I think this is one of your maps, Aegean Macedonia. [1]. You may wish to try and change the wording on this – in my analysis – political map.Politis (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
What's the problem, exactly? You mean the "Aegean Macedonia" label? Not that I'd care much. It's the Macedonian wiki, if that's how they refer to that region in their language, that's what they'll have on the map. So what? In any case, I usually intervene on mk-wiki only when it's about copyright or about really crass NPOV issues on some topic I care about. If you want that map changed, you can edit it just as well as I could. Fut.Perf.☼14:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I do realize it was a no-brainer, but a discussion needs to be ref'ed in the banned user listing, and I had another admin question the properness of my using G5, saying that this user was merely blocked, not banned. Just wanted to make sure things were done right. AKRadeckiSpeaketh17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Prejudice
I have an objection on the occasion of doing your administrator duties. You can see a part of my arguments that you adopted a partial attitude here.--Males (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That map is fine. I defended your decision to include Greece on a map of Macedonian dialects; I'll be just as much in favour of a map including Macedonia in the context of the Bulgarian dialects. Both for the same reason: because they package information in a way that makes sense linguistically. Unlike some people here, I really don't edit dialectology topics just as a means of staking out national territory, but because I genuinely want to learn where those damned isoglosses are. Fut.Perf.☼14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The map with Aegean Macedonia is something totally different. The Macedonian is called Slavic in Greece and as far as I know we marked a dialect continuum. The map with BG dialect says that Macedonian is Bulgarian and this is an example of politicization of the linguistics. This is not acceptable by any chance. And also the map includes only the lands that in Bulgaria are considered as Bulgarian (which the most stupid thing that I have heard in my life) Regards-- MacedonianBoy Oui?09:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
My Macedonian map showed exactly those varieties that in Macedonia are consiered Macedonian. Some people thought that was the most stupid thing they had heard in their lives, and it was pointed out, correctly, that any such boundary-drawing is ultimately arbitrary and politically motivated. Nevertheless, we stuck with the design because (a) it was what our (reliable) source had, (b) it seemed to be showing some interesting linguistic facts packaged in a way that made sense for that article, and (c) the precise delimitations of the mapped area are linguistically irrelevant anyway and not what the map should be understood as being about.
The Bulgarian map shows exactly those varieties that in Bulgaria are consiered Bulgarian. Some people think that is the most stupid thing they had heard in their lives, and it can be pointed out, correctly, that any such boundary-drawing is ultimately arbitrary and politically motivated. Nevertheless, we will stick with the design because (a) it is what our (reliable) source have, (b) it seems to be showing some interesting linguistic facts packaged in a way that make sense for that article, and (c) the precise delimitations of the mapped area are linguistically irrelevant anyway and not what the map should be understood as being about.
It is a well-known feature of the nationalist mind-set that it makes the perception of analogies difficult. But give it a try. Fut.Perf.☼09:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If that map will be on this Wikipedia and/or on Commons, the description at least should be that: The map is based upon the dialectological POV in BG, where as the rest of the world recognize the languages as seperate ones.It would be fair.-- MacedonianBoy Oui?10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
"The rest of the world" is not interested either way. The reason for showing the map is not to show boundaries between national languages. This goes to all sides in this sorry conflict: stop projecting your national insecurity complexes onto the rest of the world. We, outside readers and editors, don't want to know if it's one language or two or where the boundary between them is. We don't give a fuck. The only thing we want to know from that map is where the isoglosses of big Yus are, and it shows that just fine. Fut.Perf.☼10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you cannot realize it, the map shows, besides the rest, that Macedonian is Bulgarian. Why, for example Serbian is not included in the map? The Serbian has the same sounds as Macedonian has? I am not speaking with nationalistic tone, I do not give a fuck either whether in BG cosider my language as BG but the map should be clear. If we make a map with the Old Church Slavonic Yus than the Serbian language should be included too. -- MacedonianBoy Oui?11:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you cannot realize it, Serbian is not included because Serbian was never Bulgarian, whereas Macedonian was, and this is a Bulgarian dialect map reflecting the situation in the early 20th century (not a map of Old Bulgarian isoglosses). Simple, isn't it? The map is accurate in what it represents and the source used is the most authoritative and in-depth study on Bulgarian dialectology, the Academy's atlas.
I don't mean to ruin your relationship with Tito, but simply looking at the map will make you realize that the Yus reflex in most of Vardar Macedonia (and in the literary language) is not the same as the one in westernmost northern Bulgaria and eastern Serbia. There really is no point in denying the obvious proximity to Bulgarian dialects and always pointing out the similarities of the dialects to Serbian, which are much less. Todor→Bozhinov15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It is the same thing as you desire to see the Russian state of San Stefano. And do not push that idea that MK and BG are the same because I am sure non in BG cannot speak Macedonian or to write (the same goes to you). -- MacedonianBoy Oui?17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just felt like clarifying some stuff that our friend pretended not to understand. By the way, Fut, what do you think about that? Calling Bulgarians "Tatars" is a popular ethnic slur among our brothers, don't ask me why, and you're well aware of his previous record of supporting anti-Bulgarian abuse. Todor→Bozhinov18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
And I suppose this is not offend to my nation? This comment: If you cannot realize it, Serbian is not included because Serbian was never Bulgarian, whereas Macedonian was. This is classical irredentism. My comment is respond to this one and calling me Bulgarian is a big offend to me-- MacedonianBoy Oui?18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sock puppet variant
Duvvuri.kapur is probably a variant of Duvvuri.Kapur1. I don't necessarily support the block, but I thought this one might have slipped by, and I'd rather not encourage the sock puppetry by leaving only one random account unblocked. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it, and for apparently handling many other high energy admin duties. I'm unwatching your talk page due to the correspondingly high energy comments. Any future worries about this guy can probably be handled at the article talk page, as I think consensus is quite likely to be a community ban from the article. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I did not receive a "heads-up" that the image was being discussed in the deletion fora. Is this because you deleted it on your sole authority? I know there are criteria where administrators are authorized to delete material on their sole authority.
I have offered the view elsewhere, and I will repeat here, that I think it is in the best interests of the project if administrators who delete material without prior warning advise the uploaders afterwards.
First, if the upload was counter-policy, but a good-faith mistake, advising the uploader saves everyone's time. That good-faith uploader is likely to go on and repeat that mistake. Not advising them wastes not only their time, but it wastes the time of who-ever cleans up after the mistakes they could have avoided if the administrator who made that first deletion had left some kind of tag informing them of their mistake...
Second, I know that administrators are just as human as anyone else. So, like everyone else, administrators a fallible. They will make the occasional mistake. And if they exercise the authority to delete material on sight, I believe it is inevitable that they will delete some material in error.
The deletion policies recommend that those who place a deletion tag on material give the uploader a courtesy heads-up. This means that a contributor who doesn't check their watchlist, because they didn't log in for a period, or they overlooked the watchlist entry when the tag was placed, they are still informed. But when an adminstrator deletes material on sight, they can't count on the uploader being informed by the person who placed the deletion tag -- as there was no deletion tag.
This was not a speedy deletion but a regular IfD listing, which is archived here. You were apparently notified of the listing correctly by the nominator, here. Overlooked? As for the merits of the deletion, the decisive argument was that it was a commercial news agency photo (and the photo was, of course, not itself the focus of analytical discussion.) Fut.Perf.☼09:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, I did get a heads-up.
You are aware that there are complications over the copyright status of images taken in Afghanistan, because it is not a signatory to any international copyright agreements, and has no domestic laws on copyright? Some wire services seem to have taken the position that images acquired in Afghanistan are like a gold mine, and that the individual who is the first to publish an image in a country that does have copyright protection gets to claim all the rights to the image, world-wide. Personally, I don't find this assertion credible enough that I think we should unquestionably accept every wire services' claim of the ownership of intellectual property rights.
The link is here: [2]. It was published in the Washington Post and credited to a Washington Post journalist, who apparently took it in Yemen, not Afghanistan. I'm not sure under what conditions the scenario you describe would have any consequences for us, but I don't see it applies here in any case. Fut.Perf.☼21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
About B. polynomials: for your information
Hello,
As a sysop on fr:, I have been in contact with this "case" for one year now. Last night (european time ;-) ), it has taken overwhelming proportions, as a person who claims to be Luo Guo Zhang from China has sent e-mails to my own personal e-mail box, and, more important, to my professional e-mail box, with a copy to a few colleagues of mine, declaring I was racist and threatening me of a lawsuit. I would suggest you to act carefully in that matter, especially if a new AfD is launched. Whoever he is, he seems quite obstinate... Best regards, GillesC (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Look, Bukubku, there is no misunderstanding. I understand you perfectly. You, like some other fellow country people I see here on Wikipedia, have been editing with a very obvious agenda: relativising Japanese war crimes and deflecting attention away from them, by artificially conjoining our treatment of them with an inflated treatment of (alleged or real) crimes committed by members of the victim nations in other contexts. As if the fact that Koreans committed crimes at some time or other could take away any of the seriousness and uniqueness of the Japanese WWII crimes. It's a very cheap, very transparent, and morally despicable maneuvre. But most of all, it produces abominably poor articles, because it leads to incoherent jumbles of irrelevanct factoids. So, you were pushing some passage about accusations against the Korean government into the lead of the Comfort women article. I don't doubt the reports about those accusations are correct, so don't waste your time heaping up yet more "sources" for them here, that's not the point. They are irrelevant, because prostitution in wartime Korea is simply not what that article is about. Issues of comparison with prostitution situations elsewhere could have been treated legitimtately in some subsection, perhaps, but pushing it into the lead, with no regard to logic and encyclopedic structure, is the hallmark of the disruptive tendentious editor.
The rest of your articles, including that on Yaeko Taguchi, are also extremely poor quality: tendentious language, and almost unreadable English. There's of course no blame in not writing English perfectly, if it's not your native language. It isn't mine either, and I have full respect for people struggling with a foreign language. There are many things people with less-than-perfect English can usefully do on the English wikipedia. But one thing they cannot realistically do is negotiating NPOV wording of contentious political topic articles. That's just too difficult for you. You should recognise your limitations and voluntarily stay away from such issues.
Now I'd be grateful if you stayed away from here; this is all I have to say to you and I have no wish to continue this discussion further. Fut.Perf.☼15:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I wanted to hear your real voice, thank you. I'm sorry, my English skill.
I didn't want to fill your page with my sources. That is only the way to talk with you, sorry. I have never denied Japanese Military Comfort women existance.I think Comfort women are very sad. However, I wonder why only Japanese case was writen? Other country had too. About Yaeko Taguchi, why South Korean users deny Yaeko Taguchi? Her abduction is commited by North Korean, not South Korean. Other Korea-Japan related articles, some people too exaggerate Japanese crimes. And there are some very bad cases, they attach their blame to Japan. I have already talked to you. I don't deny Japanse killed many Koreans. However, you may think my explanation is my POV. For good measure, please look South Korea and Talk:South Korea, they tend to exaggerate things. And I read some South Korean News Paper every day and also read Korean Wikipedia. So I see English Wikipedia is more exaggerated about Japanese crimes than Korean News Paper and Korean Wikipedia. Please reply.--Bukubku (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Our conversations taught me a lot. I tended to edit nationalistic issues. Now I edit mostly cultural issues. I find fun in there, thank you. Our abrasion is only between you and me, not others. So I created new page Ode an die Freude (Film) during our conversations, the picture depicts old German-Japanese friedship. If you have a time, please improve the article.--Bukubku (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Bilateral relations nomenclature
There is such variance among the titles of our bilateral relations articles - which I see you moved a few - should we try to get consensus for a mass renaming, rather than picking out a few oddballs and fixing only those? Please post any thoughts at my talk. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As you point out, it's a tough nut to crack, but I was wondering whether your fixing a few was part of a (hoped-for) effort at a global (litterally) overhaul. But after considering what you wrote, there's probably too much drama and vested interests to make these uniform in any real sense (and we always have the problem of which country comes first, but I won't go there. :0). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
General heads up
For your information only - it appears that this editor has a difficulty with you and he chooses to declare that in particularly inappropriate manner. Now blocked 72 hours but stand by for possible further tirade.--VStalk21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
See what I did, and why (in the talkpage). I'll be a good boy and vanish now (again), but I'll be watching. I left a message to PBS also for this. Au revoir! NikoSilver18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Chams
Ok, I will rewritte them. There are some sentences which are the same with the original, in order to maintain NPOV, you know that it is too difficult to get consensus in a single word on that page. But i will try, right now.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It just seems in Cham Albanians`s lead that Albanians collaborated, while the majority did not. We should not put it that way, since our sources do not agree. See my response.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I know you must be getting sick of the yellow bar, but how come when you block somebody there is an "account creation disabled" accompanying it? I mean, is account creation ever enabled for a blocked user? BalkanFever14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
As an administrator, I would like to inform you that I have made several changes to the article Goce Delčev and I also add a NYT reference where there says that he is different than the Bulgarians and he is Macedonian. In the article there is no the Macedonian position toward his ethnicity and I believe that the BG users will try to delete my contributions. Can you please take a look at the article and tell me whether the structural changes are OK and the reference too? Thanks, -- MacedonianBoy Oui?22:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey remember that revert-parole that you put him on?
" Jingiby (talk · contribs) ... placed on revert limitation (1r/48h, for 6 months, required to precede all reverts by talk page explanation + 3 hours waiting time to allow for discussion), for mass revert-warring ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC) "
The pictured political events from the second World War are not Nazi propaganda. Please, provide reliable arguments. Do you see here Nazi symbols or something else. If no, I will readd this photo. Jingby (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No Nazi symbols? Well, I'm certainly seeing a Hitler salute there. But that's not the point. The point is that you have been using this book as if it were a reliable source, all over the wiki. Come on, you can't be that naive. A book published in Germany. In 1943. In a "Gauverlag", i.e. a Nazi party organ. Which happens to write at length about how happy the people in the occupied territories are to have been occupied by a Nazi ally. And it doesn't occur to you that there might be a little bit of a Nazi propaganda agenda behind it. Of course not.
Seriously, come on. Do you really want the world to learn to see the history of your country through the eyes of the Nazis? Are these Nazi publications where you get your own knowledge of your history from? I'm really apalled. Fut.Perf.☼18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I am fed up with...
Todor Bozhinov behaviour. I have put the neutral American reference and I have organized the pictures and he reverted me accusing me for POV. Can you please check this and please tell him to stop with his irritating behaviour. Thanks.-- MacedonianBoy Oui?12:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
And also this part: Even a number of contemporary historians from the Republic of Macedonia (e.g. Academician Ivan Katardzhiev, director of the Historical Sciences section in the Department of Social Sciences in the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts[9] and the director of the Macedonian state archive, Ph. D. Zoran Todorovski[10]) agree with the Bulgarian ethnic consciousness of Gotse Delchev. has broken link and therefore we cannot see the reliability of the statement.-- MacedonianBoy Oui?13:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
On a relevant issue
I have references, that in antiquity Thesprotians covered what in Albania is known as Chameria. In Middle Ages, Vagenetia covered the same territory, on the Ottoman Empire Chameria, or Rashdie covered the same territory. Only in Modern Times, Chameria is not a synonimous with the greek name for the region. But, as far as I see, in Greek texts Thesprotia is not seen as a greographical or historical region, but only as a nomos and most of all in Preveza Prefectures there are regions, which for sure even today they are part of Thesprotia region (like Thesprotiko). I wonder if Thesprotia prefecture and Thesprotia region are not the same today, and thus Thesprotia region is totally the same thing as Chameria. In this situation, I think that Chameria should be redirected in a new article called Thesprotia (region), which would have all info about the region, without implying the ethnical charachter of a name refered to it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, can't say I'm convinced. The point is, region definitions at various periods will never be precisely the same. Okay, so the modern "nomos" of Thesprotia isn't precisely the same as the ancient homeland of the Thesprotians. But are you sure that "Vagenetia" corresponds to it any more precisely? Or "Chameria", for that matter? All these regions will be somewhat different. I'd prefer to treat "Chameria" in its own terms, in its own article, and whatever there is about changes in the denotation of "Thesprotia" should be treated within the article under that title. I'm generally not very enthusiastic about splitting up articles for reasons like this. Fut.Perf.☼16:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I proposed to merge articles, as Thesprotia region does not exist as such. Thesprotia article, is about a prefecture, not a region. But, as for Chameria-Vagenetia-ancient Thesprotia, they all are the same, more or less (few km difference) according to sources. What I do not know, is whethear Thesprotia region today is the same as Thesprotia prefecture, in Greece, or not? This is because Thesprotiko is in Preveza Prefecture but is part of Thesprotia region. The question is Does today Thesprotia region include Preveza? If yes, there is no logical reason to have a Chameria page, and no logical reason not to have a Thesprotia region page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Future. I don't mean to bother you, especially with what's going on with those crazy Macos and Bulgarians ;) But I uploaded this vector and it doesn't show up on Wikipedia. This also happened with a vector a made a while ago of the unofficial coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia. Using your Inkscape expertise, I was wondering if you could tell me what the problem might be? Köbra | Könverse15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've seen some trouble with SVG rendering, yes. This rendering is done by an external program that converts the SVGs to PNG on the server, on-the-fly, and there's occasional bugs. Since they aren't in Mediawiki itself, it's sometimes difficult to get them fixed. See something possibly related here: commons:Commons:Village_pump#Technical display problem. :-( Fut.Perf.☼16:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no, scrap that, it's a different issue: You have a hidden layer in your file that still includes a link to a local bitmap graphic on your own computer. Since the server can't find that, it chokes. (That's a trap I've fallen into myself, and it took me ages to work out what it was :-) Fut.Perf.☼16:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right :D I've just been hiding the reference layer before saving the vector, but deleting it completely seems to have done the trick. Thanks alot for you help. Köbra | Könverse16:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Question about (mis)using sources
Articles must give sources, no OR or POV. We all agree on that. But, an editor can (intentionally or inadvertantly) re-arrange or be highly selective of extracts from those sources to the point of misrepresenting the original author. My question is, how do we flag up such an article whose usage of source texts makes more of a POV point rather than making objective / fair use of that text? Thanks. Politis (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just address it at the article's talk page then? Of course, if you mean you want a tag in the page itself, de kai kala, there's always {{POV}} and friends. Don't know if there's a specific one for the case you have in mind. Fut.Perf.☼21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Two questions: 1) Could you (or another friendly admin watching this page) check File:Stalinroosblwh.jpg, it was deleted after being transferred to Commons, unfortunately the original licence/source got lost during the transfer. 2) Is there any page where I can make this sort of requests without badgering admins that are unfortunate enough to be on my watchlist ;) Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It was uploaded on 30 January by User:Tufacave with tags of both {{PD-BritishGov}} (which may well apply) and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} (which obvously doesn't), but without an explicit source beyond the assertion that it's a government work. It was then requested for deletion by the uploader himself, once under {{db-author}} and once under {{di-no permission}}, but the admin User:SchuminWeb declined the speedy and opted for moving to commons. – Hope this helps. I guess you could make such request at WP:AN too. Fut.Perf.☼19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thanks Fut. Can't keep it under PD-BritishGov without a source, and when the uploader requested deletion based on doubt about copyright status moving it Commons seem a rather strange thing to do... I'll ask SchuminWeb about it. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Georgios Vafopoulos
You didn't have to delete the page, you could have amended it. When the article was created, people where invited to amend the article to reflect Wikipedia policy.
"Amending" the article would have meant rewriting it from scratch. Which I have neither the time nor the inclination for, but which you are of course free to do now. If an article has consisted of copyrighted material right from the beginning and in all its versions, deletion is the standard measure. Fut.Perf.☼07:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Seriously...
Jingiby has a massive ego, going around calling us "Macedonists" so abruptly. I doubt me telling him not to use it would make a difference, so please warn him against it should he mention the term again. I, as with all ethnic Macedonians, consider the term to be derogatory and offensive and I don't see how it's any less provocative and uncivil than calling someone an "a-hole" here, let alone a racial slur. Danke sehr. Köbra☠08:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Help
Hi, do you have any info about the greek copyright law, about photos? I am wondering if photos made before 1935, are in public domain, or in free use?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this, they have the usual 70 years after author's death. 70 years after publication in the case of anonymous authors or works published posthumously. So, creation (shortly) before 1935 would hardly be safe. – Another thing, can you clarify what makes you believe this is free? It looks more like a drawing than a photograph, and is thus likely to be rather recent. What exactly in Albanian copyright that you refer to would make it free? Fut.Perf.☼16:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I was refering to albanian law on copyright - photographies. I did not check if it was a drawing. If it is such, than delete it. If it is a photo, than the albanian law, makes it free use.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
How would it do so? I read the Albanian copyright law the other day, there's nothing in there to that effect as far as I can see. Fut.Perf.☼16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, can't remember having seen anything more recent than this. Could you link me to it again, and say which provision of the law you mean? Fut.Perf.☼17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, right. But I can't find anything in there that looks like such a provision about old photographs from the Socialst era (using Google translator). Which section? Fut.Perf.☼17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Georgios Vafopoulos #2
I have received permission from the Macedonian Society of GB to use their material.
Well, there's the method we use for images: make sure their permission mail covers everything we need for GFDL, i.e. free modification and use for everybody even outside Wikipedia; forward that mail to permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org; then add a footnote to the text saying something like "this article incorporates text from... which has been released under the GFDL".
But seriously, is it worth it? During the time you spent discussing this permission, you could have easily just rewritten the thing from scratch. Plus, the original text also contains a few POV elements and not-quite-encyclopedic style, so you'll have to change it anyway. Fut.Perf.☼06:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Archive Help
Are you able to help me, by archiving my contents or informing me on how to do it?
I would like to archive everything from "Welcome!" (at the top of the page) to and including "Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Northen Epirus.gif" (at the bottom).
Do you mean that this page is NPOV? They declared "autonomy", not "independence". How can this etnity be treated as "independent state", when it declared "autonomy within Albania? I do not fucking get it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that Monshuai is back to his old tricks again. I personally don't have an agenda, but removal of referenced material which is replaced by personal opinion doesn't improve articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem with me. I'm always in favour of maximally inclusive approaches. Let material be treated in whatever context it makes sense. There's no problem with having it treated in duplicate, as long as suitable links/explanations are present. The only misunderstanding we need to prevent is that some outside reader might think "Bulgarian dialects" are spoken in Macedonia in addition to Macedonian proper. Fut.Perf.☼10:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Nice to see you're still around! I'm trying to resist the urge to start spending far too much time on Wikipedia again... yandman10:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Check this page in wikipedia for false traits and for misinterpretations (Disruptive and non-neutral activity in astrological sign page)
Since you are a administrator please check this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_sign and also check the history page there too. User Someone963852 tried to add false traits-false claims and misleading citations with URLs that do not backup his statements, he misinterpretated current sources and i suspect by purpose (just check what the references www.Astrologyzone.com and www.artcharts.com really say about each sign and what this guy tried to write in there...). I have also notified administrator Black Kite about this but he seems busy.
NOTE:
There was a similar activity in the Scorpio wikipage where administrator Black Kite decided to delete all trait areas from every related astrological sign page in wikipedia, maybe you can do the same in this article . Better delete every trait in that article if you have no other choice than lies exist in here. Thanks --SotosfromGreece (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sotos, your mistake (and maybe the other person's mistake too) is that you are treating those "traits" claims as if they were real factual claims about real issues, which reasonable people could have real disagreements about. The mere idea that two adult persons can possibly have a fight over whether "scorpions" actually are "high-spirited, energetic, courageous, optimistic, flattering to others and with a passionate nature", or rather "assertive, outgoing, lover, passionte,great for relationships, brave, energetic, kind, action-oriented, intelligent, individualistic, independent, impulsive, full of strength, competitive, eager, straightforward, forceful, headstrong, pioneering, a leader, focused on the present and freedom-loving", is just mind-boggling. Yes, this should all be cut out. But I don't know where to start and where to end, so I'll leave this to others. You need to learn to edit these articles with some distance. We are dealing with a field which all reasonable modern people agree is an empirically baseless intellectual game, at best. So please write it that way. It is okay to say that "modern astrological works typically assign such-and-such a trait to this sign" (and then you could go on explaining where different works have different identifications). It is not okay, ever, to claim that "people of sign X are so-and-so". And where you use sources for such "traits", you need to restrict it to sources that are agreed to have some authoritative value (within this field of astrology practicioners), for instance because they are demonstrably summing up some old tradition in an authoritative way. Probably your web sources don't qualify anyway. Fut.Perf.☼11:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
BG-MK dialects
I appreciate your changes in the table. Agree that efforts should be made to show that the same dialect is meant whether some call it Bulgarian while others - Macedonian. The problem is that classification into dialects is not always the same in BG and MK linguistics (different traits used to distinguish). In general, BG linguistics uses older traits (one of the three basic principles in dialectology) while MK linguistics gives more importance to traits that distinguish a given dialect from BG language. In the case of Prilep-Mariovo and Bitola dialect, they were artificially united in a "Central dialect" to serve as a model for the newly created language while important traits that distinguish them were deliberately ignored. --Lantonov (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense, to me personally. I was always wondering why that big white strip in the centre of the Macedonian map didn't have any isoglosses structuring it. In any case, I'm not a big friend of these classificatory tables of dialects and subdialects anyway. It just supports that naive layman's misunderstanding that you can describe a dialect by splitting it up in subdialects. The other part of your article, where you list the different classificatory schemes according to the different phonological criteria, is far more valuable. Fut.Perf.☼15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Administrators Issue
Hi, we have some problems on the macedonian wikipedia and would appreciate a little help. I just want to know where could I report an abuse with the administrative privileges on that wikipedia. In short: we have an article mk:Бугарски владетели, in which a certain people are included as Bulgarian rulers. Twice the administrators judged that these are Bulgarian rulers - I and other wikipedians have provided enough reliable sources for this (mk:Разговор:Бугарски владетели). The problem is that a new administrator mk:Корисник:Kiril Simeonovski does not accept this, after I report violation of 3RR of another user, he does not take any action, and claimed that there were not enough sources proving that theese are Bulgarian rulers. Here are some of the sources mk:Разговор:Бугарски_владетели#.D0.A0.D0.B5.D0.B7.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B5. There were no independent sources claiming that these were not a Bulgarian rulers. In the version that two administrators agreed before there was a notice saying that according the Macedonian and some Serbian historians these were not Bulgarian rulers, which is OK, since there's such POV and we want to include all POVs, but the major POV is that these are Bulgairan rulers - which is metiont now as "some historians belive" - which is not the case. Most of the historians claim this. I'm sorry for loosing your time, but since you're an administratio you should know where I can report this issue, because it the Macedonian wikipedia it will have no effect. Regards! --StanProg (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know what the administrative policies are supposed to be on mk-wiki, but judging by en-wiki standards, the whole idea that admins are supposed to "judge" the content is rather suspicious. I can well imagine that some of the admins on that project may let their political biases influence their admin work in such issues, of course. But a decision to not block someone probably hardly rises to an actionable level of abuse. If it was the opposite way round and they had unjustly blocked someone, that would obviously be a more serious issue.
If you really feel the situation is such that you can't get fair treatment within that project at all, the trouble is, we don't really have a very good cross-wiki dispute resolution process yet. People were talking of instating a cross-wiki Arbcom at meta, but I don't think that has been put into practice yet. There is also theoretically the possibility of filing RfCs on meta, but they rarely end in anything enforceable. The theory is still that every project is expected to solve its own conflicts, and if that doesn't work it's just tough luck. On the other hand, since you say you actually had several local admins supporting your side in the content dispute, I don't really see why the prospects should be so bad. Last time I had a content issue on mk-wiki, mk:User:Brainmachine was quite fair and constructive. Fut.Perf.☼08:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You recently issued a warning to User:GriffinSB about his polemical soapboxing. He recently made this inflammatory edit which had to be removed from the talk page by another editor. Comments like that serve no useful purpose on this project whatsoever. Would you, please, consider placing temporary ARBMAC sanctions against this user until he can agree to play nice with other editors on this project?
I do not know if you have noticed yesterday agreement between me [3] and user:Carbonrodney [4] for about this problem in article Croatia.
Funny thing is that there has been even edit warring but nobody has solved my english language mistakes :)--Rjecina (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting about this is that 90 % of text is created with copy-paste from text of constitution. Maybe is time for your entry to personal union dispute ?--Rjecina (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
We are not having content dispute. Can you please look noticeboard.
Yes I accept editorial rules. Before editing I will contact other user to take the responsibility that my contributions get corrected by somebody immediately after I have finished. Before is creating small problem because I must contact other user with email --Rjecina (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Rjecina
Hi, I am having a report on Rjecina again, because he falsifies historical articles and pushes very strong nationalistic POV on Wikipedia. He has accused me of everything evil (disruptive, socketpuppet, vandal) and now he is reverting other users' edits that he believes are me. I see that you are active on Wikipedia. Please, could you leave a comment on my report on what your take is on this issue. I would really appreciate it. See link to report on my talk page. Thanks.--Bizso (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)--Bizso (talk) 11:2
"Is it really so difficult to use a past tense?" This is unnecessary and unhelpful. Comments like these do nothing to help resolve your dispute, but instead are deliberately aggravating. So please avoid them in the future. --CarbonRodney15:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in a dispute with Rjecina, thank you very much; I'm engaged in admin work stopping some (unintentionally) disruptive editing. And "is it really so difficult?" was a genuine, polite question of interest. Fut.Perf.☼15:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes
I think infoboxes do nothing but help an article and I put them on as many of my articles as there is a pertainant infobox. The only time I don't like them as much is when the article is really short and contains no information that is not in the infobox. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What's more, just take what Wikipedia is, a quick, not guranteed to be accurate general reference site used by people who often do not wish to go in depth or college kids whose paper is due tomorrow and they've been out partying and need to do a last-minute half-assed job. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL, yeah, "we call those people 'non-readers'", indeed. If you feel happy making Wikipedia accommodate kids who want to do a last-minute half-assed job, that's your choice. Me, I'd rather Wikipedia told such kids to f* off and do their homework. But more importantly, I think you are still mistaken: even if you want Wikipedia to help those kids, in many cases they'd still be better off reading the text lead than the box. Much of the material we have in infoboxes is of such a kind that you could actually take it in faster and easier from a well-written piece of prose. I believe it's a myth that tabulated boxes are generally easier to take in. If our Creator had wanted us to communicate in tabulated data sheets, he'd given us an inborn ability to parse disconnected shreds of information and category labels. He hasn't. Instead, he gave us an inborn ability to parse actual language. Fut.Perf.☼06:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Arvanitiko kefali
Maybe you`re right, I am :-). The prob is that a souliot salad cannot be eaten. Of course they maybe treated as Albanians and Greeks too, but only as an Albanian community, which was finally hellenized. And they were hellenized, when the hellenization (i.e. national consciousness) existed, i.e. only after the Greek independence, i.e. when the term Souliot had no logical sense, cause they were integrated in the mainstream culture, and had no conection with Souli. Thus, they cannot be neither Greek-Albanians, nor Greeks and Albanians, but just Souliot Albanians, who became Hellenized Souliot Albanians, and who finally became Arvanites, long after seizing to be Souliotes (inhabitants of Souli, or some generations after).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, that's not quite true. There are plenty of sources that were already calling them "Greeks" before 1821. The Pouqeville travel report being a case in point. The Orthodox faith and the cultural and political stance that implied was linked to "being Greek" strongly enough that they were routinely perceived as Greeks by foreign observers at least. Fut.Perf.☼16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Primary sources? They are plenty primary sources that does not distinct them from Albanians (lord Byron). Do not forget that Greeks was also a misname for Albanians of the Orthodox faith, so primary sources lack reliability. Secondary sources, dispute each other on calling the Albanians or Greek Albanians, or Hellenized Albanians, but never as non-Albanians. Hellenization has started as a process long after dyafotisi, and as such, Souliotes could not be Hellenized at the time that they were in Souli. If they were they would not be part of the Albanian regiment of the French Army, but they would be part of the Greek regiment, wouldn`t they?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, they were part of the Albanian regiment obviously because they were Albanian-speaking. What I'm saying is just: whatever it was that "Greek" meant at the time (and it may not have been the same thing we mean by that term today), the Souliots were perceived as being part of it in some significant way. But who says we should treat them as "non-Albanians", anyway? Now you are falling into the same silly either-or trap as the other guys.
No, I am not falling in that trap. I just do not understand what both X and Y means. You say that they were Greeks, without the todays meaning (e.g. just Orthodox, who were called Greeks not per ethnicity but per religion), but if this is an argument, we should treat Greeks page to as that. I am just saying that they are X and became Y, when Y`s national culture existed, I am not saying that their descendants are not Greeks, I am saying that Souliotes (Marko Botsari et al) were Albanians, maybe[5] influenced by Greek culture, but of course Albanians, as their mother tongue was Albanian and the period that they lived had no "nations", but just "ethnicities".Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I still maintain you are committing the same kind of error as the other guys on that discussion page. They insist that only the present-day meaning of the term "Albanian" counts, that the Souliotes weren't Albanian in that sense, so they can't be called by that name. You, in contrast, insist that only the present-day meaning of the term "Greek" counts, that the Souliotes weren't Greek in this sense, and that we therefore can't call them thus. You are both reifying a modern construct and projecting it back into a different time period – in both cases, with the result of finding that it can't apply.
In reality, a concept of "Greekness" did exist in the 18th century. It was not 100% identical to the present-day concept. It was a complex mixture of linguistic, cultural, political and religious criteria. Despite not being 100% identical to today's concept of Greek nationality, it morphed into the latter during the 19th century. You are now demanding that we should totally ignore the earlier concept and treat it as a mere misnomer. That's wrong, I think, and it's not what the literature does. Fut.Perf.☼18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Side-conversation carry-over
I thought I'd take a few moments to respond to the side conversation that we're having over at AN/I, as this might be a better place to discuss what we're discussing.
Yep, I get that AN/I does not have moderators, and that's for a good reason. I apologise if I came across as trying to give my comments more weight than others, as that was not my intention. As a matter of fact, admin comments should have more weight than others there, so I kind of disagree when you say that "nobody's voice is special", but my disagreement actually gives your voice more weight. My choice of font color also goes to those same ends, in that it is meant to convey that I am not an admin (yet, hopefully one day eventually!), but I do fulfill a specialized role within the community. I'm a mediator. I purposefully place myself in a "buffer-zone" between other editors, attempting to be careful not to take sides in a dispute, and hopefully helping the opposing sides come to an agreeable solution, or at the very least, a "happy medium".
No, I don't take myself too seriously, but I do what I do with a sense of dedication. (If you're not going to try to do it right, then why try to do it at all?) Edit Centric (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, apart from the fact that all the investment funds are down... at least my workplace hasn't burnt down yet. That's something. Public sector gets affected only indirectly and with some delay, I guess. Fut.Perf.☼21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It redirects to bloody Wikimedia; so it's (according to you) even more heinous than a cross-link, it links to another bloody site; a sister site, but another site just the same. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Cross-namespaces
I support cross-namespaces; what the Hell can they hurt? Nothing. They can help, though. For example, unless you alter your search preferences, which you have to be a member to do; the msajority of users aren't; many non-cross-namespaced things such as userbox will not even show up in the bloody search results. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I'm honestly sorry if I offended you, but I really don't see why you should feel that way. My remark was a simple polite request regarding an editing practice of yours that was rather unusual in that forum, nothing more. Fut.Perf.☼09:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I am no longer active in wikipedia, I just saw you were looking for Ο ελληνισμός τον 19ο αιώνα. I have the book somewhere and I' ll try and send you the excerpts you asked for one of the following days. Nowadays I visit the place ever so rarely but I am always happy to oblige with sources. Εύχομαι να τα περνάτε καλά εκεί πάνω στα βόρεια κλίματά σου.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read the references, if that's what you mean. But I can see it's some highly specialist, technical literature on a very narrow topic regarding a minor structural property, of the phonetic details of word stress. That's just a tiny detail, and doesn't warrant mentioning in the lead. We also don't know if those study are actually saying it is more similar to Polish than to any other Slavic language, or if the study just picked those language pairs as arbitrary representative examples of what could also be found in other languages. It is in no way comparable in significance to the very salient fact of immediate relation with Serbocroatian and Bulgarian. Fut.Perf.☼00:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know which but I can guess you're either a person who doesn't have a clue about Linguistics (not likely) or you don't know where to search for book content. All the books included in this list as well as the sources put in the article provide evidence which support or back the connection of word stress between Polish and the Slavomacedonian language. It's in my view an important find that further proves that there was indeed one common Slavic Dialect (Proto-Slavic language) that was originally spoken by the slavic tribes that emigrated to Europe during the migration age.85.74.200.159 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to run searching through half a dozen specialist works in a wild search for something that might be relevant to your idiosyncratic ideas just on your say-so. You'll have to give some concrete information about what precisely each of these works says, where it says it, and in what way you think it is relevant to the issue. I can't see any indication that you read and understood what I wrote in my last posting either. And: "important find that further proves that there was indeed one common Slavic Dialect"? That there was a Common Slavic is universally accepted, completely trivial and not in need of "important finds" to back it up. It's also in no way directly relevant to the status of Macedonian specifically. And you have given no evidence that whatever those similarities are are in fact interpreted as significant evidence about the genetic status of Macedonian.
If you seriously think those points are important for the article, why don't you first write a brief passage about what those supposed similarities actually are, and what reliable sources say about their significance, and put that somewhere where it might belong, in the body text? Once you've done that, we can start considering if it's important enough to be mentioned also in the lead. I doubt that it will though.
By the way, I'll also repeat my request for you to create a user account. You said the other day you don't want to get caught up in discussions, but here we are, having one. If you want to have a sustained presence on Wikipedia and engage in disputes, not creating an account is really a very unconstructive thing to do, and may reflect badly on your reputation as a good-faith contributor. Fut.Perf.☼06:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "I'm not going to run searching through half a dozen specialist works in a wild search for something that might be relevant to your idiosyncratic ideas just on your say-so." You're obviously not interested enough on what the heck you're doing in wikipedia so why don't you call it quits. Ok Ok relax you're the big admin here so your "say-sos" and idiosyncratic ideas are much more important than anybody else... apparently...[[6]] --> [[7]] !!!85.74.199.38 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
For the last time, get yourself an account, or stay away from my page. Following your antics across all these IPs is tiresome. Fut.Perf.☼14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Scanned and sent...
The file exceeded the 100kb alloted to email attachments and I had to send it through YOUSENDIT. If it is not too much of a trouble notify me when you receive it. The complete bibliographical reference is: Βασίλης Κ. Γούναρης, Σύνοικοι, θυρωροί και φιλοξενούμενοι: Διερευνώντας τη "μεθόριο" του ελληνικού και του αλβανικού έθνους κατά τον 19ο αιώνα, σσ. 38-54 στο Παντελής Βουτούρης - Γιώργος Γεωργής (επίμ.) "Ο Ελληνισμός στον 19ο αιώνα: ιδεολογικές και αισθητικές αναζητήσεις", Αθήνα 2006, ISBN 960-03-3945-7. I'll send you a proper email when I find some time--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for my erratic interventions but since there has been so much debate about the Souliotes it is high-time somebody pointed out to all participants that the summum opus on the topic is Βάσω Ψιμούλη, "Σούλι και Σουλιώτες", Αθήνα 2006 (A doctoral thesis actually). The bibliographical note at the end of the work is quite exhaustive - if any of the interested parties would care for further reading. --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Souliotes (once more)
I think that it is clear enough from the sources we have, that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians, with a regional identity, which later became integrated into the Greek nation. Do you think that this can be a NPOV sentence for the lead?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
No need to push it, in my view. I'm still quite satisfied with the "Greek-Albanian" compound, and I'll be happy as long as that solution doesn't again get ripped apart by the usual tug-of-war from both sides. Heh, it's my solution, after all, so it must obviously be the best. ;-) (Let me tell you, I can be an Arvanitiko kefali too, if need be.) Fut.Perf.☼12:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but Greek-Albanian, is just a satisfaction for both sides and not a real argument. It is only one single author who says it, while the rest say the opposite. So, it is your solution, but for sure it is not the best, it is a compromise and not an encyclopedic view. I am glad that you are an Arvanitiko kefali, cause I love speaking with my inmates :-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I want just your opinion, cause I am really confused. What makes us keep the version that you introduced, and not change it as I proposed, except the noise of editors? Every source that speaks about ethnicity, say that they were Albanians, which were integrated into the Greek society and nation, a single source that speaks about nationality says that they were Greeks, and all conclude that they had a regional identity. I mean I just cannot understand what and why. Friendly, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Future. There is a new map File:Balkan-nations.jpg on the article Ethnic Macedonians represented as Ethnic map of the Balkans (1897), showing the Macedonians as a separate people. In file history is written: The nations of the Balkan peninsula in the late 19th century, Source: Pallas Nagy Lexikon, 1897. However there is another map original on Wikipedia: File:Europe ethnic map 1897 (hungarian).jpg with Source: Pallas Nagy Lexikon, 1897, with shows Macedonians as Bulgarians. On the site A PALLAS NAGY LEXIKONA -- MEK HTML VÁLTOZAT does not exist such a map as the first one. I think this is late Hungarian map, probably after WWI as the Licensing of the first map is copyright violation and the source is not real. Excuse me, can you solve this casus? Jingby (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
If you allow me to join in, I don't think it's post-WWI because it has Ozmánok ("Ottomans") instead of Törökök ("Turks"). The weird way it treats Serbs and Macedonians in Vardar Macedonia made me think it's post-Balkan Wars but before the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, that is 1913–1923, but it has Törökország written over Macedonia, so it must be before the Balkan Wars. Kelet–Rumelia shouldn't be taken as a sign of pre-1885, de jure Eastern Rumelia existed until 1908. It might be 1897, although the colours look a bit too vivid and the quality of execution is higher than that of the other map we have. And they don't look like they come from the same source, not just because of the different way they treat the population in Macedonia... Weird. Todor→Bozhinov09:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you know the history of this tag on articles? "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators". When was it first introduced? Who can introduce the tag? I think there are developments to make this 'power' more wide spread. thanks. Politis (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it." is the automatic notice you get when you open the edit window for a page that is protected. Protection is one of the special "admin buttons", and rules for its use are explained at the link above. The feature has been around for pretty much forever, as far as I know, and I'm not aware of any major changes in its application. There are also a number of protection-related tags, like {{pp-dispute}}. They can technically be introduced by any user, but have no technical effect on their own; they are mere notifications. Fut.Perf.☼17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I right on sources provided by Sthenel on Talk:Souliotes, please check them once, cause I don`t want to stop "holding my horses"-:). Also I responded to you on Talk:Chameria, it seemed that you did not understand what I was proposing. Can I have your thoughts?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Because in my mind you are "king" of WP:ARBMAC can you please explain me that Germans during Holocaust have been only small children compared to Croats ??
I am saying this because more Croatia WWII related articles are having more Holocaust template of Germany WWII articles ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not something I have any opinion on, and certainly not something that ARBMAC enforcement should influence. This needs to be negotiated between legitimate contributors. I'd ask you to please try to separate your content disputes from admin enforcement issues better. I know you have serious problems with genuine harassment from banned users and all that, but please don't mix such complaints with complaints about perceived content bias. Fut.Perf.☼17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you. My bad habit is that during heated debate I let myself free.....
To tell you truth my problem is that during last year we are having newly created accounts which are starting attack on my edits with lies or using misleading facts and I again and again and again must defend my edits like I am attacked by established user. Only now I have seen last lies (misleading facts ?) of Bizso. His attack on my edit in article Coloman is using false arguments. He is attacking me for this, but this has been only my partial edit !! 5 minutes latter I have ended editing this article with this. Now my edits have been OK or something else is problem (about Coloman) ?!
Maybe I making mistake but I am calling puppets only users helped by IP edits during edit warring ? On other side I am calling SPA accounts newly created users which are starting to edit only 1 sort of articles, but this is not against wiki rules (Wikipedia:Single-purpose account) ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You still haven't addressed the issue about the Coloman edit. You added two blatantly wrong sources. It doesn't make it better just because you then add a third. (Besides, the third source hardly counts as reliable.) And as for "SPA"s and socks: don't. Just don't. Just stop speculating about other accounts. Don't do it at all. Fut.Perf.☼22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Your two cents requested here. Probably one of the dumber moves to make as an admin but if you can't tell from my talk page, I felt it was absolutely necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Northern Epirotes
I believe I have made a clear distinction about the term in the article, as the sources (Gregoric and de_Rapper) explain. Gregoric says:
Tirana's official minority policy defines the Greek origin of Albanian citizens according to the language, religion, birth and predecessors originating from the areas once called “minority zones”. The Albanian law on minorities acknowledges the rights of the Greek minority only to those people who live in the areas which are recognized as minority zones according to the “latest” census of the Population and Housing Census of the Statistic Department from 1989.It included only the numbers on the officially acknowledged Greek minority at that time[3][4]. This has a practical use on the field of education: with the exception of the areas populated by the official Greek minority, where teaching was held in Greek and Albanian language, in all other areas of Albania lessons were taught only in Albanian language.
On the other hand:
Contrary to the official Albanian definition gives a limited definition of the ethnic Greeks living in Albania, the Greek migration policy defines the Greek origin on the basis of language, religion, birth and predecessors from the region called Northern Epirus. In that way, according to the Greek State Council, the Greek ethnic origin can be granted on the basis of cultural ancestry (sharing “common historical memories” and/or links with “historic homelands and culture”), Greek descent (Greek Albanians have to prove that the birth place of their parents or grandparents is in Northern Epirus), language, and religion.
This is clear and I dont understand why some wikipedians move pages without even discussing anything. (Why not move Cham Albanians to: Albanians in Greece?, the term Cham wasnt never accepted by the Greek state in that way).
Moving the article to 'Greek minority in Albania' is totally out of the question. A considerable part of this community lives out of Albania. Moreover, I dont understant why a encyclopedia should forbit minorities to self-define themselves. They call them selves 'Northern Epirotes'.
Northern Epirotes incorporate also the Vlachs, the 'filogrek' (the unrecognized by Albania Greeks). The oficial minority are the inhabitants of the 99 villages
I'm sure that Balkanian didnt read the article, it's obvious about addint the Fact sign, without looking at the sources.Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not move Cham Albanians to: Albanians in Greece? Because Cham is a dialectological term, like Epirotes, there is no page in here for Northern Chams (those in Konispol e.g.) and Southern Chams (those in Filiates e.g.). Secondly, this is wiki not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania, so Greek minority in Albania, means every ethnic Greek living in Albania. If you have sources, that Albania does not accept this term, than use them on the pages. It is quite idiotic to create two different pages for the same group. Its like creating a page for Indigenous Atheneans and Gagarous, only because of definition.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because the two states in question have slightly different ways of defining who belongs to that minority doesn't mean they are in actual fact two different minorities. Hence no need to have separate articles. Neither the term "Greek (minority) in Albania" nor the term "Northern Epirote" are in reality restricted to either of the two states' bureaucratic "recognitions", in actual usage. The "grey zones" (e.g. Greeks outside the core area of Northern Epirus, or Greek-Vlachs and all that) can easily be treated together in a single article, as can the emigrant communities. I sense you are victim to the same old conceptual mistake that affects so many national-POV disputes over ethnicities: you regard the question of having or not having an article under a certain title as a symbolic badge of recognition of the importance or legitimacy of a certain group, or its name. That's a fundamentally wrong approach. Whether we should have this or that article is purely a matter of how best to package information. There isn't enough different information to fill two articles. It's as simple as that. Fut.Perf.☼14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok, but lets move that on 'Ethnic Greeks in Albania' the word 'minority' is confusing in Albania and its related with the strict minority zone of 99 villages.Alexikoua (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyway I dont see, why we must be so sensitive about Chams (which is diferrent defnied in Greece) and so strict about Northern Epirotes. Wiki doesn't make policy and the term N.Epirotes is a self description of a population group. So, why wiki should vorbit this? My claim is sourced with the right arguementAlexikoua (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of arguments for this. Firstly and most important, Northern Epirotes are not an ethno-linguistic, diealctological, regional group, but a group that exists as Northern Epirotes only because they live in Albania, otherwise they belong to Epirotes. Secondly because it is confusing. Cham Albanians would have been treated as Albanians in Thesprotia, if they live in Thesprotia, but they do not, and most of all they did not live only in Thesprotia but in Southern Albania too. Northern Epirotes, is the same as Greeks in Albania, because as I said they exist as a group only because they live in Albania. It is a term made only after 1913, i.e. as the Epirotes who remained in the northern part.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually about the ethnoligis. diealectolocical.... Read carefully. Minahan, Winnifrith and de Rapper ([[9]].
Same as the Cham they exist because they lived once in Greece (except a few villages). If they weren't expelled again they would existed as Chams today. I can't understand this one sided approach.Alexikoua (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Unpo? it that non rs too? Actually there are more than 20 articles, stating that Northern Epirotes are more than 200.000 (both english and greek speaking), migrants in Greece just gives the articles. Something like Vickers on her 2002, 2007 papers, uses only articles of newspapers...Alexikoua (talk)
What you say about the ethno-cultural, is what the Albanian Insitute of Science believes. Unfortunately, the terms Northern-Epirotes and 'minoritary' arent the same, by definition. You can read Gregoric, she gives a very nice description (you see above) but I know that you would.
Go and read what WP:RS is. Ofcourse UNPO is not a RS, because it is an ideological organization like the Greek Committee of Helsinki, and makes no reliable studies.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Guys, please calm down, both of you. Your arguments all sound quite confused. I cannot work out what your issues are at all. Fut.Perf.☼15:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Very interesting. Now Mr Bido owns all of the articles related to Albania and Epirus, and deletes and moves them whenever he decides to do so. I think there is a certain deletion policy based on deletion nomination in Wikipedia, isn't it? Is that not the right procedure? I think it should be followed then.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Where did you find 3rr for me. Have you even seen the first "revert". I added the material from Northern Epirus to Greeks in Albania, what on hell did i revert?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
dates
You said, "The problem in this matter are not the editors who delink or relink dates, it's the editors who keep fighting about it." I agree that the venom used to fight about this minor issue is a problem. But I also think that editors who continue to push the fight into actual edits, by either re-linking dates or de-linking them with comments that show that their only reason for doing so is to further the argument, are part of the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the debate, thank you to and the rest of Arbcom for your understanding. This whole deal has stressed me needlessly, and I think I'm just going to step away and focus on more useful, fun things on-wiki. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What about this two articles about one and the same events in Salonica
Good find. Probably a good idea to merge the two. As far as I'm concerned, please feel free to go ahead and merge them. Fut.Perf.☼09:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have prepaired the first article to be leading after the merge. Please, check it and if you agree merge them. I am not shure to succeed with it. Regards. Jingby (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you also see this annon, is trying to add a sentence in the lead, which clearly is POV-pushing. Its like making the lead resistance or collaboration movment. The annon is clearly a or a former wikipedian, maybe banned. Can you check him. And by the way just revert his edit, cause I may violate 3rr (again).Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I see nothing wrong with that sentence at first sight, and the rest of the recent changes you mention is too complex to review right now. Please note that this anon is probably not the same as my friend the banned sock who mechanically reverts me all the time, although confusingly enough they are both on the same IP range. So please try not to revert-war against him, because you won't have the excuse of reverting a banned user. He's somebody who can be a bit annoying at times, but in principle I believe he is a legitimate contributor. Fut.Perf.☼18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then I will add in the lead that Chams took part massivly in the resistance against Axis, because "nothing wrong with that sentence at first sight", and is well-sourced. I just remember a prhase of yours on Chams talk page "My only POV is to get a lean, slim, readable, well-written article unencumbered with obvious agendas.....The opposite activities had no consequences of that type, so they are not relevant for the lead. The only motivation for including them would be "balancing blame", and that's precisely what we should not be doing."Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I see only negative responses by a person that prohibits group of peoples to be named as they are called, I believe that the 'Greek communities in Albania' is a suitable title without coming from the 'bad' word 'northern epirus'. Like renaming Cham Albanians into 'Albanian community in Greece', but Chams seem to have the wiki-right to stay with their name.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah right. Go and do the google test, on google books, only 100 books speak for Northern Epirotes, while more then 600 speak about the "greek minority in albania". On the other hand only 200 books speak about the Albanian minority in Greece, and more than 3 thousand about Cham Albanians. Read Wiki-rules my friend.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when is this a clear criterion? Anyway, your google books version seems to be a bit diferrent. Northern+Epirotes [10] 793, Northern+Epirots (its also written that way, depends on the translation) [[11]] 694 (sum 1487).
And Cham+Albanians [[12]] 812, Cam+Albanians (some them are irrelevant with Chams) [[13]] 1073.
Suppose you typed 'Cham' [[14]], (14.188 results), this leads to irrelevant results (Chams of Indochina etc).
So, this is an arguement for renaming to 'northern epirotes' or 'northern epirots', suppose balky's search has a pro-Albanian filter or something I can't explain...Alexikoua (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Unblocking of Dabomb87
Regarding the below comment:
(Block log); 10:02 . . Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) unblocked "Dabomb87 (talk | contribs)" (as per unblock request and discussion. No immediate danger of further disruption. We need fewer blocks and less incentive for vindictive hostile "reporting" of "infractions" in this matter.)
Dabomb87 has a long history of disruptive editing regarding date delinking. A block to get his attention was warranted.Ryoung12201:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you want ?
Its over now, I wont edit again in the place I found you. Do not post again on my talk page, as I have right to claim so. NIR-Warrior (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Its a mistake for albania, Im just here now, I've letting my PC on while im sleeping, someone edits in my place, Im sincerly sorry. NIR-Warrior (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to de-escalate tension, please don't accuse others of escalating unless you have good evidence. My comments were descriptive, not prescriptive. If you think that it's "badgering" to talk about the inevitability of SA (or any editor acting similarly) getting site-banned, then several ArbCom members must be guilty also (link at RFAR; permalink). Repeating these things ad nauseum at his talk page would be badgering; discussing them reasonably at a forum like ANI is not. Also, when I mentioned limits-testing, I was talking about SA's overall pattern and not this specific instance where he had permission; I meant to be clear about that ("absent specific exception"), but sorry if I wasn't. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, dividing the community seems to be a better description than testing the limits. It fits both the typo corrections and this latest instance of secretly getting permission to edit an article, drawing attention on himself by a grotesque sockpuppetry accusation against Colonel Warden, and then editing the article to include references more typical for a fringe topic. It looks like he wants to be blocked in situations that allow others to support him. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
PS: I agree with Middle 8. A temporary site-wide ban is imminent, and I would be quite surprised if this wasn't eventually followed by a permanent one. I am not sure if you have had any previous interactions with him; he is bringing science into disrepute by treating it as a religion. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Cham Albanians
Actually, the association Bilal Xhaferri is quite well-known in Albania, and especially in the Cham community. But, of course the way it was written, was unenecyclopedic. I`ll try to find Rs about it. By the way, should I nominate the page for the GA status, or is anything wrong with it? What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem if you want to expand a bit on the Xhaferri thing. It was just that we've had a single-purpose editor who's been rather stubbornly inserting very POV material about it. As for GA status, I'm skeptical, but right now the article is simply too long for me to go through it all and check it, sorry. Fut.Perf.☼15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Block
Hi future. This edit [15] offers a viewpoint I very much disagree with, but I don't think it violates any policy. I would like to see the editor reminded to use the most civil language possible and to focus on content and citation issues, but holding fringe positions is not a blockable offense. And he's suggesting how he thinks the article should be edited. So I don't see how it's blockable.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. Holding fringe positions is certainly not a blockable offense. But wasting the community's time and patience by aggressively soapboxing for them is. So, he's "suggesting how he thinks the article should be edited"? Well, yeah: he is demanding Wikipedia should unilaterally declare Obama not in office. Of course he knows just as well as you and I that this "suggestion" hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell to become reality (in Wikipedia, much less in the real world.) Neither could any person with a healthy adult brain and a minimum degree of willingness to think realistically ever believe, even for half a minute, that such an editorial change would be a step towards neutrality. So, on both these counts, it is pure disruption. Fut.Perf.☼18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Future. I understand your point. But as he's making a statement about how the article should be edited, our opinions on the soundness of his reasoning is irrelevant. And as far as soap-boxing I am happy to provide diffs of much worse instances as well as incivility that should be acted on far ahead of his statement that because "proof" of Obama's citizenship hasn't been provided to the satisfaction of some parties the article should be edited accordingly. I agree that these views are fringey, but I don't think that makes them invalid or improper to express. I respectfully request an unblock with some guidance that comments should focus as closely as possible to citations from reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, sorry, I don't think I'd be willing to unblock here – certainly not as long as I haven't heard the user's own unblock request. No problem if you want to take it for review somewhere else. I appreciate your constructive approach in asking here first. Fut.Perf.☼19:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. As you've pointed out, the editor can contest or discuss their block. I left a note for them and will leave it at that. Thank you for your kind consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally the thread [16] contains soapboxing and a personal attack from other editors. I don't think these types of edits are helpful and they hurt our ability to have civility and reasonable discussion far more than editors who have viewpoints that are not widely shared. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you restore this page please. Norton was definately real and automatically notable as an MP. I added a source and you'll find links to him Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but can you then please check all the factual claims in the article? According to what people reported at the ANI thread today, this hoaxer managed to fill up articles even about real people with loads of fictitious bullshit. Fut.Perf.☼00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Quickly checking the deleted article against your ODNB entry: not even the birth and death years match. So, watch out please. Might be better to start from scratch. Fut.Perf.☼00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I don't know if you plan on being at Wikimania 2009 in Buenos Aires, but if you do you might be interested in joining a panel discussion I'm throwing together: User:Coren/WM2009 panel. As a battle-hardened veteran of WP:AE, your perspective would be welcome. I'm trying to keep the size of the panel manageable, so it's first-come-first-served. :-) — Coren(talk)02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Just thought you should know I've unblocked User:Axmann8 after discussion with a promise to stay away from the Obama article and withdrawing certain accusations against you. I'll continue to keep my eyes out, please let me know if there are any more problems.
Hi FutPerf. I've had a little chat with Axmann8 on IRC about the difference between verifiability and truth, and better ways to constructively contribute other perspectives to articles. He's been having a bit of a rough time, as most of his views are seen as extreme conspiracy theories, and therefore I'm not sure that he's been treated with the neutrality he deserves. I was wondering if you would mind if I unblocked him on the condition that his contributions to talk pages are a dealing with reliable sources, rather than trying to launch into political arguments. — Werdna • talk10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I was contacted by e-mail by Rdsmith with a similar request, and will tell you the same as I told him: I personally rather doubt if this user has any potential of becoming a constructive contributor, and I don't feel I can personally endorse an unblock, but if you guys feel confident it is a responsible thing to do, you are certainly within your rights to overturn me. I've had three requests from third parties now, so deal with it as you see fit. Fut.Perf.☼15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please can you take a look on Greeks in Albania. A user is trying to use this, this and this as the reliable sources, to say that Greeks were victims of hate crimes, when these three newspapers (one of which is a comment), just cite the Greek government.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I know you are involved in Macedonia related topics and you are an admin user, so I wanted to ask you if you can take a look at and comment the following discussion: [18]. I also commented at the end of the section, I made a research on Scholar Google and it appears Ilinden and Preobrazhenie uprisings are mostly seen as two separate events. I think it is good idea to split that article, what do you think? MatriX (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Future Sunrise, if I were to bash a Greek, I would be immediately banned. Well, in the talk page of [Ancient Macedonian language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Macedonian_language], ΚΕΚΡΩΨ states "They also believe they're ethnic "Macedonians"..."
I think it's quite unfair that i got banned,while editors who are messing up hunders of articles are free to do what they want.I'ts really enoying to have to read the same articles over and over every few days just to protect them.Why is nothing beeing done about those people?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, obviously I don't find it unfair that you got banned. Your ban had nothing to do with other people's poor editing, it had everything to do with your poor behaviour. As for disruption from other people, we try to check as much as we can. Fut.Perf.☼14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well,I'm sorry i lost my temper,but this is going on for far too long.I'm so tired of reading the same articles over and over again and so are other editors.It's sad that every deacent editor eventualy gives up on fixing the articles and just stops contributing to wikipedia 'cause as soon you fix something it gets trashed again.People are tired of wasting their time with nonsense and because of that they have less time for editing and contributing.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Future Perfect Sunrise, you did unlawfully block my account for 24 hours, having unjustly accused me of "display[ing] aggressive and disruptive ... tactics on the talk page". You must have been dreaming or hallucinating! Which disruption and which aggressive behaviour were you talking about? Present some explicit examples! You owe me an unconditional apology and an explanation! I am absolutely mystified by your behaviour. Of course, it is conceivable that you may be enjoying exerting undue power over others, in which case you are demonstrably unfit for your present administrative position at Wikipedia, but for the time being I am not going to consider this possibility. I was at the very least entitled to know the basis for your utterly unfounded accusations at my address before having my account blocked! Your statements on my talk page amount to no more than unfounded assertions. I am further dumbfounded that you suddenly appeared out of the blue! What caused you to come over and for absolutely no reason block my account? Who egged you to do so?
As for "edit warring" on "Shatt al-Arab", you must have mistaken me with User:Ev. If you read my comments on the talk page of the latter entry, you will realise that I have repeatedly asked Ev to explain the basis underlying his edit warring! He solely referred me (not once, but every time that he responded to me) to a page that he himself has edited; he brazenly justified his edit warring on the basis of the contents of this self-made page (nowhere in the world can a defendant act as his own witness – one needs independent and impartial witnesses; Ev has created a vicious circle — you should also realise that Ev has no contribution to any Wikipedia entry regarding Iran and/or Arabic countries; how is it possible that he has become an expert regarding the name "Shatt al-Arab" – a word that cannot have existed before 1920 and a word that is essentially a creation of Saddam Hossein who, along with his henchmen, believed that God should not have created three things: Persians, Jews, and Flies.). Please read my comments! The name Arvand Rud is the name explicitly referred to in the Algiers Treaty of 1975; this Treaty being ratified by the Parliaments of both Iran and Iraq, its contents are constituents of International Law (ask this from someone who is familiar with International Law). I have asked repeatedly from Ev to present a document in which "Shatt al-Arab" were the legal name. His sole argument is that Goolgle hits m times "Shatt al-Arab" and n times "Arvand Rud" and since m > n, "Shatt al-Arab" were the correct name. What kind of a logic is this? There are at least over 70 million Iranians who refer to this river as Arvand Rud? Where is this fact reflected? The methodology as employed by Ev has absolutely no validity – no one, except those who know absolutely nothing about a subject matter, uses this methodology.
Aside from all these, if you look at my edits, you will realise that in my edits I did nothing to the word "Shatt al-Arab"; the only thing that I did was adding the name "Arvand Rud" after "Shatt al-Arab" in the captions of figures. Where has Ev got the right to remove this addition? There is no reason why the name Arvand Rud cannot be in the captions of figures (we are not dealing with an imaginary name!). Ev seems to be someone with a political agenda, and you have been, whether wittingly or unwittingly, acting as his facilitator on Wikipedia! That is unforgivable!
As I said above, I expect an unconditional apology from you – what you did was absolutely unacceptable. You even did not have the civility to tell me about your intention of blocking my account before proceeding with this blocking. Have I not had the right to know about the accusations, so as to be able to defend myself? It seems to me that you and Ev must have had some secret dealings with each other: you took his side, without considering to provide me with a chance to clarify my position (it is highly suspect that you somehow appeared from nowhere – you must have had some prior discussions and agreements with Ev about which I have been left totally in the dark). Of course, you both may hate Iranians, but as an administrator you are supposed at least to keep up the semblance of impartiality. Your failure to apologise, will lead me to lodge an official complaint against you – failing to apologize will establish that you do not posses the qualities expected from an administrator, who must be impartial and fair-minded. PS: I am bringing this comment to the attention of User:Stifle, User:Khoikhoi and User:Hiberniantears. --BF 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, this posting is the best demonstration of why your block was absolutely justified. I will have no compunctions blocking you again, and for longer, if you continue editing in this disruptive style. That said, your above rant is so chock-full of irrelevancies, misrepresentations and assumption of bad faith that I'm not going to waste a minute responding to its contents. If you want to be talked to seriously, learn to communicate reasonably. Fut.Perf.☼19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, you fully agree with yourself. You also decline to apologize and explain the reason for getting involved into a problem in which you never had been a party. Let us hope that there is no evidence to be found on the Wikipedia pages showing your collusion with User:Ev. --BF 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC).
It's quite easy: Ev reported the matter to the admin noticeboard. That's where I found it. That's the full extent of our interaction. Ev also notified you of this report, on the Shatt al-Arab talk page. Yes, I'd never been a party to this problem, indeed. That's just as it should be, because I dealt with it as an entirely uninvolved admin. Fut.Perf.☼20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This discussion had been going on without I ever having been made aware of it. This is an example of the abhorrent underhand activities that are being pursed by some on Wikipedia. This is totally unacceptable! Somewhere in the latter page you refer to the people with "nationalistic pride" (you even call out "Block them."), supposedly considering me as one. If so, you are utterly mistaken: telling the truth has nothing to do with "nationalistic pride". The fact of the matter is that there is no historical reference to "Shatt al-Arab". Iraq did not exist until 1920 so that "Shatt al-Arab" is a post-1920 creation (this fact can even be surmised: the region that became Iraq was before the creation of Iraq part of the Ottoman Empire; Ottomans being Turks, they would never have named the river at issue as "Shatt al-Arab" – I have explained all these in my comments on the pertinent talk page); it is very likely that the name "Shatt al-Arab" is a creation of Saddam Hossein in the 1970s, when he came to power and started his anti-Iranian crusade (even moments before being hanged, he was spouting abuse at "Persians"). In contrast, the name "Arvand Rud" is even mentioned in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and the historical sources underlying Shahnameh pre-date even Zoroastrianism (and tomorrow we will enter the Zoroastrian year 3747). I am very sorry, I am not going to shrink from telling the truth because someone like you, who clearly knowns nothing about the details of the subject matter, would call me someone with "nationalistic pride". Actually, you are entitled to think of me the way you like best; what you are not entitled to is blocking my account on the basis of your perception of me. Your failure to distinguish between your private thoughts and your public duties makes you unfit for your present position. --BF 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Pursing my activities further, I just idly checked a bit for how long the name has been in use in English. It's quite easy to find English attestations of "Shatt el-Arab" from the mid-19th century, so it definitely predates the creation of Iraq, and most certainly "Saddam Hossein in 1970s". Haven't got access to the OED right now. Don't know what the Ottomans used to call it. Not that it matters, of course. Fut.Perf.☼21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please give the relevant references, containing full details concerning the geographical location named Shatt al-Arab! You will have to realise that there is a massive falsification going on. They are removing (by paying mercenaries) references to "Persian Gulf" and calling it "Arabian Gulf" --- historically, "Arabian Gulf" is the name of the Red Sea. The same applies to Shatt al-Arab. If you look at it logically, Shatt al-Arab cannot have been the name of a river opening into Persian Gulf. Please find a 19th-century map on which Shatt al-Arab is recorded where Arvand Rud flows. Without this I am not sure we are talking about the same river (consider the example of "Arabian Gulf" which indeed exists, but rather than being the well-known Persian Gulf is the Red Sea as referred to during the ancient times). This article (which I presented at the time on the talk page of Shatt al-Arab) indicates that not until the early 1970s was there any dispute about the name of the river at issue.
Below Ev comes along with his ever-ready reference to Penny Cyclopaedia. The one he cites is published in 1835 in London. A little bit of knowledge regarding history would be useful here: 19th-Century was the time of the Great Game and the British Imperial power was amongst many things involved in a heavy propaganda war. The Anglo-Persian War was not far in the future when Penny Cyclopaedia was being penned in London. As late as 1924, the British were heavily involved in getting Khuzestan separated from Iran. For doing so, giving the local river an Arabic name would prove auspicious (why would otherwise the Khuzestani's want to separate from Iran?). In short, a reference to Shatt al-Arab in a 19th-century British source cannot be viewed as proving anything; the source is not impartial. To appreciate this, one should consult some of the books written during the Soviet era in Russia: almost all major and minor inventions and discoveries were ascribed to the Soviet thinkers and scientists of good standing with the Politburo.
The Penny Cyclopaedia at issue posits the question as to why Shatt al-Arab is not called Euprates or Tigris, and provides a quasi answer to this self-posed question (it brazenly says that this was because the local people were not sure whether Tigris contributed more to the river at hand or Euphrates, and thus they opted for Shatt al-Arab!). The most logical answer to this question would be that Tigris means The Swift River, which is also the exact meaning of Arvand Rud (see the above-cited article in Encyclopaedia Iranica, that is this). Similarly, Euphrates is also Persian; it is the Graecized form of the name Forāt. In other words, Penny Cyclopaedia contrives a convoluted reason for convincing her readership why a river with a Persian name somehow miraculously has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab! (Tigris has in Modern Persian become Dajle so that in Modern Persian Tigris and Euphrates is referred to as Dajle va [and] Forāt.) Just imagine: a river whose origin consists of two rivers with Persian names, opening further into Persian Gulf, somehow mysteriously has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab in the middle. To accept this nonsense, requires a total denial of human logic. As I have mentioned earlier, even the name Baghdad is an Old Persian name, consisting of Bagh (God) and Dād (Gave). The capital city of Iraq has a Persian name, but a piece of river to its East has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab! Could this be feasible, given the fact that the Arabs in this region of the world had not the political clout to give names to major geographical locations? --BF 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've seen enough of this. This has now been the third time I see you in action with this same disruptive style (one was the Unruled Paper (film) issue, one was the issue of the non-free images the other day). In each case, your behaviour have been a mixture of aggressive blustering, attacks, veiled threats, confused waffling on talk pages, failure to respond rationally to other people's points, and a downright refusal to heed Wikipedia's agreed policies. I am now putting you officially on notice that if I should see you stirring up the fuss again in similar ways, on this or on a different issue, I will block you for longish periods. – Now please stop posting here about the Shatt el Arab issue; your rants are not welcome on my talk page. Fut.Perf.☼06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you consider it as your birthright to keep hurling insults at me: "aggressive blustering, attacks, veiled threats, confused waffling on talk pages, failure to respond rationally to other people's points, and a downright refusal to heed Wikipedia's agreed policies"! You are either insolent, or downright illiterate in the language that you purport to know, or both: "waffling", of "waff", is the "yelping of a dog"! (Typical of the people who "learn" English on streets, or in gutters, without ever considering to read a proper book.) Did you respond to any of my above points? Points that you raised yourself. As for Unruled Paper (film), that AzureFury had, by his own admission, not seen the film, not read a word about the film previously, did not know the language, and did not now any of the persons involved in the film, and yet had the temerity to vandalise the entry (now it is Ev's turn to pontificate on the name of an Iranian river and get his way under your protective shield). It seems that all these are fine from your point of view! These are all hubris and unmistakable signs of utter disrespect towards the people of a certain origin, which you have made abundantly clear in your way of addressing me time and again. Not only have you not apologized (for blocking my account without informing me of what had happened in the background – you accepted Ev's assertions, without ever considering to hear my part of the story), but have adopted your offensive mode and are in your usual manner threatening to block my account. As for my "rants" on your page, I should say get yourself some proper education and learn some civilized manners! Insolence is not a merit. --BF 12:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents at 16:38, 16 March. I informed you (and everyone involved) at Talk:Shatt al-Arab at 18:07, 16 March, an hour and a half later (my apologies for the delay).
A few examples of English-language books published in the 19th century using the name Shatt al-Arab for the waterway are found on this Google Book search (so much for Saddam inventing it).
Thanks for your note. I'm not quite sure if that was the best piece of advice for him though. He can't file an RfC/U, because he won't have a second certifier as matters stand now. Fut.Perf.☼14:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but why did you fully-protected those pages? Established users have a consensus on them, semi-protection is what is needed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
On revert limitation
In the pages I am concerning for now, there are concensuses to deal with. As such, I do not think I need a limitation, as there is no revert I have to make if a vandalism does not occur. For, what you said, as far as I know reverting vandalism is not edit warring, and as such, I do not think I was part of any edit war. You fully protected the page on the wrong version, although you could just change it on the right version, as for all consensuses we have. Per WP:CONSENSUS I request the removing of fully-protection.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
What is vandalism then? Removing well-referenced text, without an explanation, isn`t a vandalism? If it is not, I just did not knew it. In every case, why should you protect the page in that version, as you perfectly know that it is not the WP:WRONG VERSION, but the actually wrong version, the one were no consensus exists, where an anon, who does not know wiki rules intervines, with just say-so edits, etc.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for not answering earlier. It didn't seem to rise to the levels of disruption that would justify protection, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf.☼08:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sakis Rouvas
Hi there. I noticed that you edited the corresponding article a while back. Since then it has been re-expanded. His personal life section has been filled with tabloid gossip and I feel that this poses a gross WP:BLP violation. I have tried in vain to explain to this person what is wrong with what he is doing but he keeps reverting my edits and does not even seem to grasp the concept of reliable sources and NPOV. I have nor the time nor energy to keep this up. Could you please help? Best wishes, ギリシャ人 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for the quick block of Windowsforgood. Since this kind of thing often sits in AIV for a while and I try my best to stay as far away from ANI as possible, I was afraid that I'd be reverting Copyvios all night :) Cheers! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes07:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, as you might have seen on the talk page of Istanbul, I am really a dumb when it comes to computers and so, can, you, or anyone you might know or recommend, help us on doing a NYC kind of montage that would please everyone?? (I opened the topic on the talk page, no one responded yet :( ).
This is the second time you are dismissing my serious questions in my posts as a "rant" which deserves no reply. Straightforward question: Do you have any personal problem with me? Because it definitely looks like it when you are not responding to the essence of my post. (And btw, no, WP:UE is a guideline, NOT a policy, so be a little more cautious). NikoSilver18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I have no problem with you personally. You know I like you and I consider you my friend. But, I can't help it, I sometimes have this feeling in discussion with you, your logic simply evades me. I'm lost for words. It feels like arguing against a smokescreen. There are just too many loose ends and too many logical inconsistencies in your argument to address them all at once. I don't know where to start. Trying to address them would dissolve the whole argument into a hopeless tangle.
It's different with Kekrops. He can be the most pig-headed wiki-lawyer the world has seen, but at least when debating with him I have the feeling there's some thread of coherence between us and we somehow seem to understand what the other is saying.
Sorry if I offended you, but I can't help it, I really don't see how I could meaningfully respond to posts like that. Fut.Perf.☼19:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Σταματήστε, θα δακρύσω. Τόση φιλία δεν την αντέχει ο ευαίσθητος συναισθηματικός μου κόσμος... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted and friendship mutual and appreciated. Now did you ever think there's nowhere to start from because there simply aren't any loose ends in my logic? I mean when someone disagrees with you, does he always have to be wrong? Please try re-reading my post a sentence at a time. The last time we disagreed on the exact same arguments, it was in the MOSMAC talkpage (which I was summarizing). But we respected each other's arguments then. What changed since? NikoSilver22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I did re-read your post, sentence by sentence. Sorry, but every single sentence is wrong. There isn't a single one that's salvagable. And yes, we've been through it all, and I haven't got anything more to say about them than what I said back then. Some of your arguments are really, forgive my frankness, laughable. Fut.Perf.☼23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe what is laughable is the idea that a mere disambiguation before a name is worth risking millions of lives. Maybe what is laughable is WP's priorities. Maybe what is laughable is the creation and the interpretation of certain tailor-made guidelines which were designed to serve the exact same purpose for years. Maybe what is laughable is me continuing to deal with all this appalling system here. But, surely, what is mostly laughable is that people of a high mental capacity tend to behave like a modern Socrates in supporting the system, despite it being evidently completely rotten. Although a Greek, I'd choose Che myself. NikoSilver23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You are lucky you never saw me eating my hat in despair. I once had a real-to-life depiction of it here on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf.☼11:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would take a look at this user, as you have blocked the initial user in the past, who then performed a huge edit on the Cyprus page with a rather threatening explanation. I don't want to start an edit war, but as you have experience with this user, I was hoping you'd take a look at his/her activity. Angryapathy (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that it’s about two years that you deal with a text of “Eagle’s wing” magazine, pretending that it is too much tendentious but in fact the pages of this magazine are used often as references even from your encyclopedia. I am saying, “dear”, because it can’t be different. This magazine is really the only information source for the Cham problem, which is a big problem for the international justice and politics, not only for Albania. In these conditions, notwithstanding the deletion of this article from your pages, it will remain a source of references for everybody who wants to know more about the Cham Albanians. You have to know that with your action you have caused trouble to a big community of writers, journalists, artists etc. If you had had the good desire, you would have edited the page, as you did with Bilal Xhaferri’s page. And you wouldn’t delete it completely. If something tendentious was in it, you had to edit it. I think that it’s in your honor to review this severe attitude and find the way that even “Eagle’s magazine” can be viewed in the pages of your encyclopedia. In this way you will respect the fifty years work of the dissident Cham intellectuals.
Respectfully
Xanxari en.
March 26, 2009
Look, I have no problem if you can write a decent little article on that thing. Under the following conditions:
Convincing references to neutral third-party sources talking about that journal, documenting that it is notable
No text copied from elsewhere
No WP:PEACOCK language boosting the importance of the journal artificially
No tendentious wording promoting the political ideas expressed by the journal
Can you do that? It's really not that hard, you know. And please stop spamming links to non-notable sites into other articles. Fut.Perf.☼13:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Please can you answer me on the five annon war in Markos Botsaris? And by the way, please can you take part in the talk page in my dispute with Kapnisma?Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that Wikipedia is racist against Macedonians, nothing was conducted to punish ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, and there is a reason behind that. Mactruth (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear
User:Future_Perfect,
According to your words we put again “Eagle’s wing” magazine in the pages of the encyclopedia, yesterday on 26 March with the changes you recommend to us. Surprisingly today it has been deleted again by the administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woohookitty. This history it’s about two years going on without any valid reason. As we agreed yesterday, this magazine represents a big Albanian community, in need, which is almost equal with Kosovo population. It represents even the Albanian communities in Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia and USA. This is the unique magazine that is used as a reference source for the problems of these communities. And it has more reason to be displayed in the pages of your encyclopedia than being deleted. It makes favors to you encyclopedia because it is widely read. We will put again the material in your pages and we hope to find again your support to avoid its deletion again. Regarding the references sources we will try to fulfill them, following your conditions. Again I repeat you that this is an article widely read and it does a favor to your encyclopedia.
Respectfully
Xanxari en.
March 27, 2009
Your page still contained a huge lot of unsourced assertions, a good bit of tendentious wording (though not as bad as before), and basically no sourcing whatsoever with respect to the notability of the whole thing. You need independent neutral sources for that, and you need to refer to them in support of every individual piece of information.
I haven't checked to what extent the new text was free of copyright violations. Given the past history, this will require some checks. Please keep in mind that it is also not okay to take an existing Albanian text from somewhere else and translate it into English; that's still a copyright violation.
The article was still in very poor English.
You evidently are associated with that organisation and are here to advocate for it. Please see our guideline on "conflict of interest", regarding legitimate and illegitimate behaviour of editors under such conditions. If your magazine is truly notable, then somebody other than you will certainly want to create an article on it sooner or later. If nobody has felt the need for that yet, maybe that's truly a sign it isn't that notable after all?
In sum, I strongly recommend you should not re-create the page at this point. If you truly feel you can meet the conditions, you are free to create a draft in your own user space (e.g. at User:Xanxari en./Krahu i shqiponjës), and I'll have a look at it later.
By the way, why are your talking of yourself as "we"? Is your account used by more than one person? Please be aware that this is not allowed here. Each user should have their own individual account at all times. Fut.Perf.☼11:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Just chiming in here to say that I am more than willing to help Xanxari en. with the English in his/her draft if they would like. I think the language barrier is playing a major role here. But yes, I deleted it again for the reasons you stated here. --User:WoohookittyDiamming fool!11:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear
At first I want to say you that I am from Kosovo and for this reason I have the right to protect an Albanian magazine that has treated the Kosovo problem too. Speaking the Albanian language, I have the right to display this article because an Albanian will put it in the encyclopedia. I have contributed too much in the encyclopedia pages of the Albanian language and I know more than anybody else the Kosovo problem, the Cham problem and other Albanian problems. Being a good connoisseur of these problems I can bring more precise arguments that honor the encyclopedia. My contributions in the English language in this encyclopedia maybe are few for the little time we have collaborated but they are more precise because of my knowledge. I think that in this article I fulfill an emptiness of this encyclopedia for the Cham problem. And I think that the article is really neutral. I can say that are many references sources in the Albanian language for this magazine but they are too little in English, and you see this through Google.
Dear, you say in your page that you speak the German language and you have knowledge in other languages too. As a German speaking person I want to remind you that the Germans are the best albanologs for a hundred year period. I am surprised by the fact that you, as A German, don’t have the power to admit an article from Albania and for sake of the truth you could edit it (where necessary) and this would be in your honor. I don’t know any German who is such a little well-wisher toward the Albanians. This make me suspect that maybe you are not the one you declare. Maybe I am wrong.
Once again I am doing a pray to your conscience to view you attitude toward this article. It’s surprising that you raise too many doubts for such a simple article! I can respond to this fact with a proverb that is said in Kosovo and Albania: “The tree that produces fruits is more hit with stones than the one who doesn’t.” I am saying that you didn’t keep the promise you made me. The writing doesn’t have any conflict of interests, it doesn’t violated the copy right too. I don’t know if there is any conflict of interests if a German writes something about Germany or an English man writes something about Britain.
I don’t want to last this discussion because I think that even though you accept this article you will stimulate another administrator to delete it. However I can tell you that the Cham problem will find a solution even though you stop this article with every kind of justifications. If you have the desire you can edit this article where necessary and this could be a noble action.
Waiting for your positive reaction
Hi Fut. I noticed that Lord Byron had written that Souliotes were Albanians, in here. I know that Byron is not a RS, but giving the fact that he had known well the region and both Albanians and Greeks, and that he was a friend of Botsaris and later a leader of the Botsaris clan, I wonder if he could be included in the article?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Germany article
You have removed major longterm established content from a FA article without discussion. Be reminded
that this violates several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Lear 21 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
For Chrissake, give it up already. You've had several blocks for stubborn edit-warring. It's patently obvious that you'll soon get another. Fut.Perf.☼19:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You call Upholding the quality and long-established content of one of most read and highest rated articles edit warring, interesting. So far, your account has not contributed a single argument during several discussions and still you are reverting or deleting. There are many editors and administrators who would not hesitate to call your actions disruptive. Lear 21 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Your block of 85.75.0.0/16 has blocked nearly half of Greece (Otenet) and large parts of US (Virginia, etc), as well as some users in Germany and Switzerland. Maybe it's time to unblock this range and only block more specific IPs? Fotisaros (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A /16 block is effectively blocking 65,534 ips. This seems like more of victory for the vandal than it does for Wikipedia. Chillum23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I wasn't aware it was also blocking IPs outside Greece. From the Whois entries I thought it was all OTENet. Have there been concrete reports of collateral damage?
The alternative is for me to routinely semiprotect every page I edit – preemptively, even before the vandal strikes. At this point, I am no longer even willing to wait till he does; it's become too much of a nuisance. Blocking single IPs has no effect at all, he can hop from one to the next within a minute. Fut.Perf.☼00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, did you just say above that you deliberately blocked the largest Greek internet provider, coincidentally just at the same time when a poll is running where Greek people are likely to vote against your opinion?--Avg (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a soft-block on anonymous users. Anon IPs don't vote in polls, so it makes no difference to that case. It's because of a particularly nasty vandal, it's been in place on and off, for quite a while, without any reports of serious collateral damage that I'm aware of. There's never been much constructive anon editing from that range anyway; most non-logged-in activity from there has always been just vandalism. And if you really think harm is being done, go and tell that to the vandal (you know who). He is harming fellow Greek users, not I. Fut.Perf.☼06:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I only know his food images, but your accusation of him violating copy right on the images is wrong. I left my rationale on Commons, so please compare the image "carefully" and lift his block.--Caspian blue20:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question about a previous edit you made to Maran's article, and I was hoping you could answer it to clear up a bit of an edit war I'm stuck in with an IP user. Here is the edit in question. You said in its summary that you reverted back two edits for neutrality and encyclopedic style, which erased an embedded list that I had previously removed and was returned by the IP user in question. I'm of the mind that embedded lists are inherently unencyclopedic and that Wiki policy explicitly states that simple lists of links should not be used, and your edit seems to confirm this, at least to me. The IP user, on the other hand, claims your reversion was solely to return the use of Maran's last name (as you singled this out in parenthesis) and the fact that you erased the embedded list wasn't intentional due to you being possibly not the brightest - yes, it's one of those types of editors (and I'm apparently only doing this to "promote" myself). You can read the talk page debate, full of my policy-backed explanations and his/her denials, but if you could jump in and explain your edit a bit further, whichever intention you had, it would be a great help! Mbinebritalk ←21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you've semi-protected the article - with the embedded list still there. Just for clarification, I'd still like to specifically hear your opinion on whether such embedded lists should stay or go, if you don't mind the input. I'm prepared to assume you agree with me if you deemed the IP user's edits as disruptive in the edit summary. Mbinebritalk ←22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually have no strong opinion on the question of lists as such, but it seemed clear to me the IP was here with a rather clear POV agenda to inflate the article with peacock elements, and was quite aggressive about it. The list strikes me as exaggerated, but that's just my personal impression. Fut.Perf.☼09:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just in the process of reporting User:FDAU for Edit Warring myself. Your report is much better since I have not had much practice at writing them :) (Taivo (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
And yet, you're both edit warring (tag-team may I say). So much for Wiki policy to leave the article alone, even in the "wrong" version, especially when there's a poll about it.--Avg (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Knock it off, Avg; FDAU appears to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. Fut. Perf. deserves our support for helping to hold the line against abusive editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This sockpuppetry accusation is a new discovery. Fut. Perf. clearly first reverted/filed the report and then "on further consideration"[21] discovered that the user might be a sockpuppet not proven yet). Classic trick or post-justification of previous actions with a new reason.--Avg (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes when a policeman stops a person for driving too fast they discover that the car is stolen and that the driver is an escaped felon. Avg would argue that the traffic stop was then invalid and the driver should go free. (Taivo (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
You believe a lot of things that have no grounding in reality, I'll add this one to the list. If an editor is blocked, they are NOT allowed to edit. Instead of giving Muscovite "instructions" on how to win an edit war (was the fact it is humour lost on some?), and telling him to edit other articles (whilst blocked?), one would be better off telling him not to evade blocks and not to sockpuppet. Surely editors only can have so many concurrent blocks before it becomes evident they are plain disruptive. --RussaviaDialogue02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take your mutual bickering off my page, you two. As for the sock, I'm not entirely sure: since it's on a different IP range I'd feel more confident if I could have some independent confirmation that the editing profiles make the identification certain. (Can't read the Russian in the ruwiki page you linked to.) Fut.Perf.☼09:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that indefinite block was appropriate especially since the sockpuppetry was not confirmed by Checkuser.Biophys (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am curious why you left unreferenced text about Thracians being powerful warriors with red hair etc etc, while you remove actual scientific references? I know you have privileges on Wikipedia but you are nonetheless bending/breaking the rules by removing academic work. For example you removed the Dr. Aris Poulianos reference on the "Aegean anthropological" type as well as the DNA tests on Thracian bones (Cardos G. et al) which were then compared to European populations. At the same time you leave non academic statements about proposed physical characteristics of Thracians that are currently only supported by the White Supremacist community. There is academic consensus on the physical type of the Thracians and the many references prove this. Also the analysis of the Thracian Murals shows what these people looked like, which further confirms the conclusion of archeologists and physical anthropologists.
I have no objections against removing even more. The whole topic of what racial characteristics these people had is quite unimportant anyway, and there doesn't seem to be much serious material about it. Poulianos is a highly controversial figure in the field whose claims should always be taken with a pinch of salt; the Cardos et al paper doesn't contain much and its claims were rather exaggerated in the way they were summarised here – for instance, the paper doesn't contain any serious discussion of whether the differences observed between the different southern European nationalities were even statistically significant. That commercial genetics website seems utterly without scientific merit to me. Fut.Perf.☼17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you! The problem is that there is always someone who wants to utilize the Thracians as a kind of racially oriented propaganda tool to prove their own supremacy over other people. However the reality is that regardless of what people say, the Thracians were quite simply a Mediterranean people who lived throughout the Balkans and Anatolia. Thus I feel we have to stick to scientific studies and I am more than happy to work with you in collecting more academic information regarding this very topic. I also agree that we should look through the Cardos et al study and perhaps rephrase the way it has been presented in Wikipedia. It seems that every Balkan nationality wants to claim the Thracians for themselves, which in itself is not bad thing, as long as they realize that all Balkan populations to one extent or another share the Thracian heritage, be it in cultural and/or ancestral fashion. In other words, linking modern populations to an ancient people is a positive dynamic because it allows for a truth oriented solidification of one's roots that in the long-term can serve to unify various people instead of dividing them. That's why genetic studies are also a good thing as they show that we are all of mixed origins... As long as we present the diversity within us all in a properly referenced manner we can serve to catalyze constructive behaviour and thus neutralize the stupefying nationalism (itself chained to myths of purity) common in the present times.--Monshuai (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Not generally by law, apparently, but according to the tags on the image file there was a special license given regarding the contents of that government website. Sounds plausible (and you could check with one of the people who have access to the OTRS system to verify the license, if you have doubts.) Fut.Perf.☼08:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Not quite; notification in neutral fora is generally encouraged, individual notification is more problematic. But as long as it's only two or three people it's hardly actionable anyway – we all know that the real canvassing is going on behind the scenes. Fut.Perf.☼14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. A few fresh faces on your side of the fence, I see. Still, the opposing side's national talk page is hardly a neutral forum. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you could reign in your narcissistic urge to fiddle around with your own postings in multiple updates at least when you are on my talk page. Fut.Perf.☼15:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully there hasn't been any kind of misunderstanding, but at any rate my response in Greek under his invitation reads: "Thanks for stopping by, but I am no longer active". That's just for the record... On a side note, this bit "...the kind of ideological baggage that Greek people are unfortunately so obsessed with" ! was really uncalled for. Some kind of temporary Furor Germanicus I hope--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Giorgo, but I stand by that statement. Individuality of independent personalities notwithstanding (and you know in what esteem I have you), there is such a thing as collective traits characteristic of a group. And here we have such a one, if there ever was one. There is a certain stance towards the M. issue that is collectively characteristic of the Greek Wikipedian community in general (as the editing disputes of the last years amply demonstrate), just as it is collectively characteristic of the Greek nation as a political body in much the same way (as the political events demonstrate). That such a collective stance exists is, I think, undeniable; that it is best characterised as ideological obsession is my personal well-considered opinion. Fut.Perf.☼19:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Fut, this is not about me, but Jesus! "Collective traits characteristic of a group!" Your comment includes so many gross generalisations and oversimplifications that I probably wouldn't know where to start from. I say this with regrett but I have to insist that your remark was largely unjust and uncalled for. I feel that the infamous Furor Macedonicus is actually interfering with your better judgement. Things would be quite simple in this outlandish affair if the whole naming issue were devoid of overt and incredibly UGLY political connotations concerning both sides of the dispute as well as many third parties. Political events demonstrate a lot more than what you are implying. Whether the Macedonias of this region should ultimately be called Macedonias is, as you very well know, the least of my concerns but collective name calling is a terrible terrible terrible way of going about it. It goes without saying that I wouldn't have bothered writing to you if I didn't hold you in great esteem myself but I feel that remaining silent wouldn't be the decent thing to do. I said more than I should and it's probably better not to bother you any further. Καλή σου συνέχεια και εννοείται πως η πρόσκληση για καφέ ή και κανά ουζάκι ισχύει. Νισάφι πια με τη Μακεδονία... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Fut, if your thoughts are well-considered why is it hard for you to answer that? Just a line would be sufficient. Why do simple, civilized questions anger you to the point of censorship? can you answer one simple question? Have you ever seen something equivalent of this "hypothesis" in the Greek wiki? Have you ever seen the equivalent of this by a Greek government official? So in relation to whom are we ultra-nationalistic and aggressive? to the Japanese? Congolese? Icelanders? ... --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You bore me, brute, and that is neither cute nor does it make me happy. Read what people say instead of projecting things into them. I didn't say you were ultra-nationalistic and aggressive, and I didn't compare you to others on some aggressiveness or ultra-nationalism scale. So don't go bandying words about. What I said was that your nation (and your wiki community) is collectively obsessed with this particular issue. Those freaks on mk-wiki are a different kind of problem (and I hope you've seen how I intervened there). But what I haven't seen from them is such a tenacious collective determination to force a naming decision on us that is not shared by the English-speaking world. So, yes, in this particular issue (although it concerns them more directly than it concerns you) they are actually a lot more relaxed and a lot more mature. Fut.Perf.☼12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. But. As I demonstrated, your "a lot more relaxed and a lot more mature" goes mathematically down the drain by comparing the behavior of each side. Not being able to admit or finding excuses is another thing, as I am sure you know you have deleted much more vandalism and ethnic attacks from the Yugo side. For example, you may find the political behavior of Greece very much fascist and harmful compared to this (where 70 civilians died). Secondly, someone who is not sure whether he is right cannot and won't be as persistent with arguments as someone who has scientific, historical and tactual political evidence by his side. The first one is sure to resort to dogmas, hypothesis and conspiracy-theory terror and find arguments in ancient Greek politicians calling each other barbarians (as they did all over Greece), undecideable evidence about a language of ancient people (that no scholar refuses they came to belong to the Koine-speaking population) and ancient kings changing ethnicity for political reasons while at the same time refusing to see and admit the whole circle of undeniable evidence. Finally I repeat, if you haven't noticed, that most of us who want disambiguated names for the country and the people of the Republic as well as the Greek province, do it because we don't want history monopolization and appropriation (not from our side or anyone's side). And if a name is another way for that, it's worth trying to make the world less confused with less friction and hate. Also the fact that any Greek is honored to be called "Makedonas" (sic) by a foreigner or "Greek-Macedonian" even though it's a pleonasm, but the other side is insulted to be called "Slav-Macedonians" or "Makedontsi" says a lot about the whole subject...
p.s. yes I noticed that you intervened there and I also noticed the wall of madness you hit there. But that wall doesn't bother you much apparently, does it? Either you believe that the great new decipherment hypothesis of the Rosetta stone is notable encyclopedic content that needs to be included in Wikipedia or your will of action is much bigger for example when it is about excluding a specific known national motto and not naming it unofficial or something... whichever one of this it is, conclusions are easy and clear. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this time I'll leave this up as an eternal monument to the state of intellectual decay nationally-driven wikipedia editing leads to. Fut.Perf.☼14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Uh, looks like a good bit of work. By the way, is it even correct enough to work from? What's that Danube-linked bit doing all the way down our favourite country and its homonymous neighbour, where the Vardar should be? Fut.Perf.☼09:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What? "My countrymen"? Outing! Ethnic profiling! How dare you call me a German. Really. – Anyway, it seems they probably just forgot to draw the boundary between the Danube and the Vardar system. But I won't probably find much time any time soon, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf.☼09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thank you! :-) And this just when I thought everybody had finally found me out for the ruthless abusive edit-warrior and rogue power-abuser I really am. Fut.Perf.☼09:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You remember this guy, the genetics / ancient history crank from Talk:Palestinian people? He came back while his ban was still on, and got back to the old tricks, but is apparently being given free rein on the grounds that his edits are "not disruptive." Maybe take a look? <eleland/talkedits> 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That's one confusing page for sure. The block on the Adnanmuf account would by now have run its course, so in formal terms he could now legally edit, but his account has been inactive. Which new account(s)/IPs do you claim is/are his, and when do you say did they start evading the block? Fut.Perf.☼18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Your block of LoveMonkey
Hi,
I received an email from LoveMonkey asking me to edit his User Page to indicate that he is now "retired". Apparently, he thinks he can't do it himself because he's been "banned". Sounds to me like a self-perceived martyrdom. All I see is a message on his Talk Page from you saying that you blocked him for a short period because of disruptive editing on Ayn Rand and its talk page. He also sent an email referencing a website with a discussion about Neurolinguistic programming and a user named Peter Damian (Edward Buckner). I don't know what that's about or how it relates to the Ayn Rand article.
I've worked with LoveMonkey on a number of articles. He's prickly and hard to work with. There've been plenty of times when I have wished someone would come along and block him for me. However, he has contributed a lot of valuable content to Wikipedia and so I think it would be good to keep him around rather than chase him away.
Could you fill me in on what's going on? Was he banned or just blocked? His user page doesn't show indications of his being blocked. Is he still blocked? If so, when does the block expire?
Can you explain the reason for the block? His edits on Talk:Ayn Rand don't seem to be that egregious and I only see one edit by him in the last 500 edits to Ayn Rand. I agree that it was a bad edit and needed to be reverted but I don't see a blockable offense here.
The block was based on his editing of the talk page, which struck me as unproductive and inflammatory, combined with his WP:POINTy use of blockshopping. It was a short block, and is going to expire today. Fut.Perf.☼05:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Republic of Macedonia
I will be interested to see what happens to your changes to the National Bank of Greece page. A year or so ago I went through a bit of a reversion war. I wanted "Republic of Macedonia" and someone else wanted the full FYROM. Eventually things settled down with "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Acad Ronin (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Date autoformatting poll
Hi there! I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What is trolling (re your delete, I think I will move the message on my talk page should anyone wish to see it). Thanks Politis (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I found it, it means, "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
Presumably clearly that includes swearing by users, editors and administrators. Please, please, please stop trolling. Politis (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As much as I like Scouting images on wiki, I think this guy is marking nonfree images as free in the belief he took the photo so it's free. Can you look into this and take appropriate action? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
NFCC#1
Hi, do the photos on this page violate NFCC#1 (An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above.)? If not they should not be marked as public domain right, as they're photos of a copyrighted project? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm having one ridiculous problem on the Macedonian wiki. I was blocked "forver" for "Puppeting" because I made one change while I was logged out [26]. The IP address that I posted from was 212.25.53.71 which is the same address that I write at the moment. I was just logged out by some reason. The change that I made was to add the NPOV template, and to request a soruce (fact tag). Can a CheckUser check this and advice the admin Boyan to unblock me? I'm sorry for bothering you, but I can't even write on my talk page on the mk wiki to explain the sutuation. It's really stoopid to be blocked for making one change while logged out. --StanProg (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh shit, those people running amuck again? It's a bit difficult for me to intervene efficiently there, as I don't speak the language and am not really a regular contributor. Perhaps you could ask User:BalkanFever (mk:User:Балканец)? By the way, I don't see that you're blocked from using your talk page on mk-wiki, have you tried? (Or have they that feature generally disabled?) Fut.Perf.☼06:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Left a comment on Boyan's talk; don't have time to go to and/or argue at OTA. Unless you want to write up a short notice/comment (in Macedonian) for me to post there. Not sure what else I can actually do. BalkanFever06:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
..."As for the other sources, the real ones, I'm only slowly picking up on them. I have neither much time nor easy technical access to most of this material; given the tendency of tendentious and distorting quotation I've witnessed here (see Levene, for the umpteenth time), I'm not willing to give any premature comment or endorsement to any contention based on mere lists of names"
A certain other case has been forcing me to direct my attention to dealing with argumentative smokescreens elsewhere, so I'm afraid I haven't got much energy left for that one right now. Fut.Perf.☼06:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Eh, it is exactly that "attention" of yours I wanted to shift into something more productive, before it guides you into knee-kicking below the belt... You must really reconsider my advice that you seem like you are obsessed with this even more than any "nationalist" Greek seems to be. I would have never believed you would resort into such --never mind. NikoSilver17:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
What, for calling you out on the, ahem, disingenuousness of complaining against getting "categorised" as part of your national team? Look, I can sort of understand that complaint coming from people like Yannis or Tasos. But from you, Kekrops or Avg, no way. If you don't want to be categorised as an X'ian editor, don't make X'ian POV advocacy the sole focus of your editing. As for me, well, call me obsessed too, but right now I've put my sights firmly on the goal of breaking the tyrannic rule of national factions in matters like this. Even if it forces me to wade through hypocritical shit like this. Fut.Perf.☼18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You are still makingsure you convey the same degrading point of view to everybody the "faction" discusses with. It is sad that you think this way. Just step back for a second and think how sorry you would be for your behavior if you realized in the end that you are wrong. Or even if you realized you are not-so-right... I sincerely feel your logic has sidelined at some crucial point in your reasoning, but I have not located that exact point yet. I am still available in case you wish to constructively discuss at WT:MOSMAC. I wish you the best. NikoSilver10:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Niko, I'm just as sad as you that it has come to this, but I stand by my assessment of the situation. In the interest of our mutual sanity, I honestly think it is better if we two do not try further discussing this issue. Fut.Perf.☼10:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't help it when you keep talking left and right about me with the worst words (while I choose the best words always for you). NikoSilver11:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just some questions not related to the issue itself, but to the way of handling it: Ok, let's say you were not exactly agreeable before in MOSMAC, but only "tolerant", or even "indifferent", or "sympathetic yet somewhat disagreeable" (fuck the exact terminology, you know what I mean). What changed? Why do you suddenly after all those months choose to become "fiercely opposing", "ultra-disagreeable" and "absolutely intolerant"? Is there something that sparked this change inside you from "our" faction-ous side? Why can't we find the common ground that we had found and just agree that we respectfully disagree? Especially now that you do notice (don't tell me you don't) an international pro-Greek shift? (not that it should matter for WP policy and stuff). Please give this question a moment before you reply. NikoSilver18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, fair question. Well, what sparked all this was the fact that for the first time in many months, there were new faces in the debate. Somebody outside our closed circle brought the issue up, and I didn't have the heart to tell them: yeah, you're probably right, but it's no use trying to change this. So I thought, okay, this is as good a time as any, let's take the opportunity and settle this at last. Then, the dejà vu of all the ridiculously drawn-out debating was immensely frustrating. I have simply lost my patience. I no longer find it in me to debate with somebody who claims for the millionth time that using "R.o.M." when dealing with an organisation that uses "f.Y." would be a violation of WP:V, and pretend I'm taking that argument seriously. I can't. Not even if that somebody is my friend. At this point, I want this settled, and I hate to say it, I have become firmly convinced it will be impossible to settle this with you, it can only be settled against you.
As for the international developments, I'm not following Balkanian day-to-day politics that closely these days, so I may well be missing developments. But anyway, I don't really share your optimism that such a shift would make the Wikipedia position easier. Let's suppose your two countries strike a deal tomorrow. Much as I would rejoice from a political perspective, no matter what the compromise would be, but from a Wikipedia position, honestly, I dread the day. That will only be the beginning of our troubles. Do you think we would then simply shift from our present usage to the new official Greece-approved name and be done with it? I can't see why. Most likely, any deal will include a double naming scheme, right? And it most likely will also include the stipulation that simple "M." can continue to be used in at least some contexts, right? So, what are we going to do, when we'll have not one official name but two to choose from, plus the simple informal name? What will common English usage do? Will it shift to the new official name(s)? How quickly? How quickly will we follow such a shift? This is all far from obvious to me. Fut.Perf.☼19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not covered. The reasons that you state are too small compared to the apparent havoc you have created. The timing is lousy (both in WP and in the real life), the "new faces" are too few and too uninvolved, the target group is definitely not the most deserving one out there (if there was a broader goal against "factions"), and the probable collateral damage is disproportionately large to whichever tiny insignificant benefit. Are you sure there's nothing more to it? NikoSilver22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And why haven't you taken into account all the other side effects that I am listing in my previous post? NikoSilver10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Castarostica
Hey there,
Catarcostica vandalized my userpage to remove a template, leaving this message: "As am sure you know there is no such standard for "mo 900" aka moldavian language. Its been revoked since may 2009. It is duty to removed from your page. Sorry if this action made you upset..it is not my purpose. I am sure you are a valued member of Wikipedia. Our common purpose is the Truth. Best regards! Costica".
I'm not very active anymore so I'm a bit worried he'll do it again and I won't notice for a month or two. Any actions you'd recommend I take? --Node (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for my small intrusion in your page Node_ue. It was a mistake. That is your personal page. But as you know "moldavian language" dos not have a ISO code anymore. It is recognized as a subsidiary of Romanian language.Catarcostica (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There is indeed much discussion. Far too much. And I'm afraid after browsing through a few contributions (from you in particular), I'm not getting the impression there is likely to be anything among them that would change my position. In fact, on a casual glance, your side comes across as a disruptive display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. – The short answer to your question is: yes, I do. Fut.Perf.☼18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you are not confusing the sides here? You stated that sources for Wilno are not more numerous then for Vilnius. In fact, as has been pointed out several times that they are, albeit I agree, not by a significant amount. In addition, the Vilnius list is misleading (has bullet points that are claims, not sources) and unlike mine, is mostly offline (not verifiable by Google Print). Still, given that there are numerous sources for both sides, I can understand how you would not be convinced to support Wilno, but how can you justify your support for Vilnius when the numbers don't give it any significant majority (and in fact they give a slight majority to Wilno)? Hence I am inquiring why did you decide to oppose (indicating a preference for Vilnius over Wilno), instead of abstain (which would indicate no preference). Or am I misunderstanding your position here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of any significant lead of either option (thank you for confirming that this is the case), I will opt for the status quo, simply for the sake of stability, noting that this choice is also strengthened by the fact that that's where the main article is. What I found offputting in the debate was mainly your insistence on discussing whether this or that language was "official" back at the time, a debate I find utterly senseless and inane. Fut.Perf.☼19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Despite claims of some editors to the contrary, a ton of academic sources uses the term "official language" for that historical times. Just browse through sources at Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics - most of them should have direct links to Google Print for verifiability, and quite a few of them should use the word "official". One of them should actually go as far as to have a section on one of the Statues of Lithuania which specifically forbade use of languages other then Old Slavonic in official documents. I do think that discussion whether a historical battle named after a place should use the name which was not used in official documents (and most unofficial ones) in that place (plus it was likely not used by majority of local inhabitants) has its merit, although it is certainly not "the entire story". Yet with English language sources not giving us a clear majority, such issues should be considered. Certainly, one argument, as represented by a side there, is that we should use the modern name, case closed. I think, however, that while battle of Vilnius/Vilna/Wilno of 1655 may be less known then battle of Stalingrad by orders of magnitude, the underlying logic still holds (hence, why we don't have the battle of Volgograd other than as an amusing redirect).
Finally, I certainly can see your point with "acting for status quo"; there is however a logical fallacy here: supporting name because it was the first created simply favors the pure chance and results in random naming: if I created this article first as battle of Wilno (1655) would you oppose the move to Vilnius? Lack of clear naming policy and support of random names creates chaos, or at least, occasional conflicts like the ones we are witnessing, and worse, it creats confusion to the reader: why battle of Vilnius (1655) but battle of Wilno (1939), Vilna offensive and Vilnius Offensive (just think about those last two titles for a moment...) - all which are the aftermath of being created by different editors, and subject to chaotic RMs (some of which failed and some of which succeded, and none of which are a guarantee that those articles will stay where they are)... I am attempting to solve this mess at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Wilno.2FVilnius, but unfortunately, too many editors don't want indeed to hear the other side, and are simply defending their pet name variant :(
You didn't get my point. Even if there was such a thing as an "official language" at the time (and I haven't yet checked your links, not sure if I will) – it is completely irrelevant to our naming decisions. Fut.Perf.☼20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Fall back on the modern standard name (i.e. the one used as our primary article title in the city's own article) as the default, if that is one of the two candidates; and/or simply leave an article wherever it was created. Honestly, what's so problematic about that? Why is this even an issue people waste hours upon hours debating? (Well, of course we all know why it is an issue: because you guys are all driven by national egoism. Shame.) Fut.Perf.☼21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would avoid personal attacks. I am not assuming anything but best intentions on your part, and I'd hope you'd return the favor. Please note that your view "fall back on the modern standard name etc." is contradicted by our various naming conventions (not that some of them don't contradict themselves or one another, but this is a different issue). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, it doesn't. We use a single (modern) name throughout by default, and we diverge from that in certain historical or topic-domain contexts only if and where a clear majority of sources does the same. That's the policy. We don't diverge from the standard modern name in favour of some culture-specific historical name automatically and simply because such a name exists, but only because our sources do so, if and where they do. (Of course, the reason for their doing so may in turn be the perceived historical/cultural affinities, but that's not something we bother about, as such.) – And don't waste your and my time complaining about my calling you out on being driven by national motives. Of course, the fact that you find a wikipedia policy interpretation convincing that just happens to point towards using the name that your nation likes to use, is purely coincidental. Yeah, that's what they all say. (And actually, I don't even doubt you and all the rest may honestly believe so. It's not your fault. Such is the power of self-deception. It's universal.) Fut.Perf.☼18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There's an anonymous IP who keeps deleting the Macedonian alumnus (undoubtedly because you changed FYROM to "Republic of Macedonia"). Perhaps this page needs semi-protection to keep the anonymous IPs from vandalizing it. (Taivo (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
Because one of the Greek editors who were pushing the case against Future Perfect here posted a list of the pages where he had changed FYROM to "Republic of Macedonia". (How dare he! LOL) They took that list as a "hit list". (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
Nothing :-) (you need to imagine it spoken in a very deep, hollow voice. In German, that's what a ghost says when he appears after you have conjured him up...) Fut.Perf.☼19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(or should that be good morning?) - dunno if you've seen my ideas before - but t'would seem great minds, and all that... (or should that be fools never differ?) - thought I'd swing by and offer a thumbs up to your comments on arbitration recently.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sunrise, look at this article, please. It is systematically vandalized from different IPs. Thanks. Jingby (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Will you do the honor
...and take some action against BalkanFever or should I go to the noticeboard. To be more precise - he did it again: pička ti mater gjubre niedno - I'm not entirely sure what gjubre should mean, but I've heard pička ti mater tons of times, usually on football matches in Serbia or where Serbs are present (that doesn't mean I call him Serb, just that's where I've heard it). It's pretty much the worst swear word in the language (something like "fcuk your mom"). Shouldn't he get a substantial block since he has done it before and got warned tons of times. --LaveolT19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
While you're at it could you tell me what the guy I reverted said? I got the gist, but I don't think google does Greeklish. BalkanFever23:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's quite clear what tsiganoslave means, but this did not justify your words. You're both worth a block. --LaveolT09:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If Greeks with a Macedonian regional identity (subgroup) get their own article, why are Aegean Macedonians (a subgroup) forced to be apart of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? Shouldn't they get their own article also?
The April 2009 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) 01:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fut. I would like to know if the photographies of Fred Boissonnas are in public domain. As I saw there are some photos uploaded, but I do not know if they are really in public domain, since I have no idea on when the author died, and if the Swiss copyright law, which is a bit strange in photos copyrights applies on them. Can you help me?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sunshine
I recognize what a good contribution you make to Wikipedia and how much you care about the topics you focus on. But I also notice that in the last couple of weeks your tone to everyone has become increasingly jagged. We're not all your enemies and don't want your positive contributions to the project to become drowned in the negativity. Not all of us are ignorant jackasses. (Taivo (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
I think Fut.Perf. just needs a break. Balkan-related discussions can get quite stressful and wikistress is not to be underestimated, I've had a recent experience with that. I apologize if I said anything wrong above, but I was honestly trying to find a working solution for a pending issue that I find important enough. I really don't know what provoked this, but it's okay anyway, I can't blame Fut.Perf. for reacting like this. Stress sucks. Todor→Bozhinov19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Taivo, I have never had a problem about having a nice collegial discussion with you. Even if we disagree on some stuff, we can disagree as colleagues and on a decent intellectual level of argument. I'm sorry if I came across as hostile to you. Disagreement over our mutual academic interests is something entirely different from having to deal with people with national agendas. Fut.Perf.☼20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Fut Perf. I am just bringing to your attention of Andreas Tsipas. Another case of promacedonia.org gone out of control. Apparently he is also Bulgarian. When you have time please check it out. PMK1 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Was your point really that whether a source was republished on Promacedonia or not is totally irrelevant as to its credibility? Promacedonia is just an online library, I think it's the eleventh-hundredth time I've said that. You cannot put the credibility of widely accepted academic publications in any doubt just because they've been republished on some website. Todor→Bozhinov12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Oda Mari today edited Liancourt Rocks twice. Each time, she reverted the article to the state in which it had been before another editor changed it. Thus she was preserving the status quo. Any change to the status quo requires agreement on the discussion page. Does a return to it also require agreement?
Yes, the edit box of the page says Users who make more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period will be blocked. So what was Oda Mari to do -- team-revert? Bring up the matter at AN/I? Maybe she goofed, but she hardly did so to the tune of a 48-hour vacation, and if you're not going to warn her before you block her you might at least put a note on her talk page after you've blocked her. This is, after all, an amicable and cooperative editor of long standing who had never before been blocked for even a single hour. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I do admit that when it comes to Liancourt Rocks, I tend to act on the principle of "block first, ask questions later". There is, after all, a huge big notice on the talk page explaining what is expected of editors at this article. The point about reverting is actually not that "reverting to the status quo" gives you any better standing, and it's definitely not the case that any change requires prior discussion. Rather to the contrary – WP:BOLD still holds. If somebody makes a self-evidently, blatant tendentious edit, it can be reverted, once; if somebody makes a potentially good-faith edit it's encumbent on whoever wants to revert to first go and discuss. My block notice contained a clear link to these rules of engagement, I believe, and I also think the editor in question has been around for long enough to know the article and its situation.
I didn't check more closely about his/her good standing. Of course he/she can be unblocked if they provide a reasonable unblock request. But personally I'd like to see a few words from them first. Fut.Perf.☼15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I am also puzzled about the lack of a notice on the talk-page. I went to Oda Mari's talk page expecting to see an explanation of what went on, and instead had to track down the incident at the article. And, having done so, I'll echo Hoary's doubts as to whether Oda Mari's actions warranted a 48-hour block. Dekkappai (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with the the principle of "block first, ask questions later" -- not so much because it worked out awkwardly in this one instance, but rather because your principle is arguably justified by the context of Liancourt Rocks and its edit history. I wish it were otherwise.
Hoary and Dekkappai have addressed themselves to practical issues, which is all that can be done for now; but one thing bears reiterating: We all hope for something better. --Tenmei (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. First of all, let me apologize my ignorance of special zero tolerance rules. If I had known the rules, I wouldn't have done that revert. The next thing I did after I noticed I was blocked was to e-mail you that I tried to add a reference to my restored information. I didn't know whether you were on line or not, but decided to wait for your reply for a while. Then, while waiting, I went to IRC to seek help and advice because I wanted to be unblocked privately and was told to request an unblock. After I did what I had to do in real life, I requested an unblock and I was unblocked in minutes. I hope you will understand my good faith and it was my careless mistake. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please, warn or ask questions before you block editors. She has never been blocked years until now. Aside from this, in our personal matters, there are many Korean sources about Comfort Women in Korean War. If you interested in the sources, I will send you. See ya.--Bukubku (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You stated that this short block was placed in order to serve as a warning. First of all, I see no actual warning before the block, and second of all blocks for this purpose are specifically prohibited by WP:BLOCK, see WP:BLOCK#Recording in the block log. I'm not clear on the actual circumstances or whether a severe warning is merited, so I assume it is. But nonetheless, blocks are not supposed to be used for this purpose. Could you comment further? Mangojuicetalk17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The block has nothing to do with just recording something in the block log. It's a "warning" block only insofar as it's not longer (than the present 24hrs). This user was blocked for disruptive tendentious editing. He is part of a general problem of tendentious ethno-religious factions who have been extremely entrenched in a long-standing POV war against each other, about ethnic names at Assyrian people and related articles. I gave a general warning to all parties in that conflict here [27]. The edit that ultimately triggered the block was [28], with its blatantly hostile, non-cooperative attitude and display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics regarding the non-feasability of ethnic POV-forks. Fut.Perf.☼17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks. BTW, I released User talk:Mydoctor93 from his block over edit warring at Liancourt Rocks; the article sanctions say editors may be banned rather than blocked, so I've banned him from the article for 1 week instead. (He had promised to obey the special restrictions, too.) Mangojuicetalk17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
How do I make a link to my page?Chrusts 22:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you've had problems with this guy too. He's been following me around making dubious edits to pages about the history of Iran. He's pretty insistent that we should have a random sprinkling of Perso-Arabic script in the Sassanid section of Persian Empire[29] (because they wrote like that in the 3rd century!). He also thinks mentioning "Arab conquest" in any of the sub-headings of the Iran page is "vandalism" (apparently it should be under the euphemistic title "Politic change" - sic). Mentioning that the Afsharid dynasty was of Turkic origin is another no-no. Hmm, I wonder what the motivation here is...--Folantin (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
MAP
Your new map the the Macedonian region is accurate except for ancient Macedon, it did not cover Halkidiki. Look here:
Your claim of my posting plagiarism, if plagiarism is pointed out as plagiarism indeed; it will be retracted. Do not threaten people, and do not act as if you own the articles.
Do not delete infoboxes on the grounds that you do not like them, wikipedia is not your personal ciflik to decorate it accordingly.
Do not delete or trivialize references to the iso-standards pertaining to the case in point that may or may not suit your POV.
And lastly your "reminder" of wikipedia POV-policy in my talk page is unwarranted since I am not pushing any POV. I reinstated the infobox which you deleted simply because you didn't like it.
“better to treat the "j" and "y" spellings together, since they are used interchangeably for both languages (see e.g. http://www.promacedonia.org/v_mak/index.html for the name of the Bg newspaper.”
That is not the case with Bulgarian language though, where "j" and "y" are not used interchangeably. The letter "j" was used in the past — as a matter of fact until 1999, the year of your quote. Since then "y" has been used instead, according to governmental regulations that became part of Bulgarian Law by way of the Transliteration Law passed earlier this year.
Therefore, there are no reasons for Bulgarian entries to appear under "Makedonija" title. I am mot going into reversals, hopefully you would reconsider your last edit. Best, Apcbg (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and we all know you have your very personal interest in reminding the world of this Very Important Fact. But the Bulgarian standardisation doesn't change the fact that readers will still come across the "j" spellings out there in the real world and may be searching for them. By the way, putting a link on the Makedoniya page is really hiding it from sight. Nobody ever enters "Makedoniya" in the search box. Look at my statistics on Talk:Macedonia. During the whole month of March, a whopping 10 readers world-wide ever conceived of the idea that there might be something worth reading at Makedoniya, as opposed to over 600 who tried the spelling with "j". Fut.Perf.☼21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What, for pointing out that you have been pushing adherence to "your" system here on WP with an obvious WP:COI? But whatever. By the way, is it really true that this law is threatening private citizens with punishment if they don't comply with those transliteration norms in their publications?? Wow. I am really sorry for you, for having to live in a banana republic with no academic freedom. What a shame. Fut.Perf.☼08:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I see myself as an ilunga (I know the word may well not exist, I just like it), so I thought I should remind you your sarcasm is bordering on national slurs here. Please pick your words more carefully or I'll have to report you despite my reluctance. And I'm still open for suggestions on the issue I attempted to discuss above, by the way. Todor→Bozhinov10:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What the...? Calling your country a banana republic is not sarcasm, it expresses a totally sincere feeling of horror. Nothing personal, no slur, just complete amazement at this utterly ludicrous violation of intellectual freedom. Fut.Perf.☼10:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I know what you mean. They sent the local version of a SWAT team when I accidentally used a j in a private chat window. Must suck to live in a banana republic, but at least it's not a grapefruit monarchy.
Apparently, a standardized government-approved transliteration system is a feature of stalinistic demagoguery? Come on, I actually agree with you on your dispute with Apcbg, but calling my country a 'banana republic' over that is an unprovoked slur. Todor→Bozhinov10:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, there's nothing wrong with a standardised system. But forcing the system on private individuals for use in their personal publications, under threats of penal sanctions, is just incredible. As an academic, I'm seriously horrified even at the thought. No, it's not Stalinist repression, but the fact that this country's state organs could even conceive of such a rule and not immediately realise how ludicrous that was shows that they have no solid grounding in the traditions of democratic freedom and the Rule of Law. So "banana republic" fits fairly well. Fut.Perf.☼10:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Actually, the Bulgarian Academy seems to be promoting names in -ия to be transliterated as neither -ija nor -iya, but simply -ia, by way of exception [30]. That also fits a common practice. "Makedonia Square", the "Makedonia" chalet and the historical Makedonia newspaper are quite frequently transliterated just like that. Should we re-merge the Makedonija dab page also with the Makedonia one after all? Fut.Perf.☼10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, it's official: The law itself says "Буквеното съчетание 'ия', когато е в края на думата, се изписва и предава чрез 'ia'." [31]. Quick, change those pages, or Apcbg will be fined up to 5000 Leva for publishing an encyclopedia in contravention of the rules. Fut.Perf.☼11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course Makedonia is the standard transliteration from Bulgarian per the ия thing. But what's the entire "penal sanction" scare that you've gone mental about anyway? You seem to actually believe this, which is kind of worrying. If that does exist, you're free to bash the Ministry of Education/Culture/whichever, but I still demand an apology because I find the 'banana republic' thing offensive and you seem to be enjoying that. Todor→Bozhinov12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, did you read the link? [32]. Of course, I only read it through google translator. The relevant passages in google English are: "A person who compile, issue or publish dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks and teaching materials, training, advertising and other reference materials, must apply the rules of transliteration, established by this law." (="Лице, което съставя, издава или публикува речници, енциклопедии, учебници и учебни помагала, учебни, рекламни и други справочни материали, е длъжно да прилага правилата за транслитерация, установени с този закон.") plus: "Art. 13. 13. Който съставя или издава речници, енциклопедии, учебници и учебни помагала в нарушение на чл. He compiled and issued dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks and teaching materials in violation of Art. 2, ал. 2, para. 5, се наказва с глоба от 400 до 800 лв., съответно с имуществена санкция от 2000 до 5000 лв. 5, shall be punished by a fine of 400 to 800 leva, with penalty payment of EUR 2000 to 5000" (="Чл. 13. Който съставя или издава речници, енциклопедии, учебници и учебни помагала в нарушение на чл. 2, ал. 5, се наказва с глоба от 400 до 800 лв., съответно с имуществена санкция от 2000 до 5000 лв.") – I will apologise if you can show me how I misread that. Otherwise, the "banana republic" stands. Fut.Perf.☼12:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Fut, did you just set a condition for retracting an insult? I didn't say anywhere that I'm accepting any conditions: it's like "Okay fine, I won't call you the N-word if you give me 50 bucks". It's a shame that you're so willing to dub my country a 'banana republic' because of a funny law, you'd be amazed how many ridiculous laws exist in much older democracies. Here's a read. I'm sorry, but if your next comment here doesn't contain an apology, I'll have to report you. Todor→Bozhinov13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Summary: Panousis made a satire of Dalaras, who went to justice. The latter condemned Panousis, but Dalaras interpreted the court decision in a controversial way: he argued that Panousis should pay a fine whenever he mentioned his name (1,000,000 drachmas at the time). So the next day, Panousis called the media and just told them: "Today, I want to spend 3,000,000 drachmas: Dalaras, Dalaras, Dalaras."--Yannismarou (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, they apparently can't get me for saying "banana republic, banana republic, banana republic". But if I should mis-spell "bananova republika", I might be fined, especially if I do so while compiling an encyclopedia. Fut.Perf.☼14:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Miladinov Brothers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. LaveolT13:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:Makedonski_dijalekti-prilagodeno.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
