've messaged Lar already regarding this, and I'd appreciate if you reply to me on how to report these WP:LEGAL and otherwise off-line threats. thank you, Icsunonove (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
My comments are nowhere near WPLEGAL. Icsunonve's denials are disappointing, at best. But maybe we should lighten up and just focus on the solution that has already been presented? Rarelibra (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Are there any news from User:Nauplion? I' ve been finding so many conflicting pieces of information on Cleofa (most of them published in well respected Journals) I am getting a headache. Scholars disagree practically on everything: Her parentage, the date of her betrothal, the date of her marriage, the date of her departure for Morea (or was it Constantinople?) etc. etc. etc. I don't think I can tackle all that without help. There are a couple of works I should like to consult in the hope that they would clarify the situation 1)Anna Falcioni (ed.), Le Donne di Casa Malatesti, Rimini (2004) 2)The book by Ronchey you already suggested and 3) a 17th century work by Cesare Clementini Raccolto istorico della fondazione di Rimino e vite de'Malatesti along with some articles and collections of letters pertaining to her activities in the Morea.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... Just as I was beginning to think I was the village idiot... I think I' ll let it rest then for the time being. I just asked a Byzantinist friend of mine. He is practically of the same opinion.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Lamentatio sanctae matris ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae
Hi, i just wanted to note a personal attack, on racial and xenophobic basis, i want to underline that its not the first time this user does so, still this time he has passed the limit and has clearly gone way beyond WP:PA, its not that i give a dam, i mean i dont care pretty much, still given that there are rules of conduct id suggest to warn the User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ about his attitide, in particular about this Talk:Macedonian (his last coment in the section Diaspora question, the Slav thing...) thank you.Alex Makedon (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that's just Kekrops' old sarcastic ways. He can't help it, he's a dyed-in-the-wool cynic. I wouldn't bother too much about him, honestly. And really, I don't seem much xenophobic in there, and certainly nothing homophobic (where did you see that?) He was just pointing out he saw it as ironic that a (Slav) Macedonian should be appropriating the (Greek) names of "Alexander" and "Makedon", and then blame Greeks for playing fast and loose with etymologies. Not that it's a very logical argument, but we can't be picky about quality of arguments these days, it seems... ;-) Fut.Perf.☼17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I was rather referring to his cruel gibe about the "immutability and continuum of 2500 years of Ancient Hellens". I mean I know we're really just a sub-Saharan tribe from the Horn of Africa who don't belong in Europe, but we have feelings too, you know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The ironic thing is that modern Greeks not only try to appropriate the cultural heritage of the Ancient Hellens, with whom have nothing in common, they are claming exclusive "Greek only" right over it. And now exclusive right on Ancient Macedonia cultural heritage and the use of the term Macedonian. Just a little educated person will immediately realize that the culture and linguistics are in continuous evolution, so no one can clame "exclusive rights". (eg. The word Alexander is not "made up" by the Ancient Hellens but its from the Sanskrit word Raksati, the modern Greeks are not the Ancient Hellens, etc)Alex Makedon (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"eg. The word Alexander is not "made up" by the Ancient Hellens but its from the Sanskrit word Raksati" – "we can't be picky about quality of arguments these days, it seems". Tell me about it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to the modern "Macedonians", who differ from their glorious ancient forebears only insofar as the latter didn't enjoy capsicumnearly as much, right? Spank me if I'm wrong. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No State in the world is crazy enough to tag an Ancient Civilisation as its exclusive property like Greece does. The poor and insignificant Greek state needs to constantly feed its population with nationalist history stories about their glorious Ancient past. About the etymology of the name Alexander see for yourself [68]Alex Makedon (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Lol, did you really make some argument somewhere about "Aleksander" and "raksati"? A link, pleaaaase? That's a must see. Fut.Perf.☼21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh-oh. 3rdAlcove was right, we really can't be picky about quality these days. You don't really know much about historical linguistics, do you? Fut.Perf.☼21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, Alex, sorry if I sounded dismissive, but I'm probably not the best admin for playing the civility police in such cases. And really, I do think your particular complaint against Kekrops now is a bit over the top. If you really want action on this, perhaps you'd better raise it elsewhere? I know Kekrops can be a pain with his off-topic sarcasm, but I can't see that much actionable in this instance. (And damnit, your Sanskrit is a hooter. Hint: you want to look up the difference between an etymon and a cognate.) Fut.Perf.☼05:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"Behead them for the crimes I committed"? Btw, the site you keep posting correctly derives Alexandros from Old English, not Sanskrit. (take it easy. good will and patience go a long way) 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
lol have you seen that I, let me say that one more time --> I got the ban for "recent disruptive editing" on the Talk:Macedonian and the "good old sarcastic ways" racist got a smiley ;) okkk lol Alex Makedon (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) A change that you implemented to this template is under discussion at WT:CSD, as a contributor at the talk page for the proposed image deletion guideline is concerned about judging the replaceability of images with text through the speedy deletion process without discussion. Since you made the initial change and since your change certainly does accord with WP:NFCC#1, I thought you might be interested in joining in the discussion (presuming one happens; heaven knows, opening a discussion on Wikipedia isn't the same thing as actually having one :D) and sharing your views. My personal goal is consistency between the template and WP:CSD#I7, whichever way that may land. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
That was kind. Could you also possibly help with numbering. I wanted to write
1a xxxxxx
1b yyyyyyy
so that the 1a and 1b do not occur on the same line, as they appear after you have edited, even though in the editor itself I put a carriage return in. Americanlinguist (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure. When you write normal paragraph texts, a single carriage return is ignored; a paragraph break must be marked with a double carriage return. An alternative is to use the <br/> line break tag, or to start each line with a colon (which will turn each line into an indented paragraph.)
That's helpful I will try that. Meanwhile I have done some more work on the introduction to explain the technical terms. I am working on it now but would be grateful if we could both look at it next week in terms of readability. The other articles on pragmatics also look as though they could be beefed up! I will have a go during the remainder of this month. Best Americanlinguist (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
2. the page edit ban is withdrawn, i can edit the page ergo the ban is not in force
3. if i cannot cross my your own withdrawn ban, someone should
4. in the bottom line wtf was "problematic" about my editing and wtf it has to do with some bans from 1 year ago or with the creation of my second account "socket puppetry case" back in the days i was a wkiknoob (not that im an expert now lol)?
On 25 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cleofa Malatesta, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 25 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vasilissa ergo gaude, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Future. This user has changed the term Byzantine to Eastern Roman in many articles. I tried to revert as much as I could but I realised that you could do this faster and better by using rollback. Could you possibly roll back the edits of this user? Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. Please disregard this. I met Elonka halfway through the corrections. They are done now. Take care and thanks anyway. Dr.K. (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh. Rampant process-wonkery. There's a rule somewhere that says that the creator of the page should not themselves remove a speedy-deletion tag. Which you did, so somebody who is very very very fond of correct process restored it just for form's sake. Don't worry, no real danger. Fut.Perf.☼21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. No, they aren't. (Although it might occasionally happen that Encarta pinches an image from us; Britannica is known to do that sometimes.) GFDL licensing is pretty odd, it's a license that, while giving the downstream user lots of freedom to do with our material as they like, also formally imposes lots of obligations on him, such as redistributing the full text of the license with all the copies and docucmenting all the prior history of the material. There's some small print there that you don't really want to know. We're apparently stuck with it, as it was the only license they knew of when they founded Wikipedia and they couldn't choose one that would have fit us better, and now all the previous editors have released their text under this license and we can't simply change it without asking every single prior Wikipedia contributor for permission x-) Fut.Perf.☼19:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
1) Replied on my talk page about the alphabet. 2) Please check out Crossthets' incoherent ranting on the page that PMK linked you to a few sections up. It's a mix of trolling, incivility/personal attacks, IDHT and who knows what else. Oh, and he's canvassing too. 3) Maybe you should edit the name dispute map. BalkanFever07:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm aware of Crossthets. He's been following me around like a gadfly. About the map, I'm really still not sure it's worth it, given the volatile editing on the article. Thanks for the advice on mk-wiki. Fut.Perf.☼19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
revert war on the horison over a see also link O.o
Hi, can you take a look we have a talk page consensus and a positive opinion from an Admin about keeping the link List of homonymous states and regions, still hordes of lame Greek reverteditors keep reverting and deleting this link with NO arguments, the link was reverted 4 times the last 12 hours, and I repeat with no arguments. Can you do something about this or should we assume that the lame Greek POVeditors Hegemony in WIkipedia is absolute, so the non lame greek editors better spend their time elsewhere? thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually your edit was reverted 3 times in 12 hours by 3 different users, the first removal was from NikoSilver 10 days ago. You added it again "per talk" but still hadn't answered to NikoSilver, so i reverted and pointed to the discussion. You kept on edit warring without giving a sufficient answer claiming there was a consensus in your edit summaries. In our first encounter i was a "vandal", now i am a "lame editor", abusing wikipedia policy terms is not going to help you.--Zakronian (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
there is a consensus, and there is an admin ok on the matter, if you cant read english plz stick to the greek Wiki, you will do us all a favour. And what is "problematic" about the link under the see also? Do state it? Its not that Wikipedia can be shaped at personal will, just cuz by your POV the liks "should not be there" it doesn't mean that you can actually go and revert something approved by the community and by admins. let me just quote some of the community opinion on the matter: "Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever", "I am not opposed to the addition provided examples, Crossthets", "I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also BF", if you find that the article List of homonymous states and regions is uncompleate do edit it, still it has nothing to do with your POV reverts. Alex Makedon (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
a noob wonders
thinking about "new users changing Greek dab page again back and forth". i have the concern that generally in disputed articles, including dabs, when they reach a stable and universally accepted state, the editors who used to watch them stop (because of the stability reached) and new ones unaware of the many reached unanimities and accepted consensus, edit and bring back old problems falling into the same cycles of edits. and unless old editors become chronic constant watchdogs, the articles will be an amorphous mass of halfassed articles swaying around medium quality. does wiki have mechanisms against that? CuteHappyBrute (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ohmigod ohmigod ohmigod. The article title translates as "Ancient Macedonian alphabet". It's that pseudo-"decipherment" of the Demotic Egyptian part of the Rosetta Stone as "ancient"(!) "Macedonian" (i.e. Slavic). I knew that idea was being peddled by a lot of nationalist idiots over there, but to make an actual article out of it presenting it as fact, and then even calling it a "featured article", is a bit thick. Apparently the main culprit is User:MacedonianBoy.
I can't read the text, but it doesn't look like it's admitting any doubt about the validity of this "alphabet". This certainly is the biggest pile of bullshit I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. Unfortunately I have little or no influence on what they do over at mk. Fut.Perf.☼23:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
lolol I am Greek! I had heard about that! Now they deciphered it 100%? Awww such brilliant scientists. My hat off to them. Where is that Ventris kid to watch and learn? oh and a featured article? But of course.. pshh of course Anc.Macedonian is Slavic silly, why else would they be called Macedonians in the first place? and don't diss them because you are jealous you didn't decipher this Ancient and Magic and Pure and Great language before them..CuteHappyBrute (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment here, but I'd have a really long (and sarcastic) burst on it and I can't really afford it right now. I can only say the article is full of really strange stuff. Watching MacedonianBoy create it and I'd normally be amazed only if I didn't know him. According to the article this alphabet is somewhat similar to the one used in present-day Republic of Macedonia with the Glagolitic alphabet (also the "Second Macedonian alphabet" as named in the article) is the stage between the two. It comes out only the second passage from the stone was written in Macedonian cause it was the Pharaoh's one (?) who evidently was one of them. Does this by any chance have something to do with the Macedonian (Northern, Slavic or whatever) name of Cleopatra constantly being added to the en.article?--LaveolT00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you check if the article text also qualifies as a copyvio? It's certainly following the structure of its (sole) source quite closely. Fut.Perf.☼08:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The structure is exactly the same, although the words seem to differ somewhat. It has the same meaning as the source sometimes with the exact words. I was thinking about the images which MacedonianBoy claims to be self-made. --LaveolT09:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
lol, of course it doesn't, still figuring out the first steps, how to distance ancient Macedonian from Greek. And when (at least in your minds) enough "space" is created you can proceed by building your new cultural affiliations on "better" foundations. After all you are called Macedonians, what's more natural ? A disadvantage trying to enrich your nationalistic culture, not being Greek. Greek nationalists only need to over-focus on historical facts, cause they have the best piece of land and language to play with, you must construct or "find" something entirely new. :p --Zakronian (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Holy macadamia. What one can find in the dark recesses of Balkanopedia. This definitely beats the Albano-Pelasgian heritage of Piro and Akili over at sq.wiki. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
ok this is getting funnier and funnier! I found google.translate and you can translate Makedonski.. through Serbian or Bulgarian... What a pleasant coincidence that those languages are so close eh? (i don't know about the people). check it out, although it's not great translation, you can usually get the subject. [70] Apparently in that pic it means that the ancient Egyptians, who were (as were Greeks of course xD) conquered by the Ancient comrades of the Great Makedoncis referred to Makedoncis as "our Masters". I can OR and say this came naturally to the Ancient Egyptian people in the sight of the superiority of the Great Nation of Makedoncis; as Bucephalas was really a Yugo and that technology stroke fear in the heart of the barbarians. oh btw you must by now know that all the Slavic languages come from ancient Macedonski. ask any Macedonci user. moreover according to safe sources [71][72] , Greek has a relation to Macedonski although it is a still basically a sub-saharan dialect; and Ancient Makedonski have roots to Ancient Sanskrit (not Sanskrit, ancient Sanskrit.. we are talking about ancient ancientness here, serious business). i wish i had more time to find more like these xD. if you browse through mk.wiki there are plenty diamonds like these.. and i propose since such articles are featured in another language, the English wiki can gain quality in the relevant articles by using material from there. translators like MacedonianBoy are most welcome.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome. Come and search. For example, we have put the Greek names of the towns in Aegean Macedonia, but to put Macedonian names for the cities on the GR Wiki isnt possible. What is pitty here? -- MacedonianBoy Oui?23:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
But yet you do not allow the Greek name of emperor Basil I to be added to the article. Is this because he was actually an ethnic Macedonian? --LaveolT23:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
We're getting way off-topic but since you argue – it was you you that removed it in the first place. Your bro just reverted me ;)--LaveolT00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW If you mean about this article, it is translated from English (your translator doesnt work). In the article about the alphabet, there is no such data. Sorry, but you must imagine different things.-- MacedonianBoy Oui?23:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
if i'm wrong or sound offensive, i apologize. but you really can't see why me (a mere simpleton) and most of the educated/scholar world laughs at all these nonsense? you have so many completely different approaches towards what makes you Macedonian that it's a joke by now. almost every other Slavmacedonian i meet has a different one. a completely different story about him and his ancestors. if you had half the intelligence so to make a common story to sell, you would still have some decency. but you leave noone a chance about what to think of your cause (that is monopolizing the name Macedonia). even when you are a new, small, poor nation which means we feel for you, you leave us no space, i've seen the most liberal leftists, hippies, anarchists, non-Greeks, Slavs, Bulgarians even Slavmacedonians currently living in SlavoMacedonia to disapprove your cause, and in my opinion this is way far from coincidental.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
...a must-see: presenting the most hilarious contradiction that ever came out of Macedonism..(second is the Basil II and Samuel being ethnic Macedonci thing/ but coincidentally written in history as Basil: Byzantine Bulgar-killer and Samuel: of Bulgaria who lost bloodbathed battles against Basil). reading the scientific report about the Decipherment of Ancient Makedonski (the middle text on Rosetta Stone as those bright minds say) there i saw the scientist from Slavomacedonia say: "The Ancient macedonian language is most similar to the language of the Pelagonia region, that of the Bitola-Lerin dialect.
- We were stunned at how much has remained in the modern Macedonian language, even in the gramatical sense. The nouns had the plurals "leto-leti", "gospodar-gospodari". so, since they were stunned about the relation to the ancient one relating so closely to Bitola-Lerin dialect where they also stunned that the exact same happens and translates exactly the same in common modern Serbian? [73] xD. so do the Serbs claim Macedonian ancestry? since they have common words with the language that ancient Macedonians have? pretty much as many as Slavomacedonians do. yea i know the convenient Makedonci answer: "the Slavs stole our language" and "Slavic languages derive from Ancient Makedonski". yes. i swear these are real answers i have been given. [no comment]CuteHappyBrute (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The plural of "leto" is "leta" not "leti". And "Macedonian" is much closer to Bulgarian than to Serbian. "Macedonian is a Bulgarian language written on a Serbian typewriter" – Venko Markovski, one of the committee that created the "Macedonian alphabet". The official protocols of this committee were written with a Bulgarian typewriter, though, and the newly invented letters were added by hand.
Take it from the good side. I am very thankful to Macedonian Boy and the other Macedonian Bulgarians for the hearty laugh. It made my day and even inspired me to write a poem to one of the authors of these materials, Biljana Stavrovska:
And for interwiki collaboration of the year too. sk.wikipedia:Alexander Veľký another featured article. I can not speak Slovak but I think there are some other familiar crapola crawled into there too; "Gréci a macedónski (linking to the FY/ROM) Slovania, ktorí Alexandra považujú za národného hrdinu..." --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar used as personal attack
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I don't know if you wish to comment on this, but I thought you ought to know. Regards, Kafka Liz (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you are an editor involved in many relevant articles, I would like to make a question: Since here it is clearly stated that Prior discussion has determined that the name Republic of Macedonia will be used in this article, why in a great number of other articles the Republic of is missing? If the main article of this country is entitled such, shouldn't the rest of the articles use the same phrase? Giving the fact of the naming dispute, the term "Republic of Macedonia" was approved by the Wikipedia community in order to serve as the golden rule between editors from Greece and FYROM. Δεν καταστρατηγείται αυτός ο συμβιβασμός όταν αυτή η χώρα ονομάζεται απλά "Μακεδονία" σε άλλα άρθρα; --Hectorian (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Examples? I haven't got much time right now for promoting my usual anti-Greek propaganda, I'm too busy promoting anti-FYROM propaganda on mk-wiki, so please make it brief. Fut.Perf.☼11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This template (which does not even mention "FYROM" (only a link for the dispute as a note); this also (and all the relevant)-should be in the form "Republic of Macedonia presidential election, 2004"); In addition, plus (the parenthesis), also, furthermore. I have also named titles of articles, not content. Many more articles use simply "Macedonia" in their text. All these in contrary to the accepted solution reached in Wikipedia.
I have noticed your involment in mk-wiki. I would call it "anti-historical-linguistic violation" propaganda (since it concerns the Rozetta Stone's Slavic text. LOL!) Keep it up. Regards. --Hectorian (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Templates were discussed separately at some point at WT:MOSMAC. About the election article, adjectival usage of "Macedonian" is no problem where no ambiguity exists; since none of the other Macedonias has presidents or parliaments to elect, an election article is one of those contexts. I think those cases were also specifically discussed at some point, on the talk page of one of the "parliamentary elections" articles. Generally, when it comes to article titles, I personally favour elegance and brevity over political correctness. Article titles don't need to be maximally unambiguous at all costs. Fut.Perf.☼12:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
So, you suggest that when something is one of a kind should be named such? (referring to "parliamentary elections"). Would an article entitled "Macedonian prefectural elections" stand like that? FYROM has no prefectures. Greek Macedonia does. No fear of confussion. Also, Macedonian Struggle is used exclusively in reference to the Greeks; why the article is titled Greek Struggle for Macedonia? How about the Kosovo–Macedonia relations? You did not comment on that. Also, concerning the templates, a solution agreed for naming the main article, shouldn't be taken into account when editting a template. If editors apply different rules for every article, we lead the project to anarchy. --Hectorian (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why I would want to spend my time discussing hypothetical scenarios with you when most of these cases have been discussed and settled long ago. Last time I tried discussing stuff with you, you weren't very perceptive. - The "Greek Struggle for Macedonia" is a problematic title for a number of reasons, but not because of its handling of ambiguity. Fut.Perf.☼13:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Last time you tried to discuss with me, it was for another reason. Let aside the hypothetical scenarios. My question is simple and clear: should we use the accepted solution reached long ago when referring to this country? If yes, we should replace the word "Macedonia" in every article with reference to FYROM with the term "Republic of Macedonia" and rename articles such as this. If no, perhaps we should discuss again for a naming solution in Wikipedia, since the one reached long ago isn't respected. --Hectorian (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you really getting a block
Sorry, but I couldn't help it – you got the official status of Greek propaganda marionette, that they will stop you and your vandalism and that you're gonna be blocked? Hmm, and no need bothering about any wikirules there. The only ones that follow them there do it because they feel that way. Most of the others are free to do whatever they like (including Admins). You know my opinion on the matter. A big LOL though. --LaveolT17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No, you won't get a block. Please consider, the whole thing is just a misunderstanding. Some of the users involved over at mk.wiki are inexperienced in wiki policies, have a bad temper and a hard time assuming good faith. It's hard to run a project with barely 20 active users, and things get out of hand most of the time. But I'm asking you, please, have faith. Things can and will get better, but it won't happen over night. It will be a hard and continuous process and I promise you that there are users who won't let this project derail. I'm one of them. Future Perfect, I apologize on the behalf of the mk.wiki community for any discomfort. I acknowledge you that your help is very appreciated and I am asking you to continue your collaboration with us. The whole block/"Greek propaganda marionette" was unnecessary and out of place and I will do my best to prevent such outbursts in the future. I hope that you will understand. Laveol, thank you so much for your sincere concern, lol. I, for one, am not "free to do whatever [I] like" and I will do my best to prevent other Wikipedians from doing so. "The only ones that follow them there do it because they feel that way." — could you please elaborate on this though? Thank you, Brainmachine (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Ha, ha, ha, not even funny anymore. Actually I meant only a few users actually adhere to wikipolicies (You, Brainmachine, are one of them as well as BF). My opinion is such cause some time ago I made an edit with my IP and got an immediate indef block from a former (I think) admin on mkwiki (who btw one his turn is indef blocked on en.wiki although I get the impression he had or still has some socks operating here). I've given up on trying to discuss anything there cause every time I get the same. I have to discuss it 3-4 days before I make a single edit and avoid being yelled at or simply reverted with no explanation. The fact that you don't like another editor should not determine your attitude towards him. And all wikirules rules still apply on every wikipedia. --LaveolT14:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It certainly looks as if many participants over at mk-wiki consider it "their" national wiki, where they expect to be given free reign to have their Macedonian national POV monopolise the articles, and that they perceive of all "intrusion" from people with other national viewpoints as blockable disruption. It is also quite clear that some admins do not hesitate to abuse their admin powers to protect their home POV. Quickly browsing through the mk-wiki block log, I see frequent block reasons of "anti-Macedonian propaganda", but not a single case where the home contributors have been sanctioned for hostile POV-driven edit-warring against those non-Macedonian newbs. I see blocks of up to a year(!) for anon IPs after a single short series of (apparently good-faith) edits, with no warnings. From the last few months alone, the following blocks seem at least worthy of some scrutiny:
Li4kata [74] (can't understand what the block notice is saying; no easily visible disruption preceding the block)
anon 87.119.94.114 [75] (marked "3RR", but no 3RR violation visible – does mk-wiki even have a 3RR? Clearly good-faith edits, POV-driven, some edit-warring, but behaviour of other side was no better)
anon 88.67.85.125 [76][77] (one-year(!) block for a single POV edit)
anon 89.215.59.108 [78] (1 year for "anti-macedonian propaganda", after a single series of good-faith though POV edits; limited edit-warring; hostile reverting from MacedonianBoy went unsanctioned)
I say this because I now see quite clearly that I myself would certainly have got the same treatment, if it hadn't been for my position as a high-profile en-wiki admin, which apparently has given me a perceived position of some kind of power. I have no doubt whatsoever that I'd otherwise be blocked by now.
Hmm, it turns out I was blocked for spamming, which apparently includes adding a fact tag and trying to discuss it with the person that removed it. Mind you – my IP is floating so it's someone else that's actually blocked now. --LaveolT18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi I quite liked the cartoon that the other guy put there – it's a difficult subject and as I understand the purpose of Wikipedia is to make all human knowledge accessible to everyone and suchlike good things, and I do think cartoons and appealing images can make it more digestible (cont. p 94). Is there any way of contacting the publishers and allowing the image? Best Americanlinguist (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I liked the cartoon too. The problem is only, we have very strict rules about copyright here, and one of our (self-imposed) principles is we accept such images only if there is permission not just for us to use them here in this article, but also for everybody else to re-use it outside wikipedia for any purpose. That permission will be difficult to get for a commercial syndicated cartoon, I'm afraid.
Perhaps you can just render the thing in words. Like:
"Like with other pragmatic effects, failure to respond appropriately to scalar implicatures can be a source of comic effects. Linguist Mark Lieberman, in a discussion of implicatures, pointed to the example of a "Zits" comic strip, in which a boy first asks his mother to lend him ten dollars, then, when she refuses, goes on to ask for twenty instead. The comic effect is that the boy refuses to notice that the refusal to his first request already carries the refusal of the second as a scalar implicature."
All images in the next articles are Copyright violations. Macedonia appears to use the
{PD-old-70} rule, and there do not appear to be any other catches. How about all the images in the topics bellow?
Can you look at the Comfort women and editors who have been disruptively blanking properly cited info and altering information without consensus nor discussion such as Sennen goroshi (talk·contribs), and Amazonfire (talk·contribs) did? The latter returns after his 8 months break and his block by you[80] Amazonfire was suspected as somebody's sock per his meatpuppeting to block evading users like Azukimonaka or others.[81] I think he is a sleeper sock in light of his behaviors, and timing. Please take a look at his behaviors. Thanks.--Caspian blue14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
FPaS – I need your assistance/opinion on an issue that has come up. There is an anonymous user (IP from Ireland) who is making edits to List of lakes, List of castles, and Table of administrative country subdivisions by country whereby the user is claiming that the name is "Ireland" and not "Republic of Ireland". The wikilink clearly goes to the article for Republic of Ireland and I am attempting to ensure that it stays this way, however, the user continues to revert my reversions and insist on the name being "Ireland" and not "Republic of Ireland". Can you assist in this issue and clear it up by either letting me know that this user's edits are correct (and I will no longer revert) or correct this user in stopping the actions that he/she is doing? Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I must say I have no strong opinion on this case, nor do I know what the relevant consensus among editors active in the field is. I can just about imagine some of the ideological pitfalls in making the "wrong" naming decisions here. Personally, I can't find much wrong with using the short form, in a context that is clearly a list of countries, not of some other geographical units. The Republic is usually referred to in normal spoken English as just "Ireland" after all, isn't it? Fut.Perf.☼14:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
![[4]](http://e-vestnik.bg/imgs/nauka_tech/mouse-cat-141207.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:IlindenFlag_svg.png&action=edit){kind=link}
![[26]](http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/sabutin/khrushchev.gif){kind=link}
![18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/Archive_14#c-Ajl772-2008-09-10T18:32:00.000Z-deletion_of_"Image:Ajl772WikiExample.JPG"){kind=link}
![[53]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Capidan_Megleno.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[54]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Malvinaswarmemorialbbaa217.jpg){kind=link}
![[55]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:San-Carlos-Cemetery.JPG){kind=link}
