You know you can use the pipe trick for the link maintenance you're doing; typing [[Macedonia (country)|]] instead of [[Macedonia (country)|Macedonia]] can save you some precious seconds :-) BalkanFever15:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, I actually do that, but the system fills it out automatically in the resulting text. But thanks for the hint. :-) Fut.Perf.☼17:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Vevi
Do I have to repeat all my countless arguments why the "Macedonian Slavic" wording is ridiculously ambuguous and inappropriate? There was a clear consensus that it sucks, so I wouldn't insist on it. I'll wait with the revert, but my position remains adamant. Unless you have some very strong new arguments though, I'm going back to the more correct and less-POV version. Todor→Bozhinov18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No, you don't have to repeat all your countless arguments. They didn't convince me the first time; they won't convince me now. There was equally strong consensus that your version sucks just as much. Bad luck. And mine isn't "ridiculously ambiguous", it's "deliberately ambiguous", because that's a Good Thing. Fut.Perf.☼18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I back up Todor here, mainly cause it is really POVish to have it like that. Could you point me to the discussions so I can read the arguments myself? --LaveolT19:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Then you'd better think of another version because I'm vehemently opposed to this one, and don't expect me to believe you don't know why. I've said it before, but it's worth reminding you that a version that a major side strongly disagrees with is not a good version by any standard. Just forget about it, it doesn't work, plain and simple. It can't be a good thing that it's ambiguous, at least in Wikipedia, you should know that. The link to "Macedonian language" is more disturbing that it is ambiguous, actually.
Accept the fact that I'm not putting up with "Macedonian Slavic" and I'll do anything that is in my powers to prevent the usage of this wording. I don't mean to sound threatening or anything, but my revert is due tomorrow because you have done nothing to convince me.
I'm still eager to find a working solution though, and I'm always open for good alternative ideas. So if you feel like it, do suggest one or at least try to describe what a working solution would be in your opinion so I can do the brainstorming myself.
Yeah, in short, this isn't staying the way it is now but I'm confident we can come up with something better if we co-operate
You know what? I'm fucking sick of you all. Of all this stupid idiotic lot of people pushing their separate national agendas. That includes just about every single person editing these topics. I'm so fucking sick of it. Fut.Perf.☼19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Everyone's sick of it, man. I'm afraid you have an especially bad case of the Balkan Fever :-(
Anyway, "local Slavic" is unacceptable because it implies a degree of linguistic precision that is simply not warranted. It's either "Macedonian Slavic" (with whatever link target), or straight "Macedonian/Bulgarian". My personal preference for the place name issue would actually be to just have either straight "Macedonian" or straight "Bulgarian" and mechanically go by geographical proximity: whatever country is nearer. Fut.Perf.☼10:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You know somewhere in the ubiquitous Danforth's book, one immigrant from Florina (with a Greek national consciousness) said something like "We're Greeks. We speak Macedonian, but we're Greek." BalkanFever10:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Todor, you talk about compromise and reaching an agreement. But you dont actually care about it. Macedonian Slavic was the compromise. It combined Macedonian + Slavic and redirected to a chapter about the language in Greece. Please give us your input. It would be appreciated. PMK1 (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Future Perf, as for your edit summary at Konstantinos Christou it is a good idea. Let us finally decide on what to call the places.
Here is my proposal,
for all place names in West Macedonia and Central Macedonia (except Serres prefecture) we use the term [[Macedonian Slavic]]
for all place names in East Macedonia and Serres prefecture we use a combination of [[Macedonian Slavic]]/[[Bulgarian]]
for all place names in Thrace we use the term [[Bulgarian]]
for all people from Aegean Macedonia whose ethnicity is disputed we use [[Macedonian Slavic]]/[[Bulgarian]]
for all people from Aegean Macedonia but who are ethnically Macedonian we use [[Macedonian Slavic]]
This is a fair and appropriate arrangement which takes in to account the actual linguistic classification of the local dialects. Any major disagreements? PMK1 (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a question: since Bulgarian and Macedonian are almost identical, and it is thus difficult to characterize as B or M the x slavic dialect of Greek Macedonia (if Serres or Drama is closer to Bulgaria or RoM is no criterion for me), and since we have a relevant article treating all these dialects, where it could be more informative for the interested reader to go, we don't you just use "local slavic" everywhere?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yannismarou, the languages are not almost identical and linguistically there is much which seperates the languages. Personally i believe that having M/B on all of the articles is putting too much into the heading. A split based on linguistic actualities could be considered the most appropriate option. PMK1 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The "proposal" has been rejected. If you expect our side to discuss anything, don't make insane proposals. Any other ideas? I'm fine with "Bulgarian/Macedonian" / "Macedonian/Bulgarian" everywhere, but nothing that involves "Macedonian Slavic" and its simplified version that is only "Macedonian", so please take this in consideration next time you "propose" anything. Thrace is out of this dispute, don't involve it to make it seem like you're "giving away" something. Todor→Bozhinov06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Has been rejected"? Well, you (singular) rejected it. As for Thrace, that was a prominent red herring used by Lantonov in the earlier discussions, pretending people were trying to force "Macedonian Slavic" on the eastern places. Fut.Perf.☼07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Since when is the passive inapplicable to the singular? I just wanted to sound more authoritative to scare you :D Let's go with "MK/BG" & "BG/MK", with who goes first determined by geographic proximity. I say no omissions though. Todor→Bozhinov09:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Todor, why is it that you rejection my proposal? Because the B word is not there? I cannot see the purpose of having the Bulgarian langauge or the Macedonian language mentioned if that is not the language spoken there? Please enlighten me.
As for [[Macedonian Slavic]], what is actually wrong with it? Please tell me. We are talking about places in Florina, Kastoria and Imathia regions where the language is clearly Macedonian. I think that your objection is that the word "Bulgarian" does not feature there, am I right or wrong? Describe to us your objection. PMK1 (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You guys are going too far. I can't believe you detest Bulgaria so much as to compare it to the insult that is the N word :) What is actually wrong with "Macedonian Slavic" is that it incorrectly links to "Macedonian language" and it is understood by most people as a synonym/euphemism for "Macedonian language". With "the language is clearly Macedonian" we're going nowhere. And yes, we're either having a wording that includes neither MK or BG or a wording that includes both. Why the hell are we discussing this again? We're supposed to brainstorm new proposals, not ask me to repeat my points again and again and again. Todor→Bozhinov16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the WHOLE POINT, Todor. The language spoken there IS the Macedonian language. Linking "Macedonian Slavic" to Macedonian language, is 100% appropriate. Not only does it disambiguate, but in Greece it IS a synonym/euphemism for the Macedonian language. Linguistically the Slavic language spoken in West and Central Macedonia is the Macedonian language. This is a fact only disputed by Bulgarian and (some) Greek POV. You cannot seriously be claiming that in places like Florina, Kastoria and Edessa that the "local Slavic" language is Bulgarian. This is WP:FRINGE. If you do not come up with a proposal that is not WP:FRINGE, I will be WP:BOLD and put the reasonable compromise (which was reached before you brought all the king's horses and men).
Seriously Mr. Božinov, if the language there is not? Macedonian, then what is it Bulgarian? Despite the fact that the dialect upon which the modern Macedonian language is based upon is one of the dialects spoken in Greece, you still persist on claiming that it is anything but Macedonian Slavic.
I just had to do dozens of reverts because someone of you thought it would be wise to do these edits in the midst of a discussion without asking. Anything that one-sidedly imposes the Macedonian language on a population that doesn't call their language Macedonian, doesn't identify as ethnic Macedonian and has a Bulgarian history will be rejected by me. Have some respect for the Bulgarian history of these places: do whatever you like with the "Macedonian Slavic" bullshit, I couldn't care less about it, at least let us put the Bulgarian names there as well. If you believe the Bulgarian dialect of that population is linguistically classified as "Macedonian Slavic", then add "Macedonian Slavic", just don't remove Bulgarian. "Local Slavic" is meant to be the compromise, "Macedonian Slavic" means "Macedonian" to everybody and that's why it won't work as an umbrella term. Todor→Bozhinov20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I suggest:
do whatever you like with your linguistics-based claims, add "Macedonian Slavic", "Macedonian", "Martian" or anything and add the names you see on the Bulgarian Wikipedia interwiki links right away like you do
let me add the Bulgarian name of any place that I can prove has had a Bulgarian population (referenced by sources such as Kanchev, the Exarchate or western researchers) based on historical reasons
people who I can prove identified as ethnically Bulgarian should be listed as such, with a clarification that they are considered Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia
"people who I can prove..."? Thank you for confirming that your purpose of editing here is to push it. Push in as much of your favourite nationalist stuff as you can "prove" (i.e. get away with). That means I will again treat you as an enemy of this project that needs to be fought and pushed out until (hopefully) banned one day. I detest your attitude. Fut.Perf.☼20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Todor, the point of Macedonian Slavic was to be a nuetral and encompassing term for ALL of the villages, regardless of their modern ethnic identity/ies. I was unaware that anyone here needed your permission to edit a page?! It is ridiculous to add Bulgarian and Macedonian Slavic, seperately when the names are excactly the same. I hate to break it to you, but the language spoken there is considered to be Macedonian, "Slavic" is used not only as a disam. term but also to correctly judge the linguistic situation present in the region, where a reference to "Slavic" is made to distinguish it from the Greek usage of the term. Todor, put it this way. Their is sufficient factual evidence which claims that the language spoken there, is apart of the Macedonian language. Unless you can provide sufficient evidence, (which treats Vardar and Aegean Macedonia differently), that the language spoken their is NOT Macedonian but in fact Bulgarian, or any other language?, then the appelation should be removed. Until then "Macedonian Slavic" is the best term for use.
I am not interesting in "proving" that person A is this and that person B is that. You should know that by now. You go and do what you wish. PMK1 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
So just because I insist on Wikipedia:Verifiability I'm an "enemy of the project" now? Your personal insults have gone way too far, Fut.Perf. But thanks for finally confessing that your ultimate goal is to eliminate all resistance to your POV. We're going on WP:RFM this evening and I have the full intention to have this dispute resolved one way or another, even if that means WP:RFAR. Todor→Bozhinov11:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
To all lonely south-east European wikipedians who are here on a day like today, be it to fight, POV-push, vandalise or simply to edit, instead of celebrating out in the sun with their families: Happy Easter. -- Fut.Perf.☼13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You've done it now. I'm listing you for a European Arrest Warrant right away. Rules are rules, you know :))
As for the spell - it lasted right until a couple of hours ago. I know you Westerners have sent us the bad weather to spoil our beautiful holiday. --LaveolT14:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, common English usage of "Westerner" is the Western U.S. (cowboys, Indians, etc.). From the Real West, Happy Second Easter (the morning here is bright and sunny). (Taivo (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
Truly, He is risen! It's rainy in Pleven today and prolly even worse in Sofia, was a good sunny week until yesterday though. Todor→Bozhinov 19:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Same to you to. Best regards. Vistina vozkrese/vajskrs. :L PMK1 (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh? You seriously don't know what the Arbitration Committee is? Didn't you say on their page that you intended to make a statement regarding the Macedonia case? Like, here? (/me shakes head.) Fut.Perf.☼17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, please stop e-mailing me. I have no interest conversing with you further in any off-wiki channel. Fut.Perf.☼17:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It was not deleted :-) just goes to show how convoluted wikipdia is for ordinary users. It is a full time job on wikipedia to keep up with developments, store links, file contributions, make edits, send emails. It has to be a full time job, or full time occupation. Although there is another of your contributions that I seem to remember you had deleted, but now I have to doubt my own self. However, I had asked you to delete my name from the list you made at, [1] But I had asked you to delete my name from the list. Was it deleted or am I looking at archived material? Politis (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't in the end remove your name from my list, because you didn't remove your name from the poll (as Tasos did). Fut.Perf.☼13:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
While I don't agree that preemptive mass relinking of wikilinks to a redirect page in order to avoid a theoretical disambiguation page later make a whole lot of sense, and it does come off like you're enforcing an opinion with your choice of name for the article, I don't want to get involved. The sides arguing over Macedonia are too ridiculous. So thanks for the explanation there, and keep up the good work!--Patrick«»15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, up to a few days ago, Macedonia was a disambiguation page, right? Links in article text should never point to a dab page, they should point directly to the target article. Now, we nevertheless had a couple hundred articles that mistakenly had plain [[Macedonia]] links. Of these, about two thirds now happen to have suddenly become correct, because they did in fact mean the country. Others meant something else. So, I'm going through them all and changing, say, [[Macedonia]] to [[Macedonia (region)|Macedonia]]. Without changing the displayed text. For safety, I'm also changing the ones that mean the country, to [[Macedonia (country)|Macedonia]], in case we end up with the decision to move the pages back again as they were, because this way the links will always work no matter where the disambiguation page is. Fut.Perf.☼15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My curse to you FPatS is that I hope the official name of the country changes officially and then you will have to do the rounds again :-) Politis (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe – if the change is such that common English usage follows suit swiftly, we'll probably have to change a few things. But that will then be a change to the displayed text, not necessarily the link targets (they could all remain piped through the old redirects), and it would be necessary no matter what we are doing now. In any case, I'm not really sure common English practice would change very quickly. Fut.Perf.☼16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Macedonia
Future, there is no private space within Wikipedia. I appreciate your enthousiasm about this issue, but it is not the end of the world and you should not be carried away. Editors at Georgia have for years tried to get to an agreement but it has never happened, why would you expect it to happen here? Wikipedia is a great institution, but edit wars and a certain degree of bias are an unavoidable part of its principles. Andreas (T)17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the sprachbund article is pretty decent. Could always be improved here or there, but I think it gives a fairly thorough picture and overall reflects the literature quite well. WWI battle articles are not quite so much in my line of interests. If we wanted to adjust the naming, I guess it would be better to check if perhaps military history literature has other naming habits than local geography. Fut.Perf.☼00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Addition of "Bulgarian" names.
Hello Fut. Perfect, the addition of "Bulgarian" names has continued however this time User:Laveol has taken charge. This POV Team (Consisting of him and TB) has continued this practise. See here. I will leave this to you for a while, I look forward to a cordial response. If not I plan to take it to WP:AN and list these continued actions, based solely on personal/national POV's, so that a range of users can adress these concerns. These issues fall under WP:ECCN, WP:FTN or even to WP:ANI. As a last result I will begin a request for arbitration. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
PMK, I will have little time for this over the next days, I have the other set of Macedonia warriors to deal with. But I'll be greatful if you could report yourself and the other two somewhere for admin attention. Unless you go ahead and seek mediation, as Todor suggested. Fut.Perf.☼06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Fut.Perf., I realise that there are more pressing issues. Initially i was waiting for Todor to take you (and other users, me, laveol etc.) to mediation as he said. However I will be more then happy to participate in Mediation and am in the process in lodging a request to the Administrators noticeboard. PMK1 (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the post in my talk page. I agree, besides, letting them talk is more damaging to their cause than me presenting evidence (see for example the last "evidence" provided by the new poster). In the talk page I tried to focus on the evidence they provided, I pointed out that a quote from the policy that the guy presented as evidence and based his argumentation on it was not actually a quote, it was a liberal interpretation of the policy presented as a quote. man with one red shoe18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to post this, not sure if it should be under evidence or supporting ChrisO's COI point or if I should post it at all:
It has been claimed that over 90% of the Greeks don't accept the name of Macedonia. This claim was made by somebody who supports the Greek cause (not by me or some other "anti-Greek" as I was labeled). Nobody seems to deny the prevalence of that opinion in the Greek population, however they want us to believe that they don't have a COI when it comes to deciding the content and then they vote en masse against the name of "Macedonia" or even against the use of "Republic of Macedonia" form on Greece page and talk:Greece shows. To me that's the key problem here, it's not necessary the content problem that bothers me (although there are clear policies and guidelines that ChrisO has detailed), it's the claim that there's no COI when it comes to content decision and the potential bad implications for Wikipedia when nationals team to preserve their POV.
So... is this something that I need to mention, or it's not a good idea since it might upset the commission members (although it's the plain truth)? Never been in such a case and don't know how it works and what makes ArbCom tick... I will wait for your feedback. man with one red shoe19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If I might make a suggestion, it would be very useful to gather diffs to identify explicitly political arguments by our Greek editors. Plenty of such arguments have been made, it's just a matter of digging them up from the various talk pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
About the off wiki
You mind want to see my ARBCOM evidence page for a second link from the same blog you mentioned that is already in English. It would be good to ARBCOM if someone could provide ARBCOM with a translation for the .mk television link in my evidence page, if anyone has any. Lobbying from a TV station is very powerful too. Shadowmorph (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time for a full translation (ask PMK1 or MatriX if you badly want one) but it's not lobbying or trying to convince any Macedonians to go and do something, it's simply reporting the state of affairs - if you type in "Macedonia" you end up at an article about the country. It also mentions how the Greek internet users, who it describes as having lost, "comment that the Skopjans succeeded through debate in changing the appellation of the country from FYROM to Republic of Macedonia, and even to obtain, on the official page in which Greece is represented, for the northern neighbour to be mentioned as the Republic of Macedonia" (the quoted is a translation of the last sentence). BalkanFever12:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
What, the comments of the Greek internet users or the Macedonian description of the comments of the Greek internet users? BalkanFever13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Would you direct me to access free Macedonian-English translation tool or engine? Well, I'm bemused at the current situation that tries to make only one side evil while the news channel broadcasted the incident in Wiki. Which one is more powerful, a blog or a news media?--Caspian blue13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is any - I once tried to participate in something over at mk-wiki and only found an online dictionary, not a translator. As for the difference between the two types of media echos here, the point is clear: the Macedonian report is just that, a report. It's funny that they are taking their naming situation so desperately serious they would find us important enough to report on, but that's about as far as it goes. The Greek blogs are radically different: they don't just report, they urge readers to put pressure on us. To the extent this is coming from inside Wikipedia, that's clearly disruptive misbehaviour. Fut.Perf.☼13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the report has the general vibe of supporting Macedonia, but what else could we honestly expect? And as PMK1 said somewhere, it must be a slow week for actual news. Still no progress on Macedonian-English machine translation, unfortunately... BalkanFever14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Fut.Perf. Bulgarian-English tool does not work for me (some recommended to use it because Bulgarian and Macedonian have mutual intelligibility) The already-registered-account-only motion seems to be reasonable and should be applied to all involved side in the muddy situation.--Caspian blue14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to help with any translation that you require/are interested in. Ever since the election the only news has been electoral rigging. :) Caspian Blue, Bulgarian and Macedonian ≠ Same, besides, the alphabets make direct translation impossible. You could have tried a transliteration into latin and the into Bulgarian cyrillic? PMK1 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. thanks but the suggested way did not work either. I know Bulgarian and Macedonian are different language(the "mutual intelligibility" does not mean "same") I'm just a curious observer on this issue, so if I need some translation from Macedonian contents, I can rely on your help. :) --Caspian blue17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You know, half of your arguments about the Greeks can be substituted with "Ireland", "Kosovo", "Palestinian", "Chinese", et cetera and still make sense. Really, the Macedonians and the Greeks aren't better than any other. Although personally, I think that the move to Macedonia was silly because it goes against the precedent of the region taking the undisambiguated name, and the page really should've stayed at the old title. Then again, these naming disputes often get out of hand. I think all Chris needs is a slap on the wrist to be more careful next time, and that a taskforce be created to sort out the naming problems (as it did work somewhat for Ireland and Eastern Europe) Sceptre(talk)18:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Καταρχήν σαν Μακεδόνας από την περιοχή της Κοζάνης σε διαβεβαιώ πως στην περιοχή μου το νοτιότερο χωριό δίγλωσσων και όχι μόνο σλαβόφωνων μόνο το χωριό Κόμανος,ο οποίος είναι ελάχιστα νοτιότερα της Πτολεμαΐδας,τα περισσότερα χωριά από της περιοχής Πτολεμαΐδας ήταν Τουρκικά πριν την ανταλλαγή πληθυσμών(το μαρτυρούν άλλωστε και τα παλιά τους Τουρκικά ονόματα όπως και της Πτολεμαΐδας Καγιλάρ) ,ελάχιστα από αυτά τα χωριά περιελάμβαναν και σλαβόφωνους.
Επίσης μου φαίνεται παράξενο πως περιοχές με συντριπτικά ποσοστά Ελληνόφωνων εμφανίζονται ως Σλαβόφωνα π.χ η Βέροια,η περιοχή της Θεσσαλονίκης,οι Σέρρες αν σε αυτές τις περιοχές υπήρχαν 10 Ελληνόφωνα χωριά και 1 Βουλγαρόφωνο σε αναλογία δεν νομίζω πως είναι σωστό να εμφανίζεται όλη η περιοχή σαν Σλαβόφωνη.
Δημιουργεί λάθος συνειρμούς σε άτομα που δεν γνωρίζουν το θέμα.
Περιμένω απάντησή σου.
Ευχαριστώ
kzk842
You have already found the discussion page for that image, so please read it (and the other discussions referred to from there.) This has been discussed by many people, most of whom unfortunately do not grasp the topic of the map. I'll quote myself, for the 20th time, probably: "This isn't about "majorities". It's a dialect map, not a demographic map. Showing some place in a certain color doesn't mean that place is inhabited by a Slavic majority; it only means that whatever Slavic dialects are there (or were there), share some distinctive structural features with those of other places shown in the same colour. How many or how few speakers are there, or indeed whether any such speakers are left at all now, is immaterial. The presence of other languages (such as the majority presence of Greek) is outside the scope of such a map. "
Please try to understand this statement before you go on debating; if you don't understand it, read it again.
There's a continuing stream of semi-linguists who want to add things like deconstruction and literary criticism into the article. They (or a single editor from India using sock puppets) are repeatedly beaten back by the Linguistics professors (five or six of us). The latest incarnation is someone who wanted to add Derrida by name in the article even though he's had no influence on mainstream linguistics and none of the professors had ever heard of him in their graduate careers in Linguistics. "He criticized de Saussure" was the main argument for including him. We're going to scrap the old, long, unorganized bibliography and start fresh. (Taivo (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
Macedonia 2
I'm posting here, on Avg's page, and the evidence talk pages. I've already had enough of the sordid behavior, from many parties on this case. I strongly suggest everyone shape up very quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't let Avg get to you. There's no point in fighting with him - he's clearly hoping to goad you into tripping yourself up. Just ignore him, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to support your actions in this area. A big thanks; you and ChrisO are taking on the tough work and getting little appreciation for it. . .well here's mine. Sorry I can't do more. Best Regards, R. Baley (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. Don't worry, we'll manage. People were getting on my nerves last night, but fortunately the worst offender was indeed blocked for it afterwards, which sort of vindicated my protests. Fut.Perf.☼10:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Question
Can you explain your use of "nationalist ethnic essentialist" in this edit? Specifically, what does the term mean? This source seems to indicate that it is a form of racism. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ethnic essentialism is the belief that ethnic identities are fixed, stable entities that are objectively given and are a stable, natural characteristics of a population. It is only under such a premise that equating the statement "people X were of ultimate proto-Y'ian ancestry" and "people X were Y'ians" would seriously follow from each other. Fut.Perf.☼15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, there was some confusion over the meaning of the term, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
FP changed "do" with "would", after my response. Rephrasing changes everything. Nevertheless, if this was a honest mistake from his side, I accept it. It's other things that were not addressed and worry me, like threats and being told to shut up. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, I think the articles on ancient languages/dialects spoken in the Balkans and Greece are more problematic, and more worthy of ArbCom discussion, than the Macedonia naming dispute. Since the intellectual issues involved are more complex, though, I have no faith that ArbCom would deal with them properly, and I think this little section of Fut. Perf.'s talk page illustrates why. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Good work on the timeline
Future Perfect at Sunrise, John Carter has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Last week, I removed this [2] section from Albania, as I noticed it appears directly ripped off from this [3] website. Seems like a fairly open-and-shut copyvio case. I also made some other copy edits as the whole section is a mess (and can still use a lot of work). All my edits were then reverted by Taulant, with this bland edit summary [[4], and he even had the κουτοπονηριά to tag his edit as minor in the hope i wouldn't notice it. I reverted him again and left a warning on his talk page, hoping it would end things. I was wrong. Today he reverted again, making the disingenuous claim that www.shqiperia.com actually ripped off the content from wikipedia. The info is of course totally unsourced, nor does he claim where "he" got it from. In any case, given his past history of copyright violations, i see little reason to believe him. I reverted him again, but I have a feeling that won't accomplish anything. I know you're busy with other things, but since you are familiar with him, any help would be appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
About the copyvio situation, Taulant seems to be right: it can be reconstructed from the article history that the passage in question grew organically within Wikipedia over several months (e.g. [5] and multiple other edits), until it reached the stage that is mirrored in that external page, sometime in mid-2007. No comment on its quality or reliable sourcing status, but it's not a rip-off from that other site. Fut.Perf.☼09:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. I'm not quite the copyvio sleuth you are, so that's why I came to you. In any case, the passage in question is largely unsourced, of low quality, and rather out of place. --Athenean (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Future, I think this article is object of Greek nationalistic edit-war. The dark side of this person (Karavangelis) is strictly hidden from some Greek POV-pushers there. Jingby (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the very fact that you seem to be thinking in terms of "dark sides" (and "bright sides", assumedly) in this historical character, seems to indicate that most probably both you and your opponents in this debate are approaching the article from a wrong perspective. Before you go on editing, please reflect: what is "dark" about that "dark side", and why, and what is "bright" about his other side, and why? And why would that be important for the article? Fut.Perf.☼09:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Wrong page
sorry I thought it was the workshop, I have been going backwards and forwards a lot from both pages. My error. Reaper7 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Re
The first volume that I can think of is Hatzopoulos-Loukopoulou (ed.) - Philip of Macedon, Athens, 2006 (6th ed if I remember correctly?); it has a map of the period you had in mind(?). I might take a look in a few others. Of course, it might be better if the ancient borders are removed altogether for all kinds of reasons. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, no prob. Did you see my remark on the workshop talk page? I'm currently trying to get somebody to do those page move reverts for you (I actually agree they weren't a particularly good idea). Would you consider removing your "request" there? It really serves no function, because the arbs will never vote on it. Fut.Perf.☼18:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Macedonia (disambiguation)
I have made a mockup map to show you my preference for the map in Macedonia disambiguation.
Keep in mind that we could still do with no map at all, like so many other dab pages; but then again there is not so much confusion elsewhere. What do you think about the map? Shadowmorph (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tried previewing it in the dab page and it looks good. It doesn't even need a border. No leader either so the eyes fix on the center and is not disorienting. Shadowmorph (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea I don't agree with Macedon either. Actually, I was the one who moved it, remember? I just couldn't find a way to fit it there and this is still a mockup. I wouldn't mind if the ancient kingdom (yellow) is not there at all. This is about geographic visual disambiguation. The ancient kingdom is disambiguated by its temporal reference. Shadowmorph (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comment can be in the same line of this book written by an Bulgarian author? Well, in East Asia, Macedonia seems to be more known as the "ancient kingdom" of the Alexander the Great. Many do not even know the naming dispute, or the existence of the republic mainly because
1) Macedonia is not a developed country unlike many other European countries,
2) was a former socialist state,
3) wars occurred on Balkan peninsular are more hit-news.
Macedonia is 1/10 less featured in news of East Asia than Greece, or other neighboring countries though I know the main dispute is about "common English usage" in Anglosphere. Some authors that Macedonian claims as "their ancestors" are known as "Bulgarians", not Macedonians. You once said I'm clueless on the dispute, but the edit warring over the modern statue image of Alexander reminded me at that time of an absurd insistence by some extreme Han Chinese that Genghis Khan was the emperor of Chinese Yuan Dynasty, so he was Chinese, not Mongolian.
By the way, Yanni made me an involved one regardless of my will, so feel free to make a motion, "de-involved party" to Caspian blue. :D --Caspian blue17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is seriously treating you as an involved party. Or have you seen any submissions of evidence or proposed findings about you? "Finding of fact: Caspian blue has made weird comments during this case", that's about all I could think of.
I would sometimes wish you'd inform yourself a bit more before you comment on something, you know. Fut.Perf.☼17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, my last comment was just intended as a friendly joke, but you're saying unnecessarily a bit abrasive. I don't think I'm an (actual) involved one so do everyone (who knows what Yannis thinks?), but formality is formality and my comment was moved by the non-clerk, you. I don't comment on nothing new. Future Perfect at Sunrise, AGF please.--Caspian blue17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I mainly made you an "interested party", according to the broad sense Kirill introduced when I filed the case (and which IMO is much more correct and useful than the term "involved party"). After all, I don't think that an "involved party" should be a party, who has a list of evidence or fofs about his actions. This is nonsense and useless. As I have already said I think, I treated the term "involved party" as lato sensu as I could, not with the intention to "involve" people but to "invite".--Yannismarou (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that was a misunderstanding of what Kirill said, and it is most certainly not the common practice in Arbcom cases. You could have informed such persons of the case without listing them as "involved". "Involved" in Arbcom lingo really just means "involved", i.e. not just willing to play a role in the proceedings, but having played a role in the actual preceding dispute. Fut.Perf.☼10:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I know it is not the common practice. I just thought about changing a bit common practices! As I said, I took the term "involved party" in its broader possible meaning, and I acted accordingly. Caspian had extensively participated in the discussions after the move of RoM's article. He was thus present in the actual preceding dispute and I added him/her to the list! Is he/she stricto sensu involved party or not? Strictly speaking maybe no; broadly speaking maybe yes. Maybe Kiril did not exactly mean what I understood, but, at the end of the day was any harm done? I don't think so. That's how I thought and I am not immune to criticism!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure what specifically you and I we disagree with, but it is your choice and I respect it. If there is anything I can do/say/show you to change your mind, let me know. In any case, have a pleasant day/evening. — BQZip01 —talk06:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Good faith edits :-)
I saw your message "a small thing" in the history of my talk page. I really don't know who deleted it from my talk page (the IP user left you a note). Anyway, I added those three words in edits that might be thought controversial, just so someone actually reads them first before reverting. I could also add: "Please don't revert this edit immediately without checking it" :-) Of course all my edits are in good faith, just some of them are more debatable than others, and prone to be reverted in seconds. I'll try something else next time. Shadowmorph^"^19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
Hi would you be able to possibly put an IP ban on Polykastro as recently an IP (who I think is an involved user) has been POV pushing and removing evidence. Thanks. PMK1 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Bilateral relations
I noticed that you were part of the effort to move back the pages of bilateral relations to follow the naming guideline set by the Wikiproject. There is currently a proposal to change that guideline, so your input is welcome here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that you are active again, but have not had your say in the discussion. People are arguing that the naming guideline has no consensus to be there in the first place and as an active party in this whole mess I think you should at least comment. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Section levels
The section levels are busted after you post to my question. Look at the PD line. Can you fix it? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It's strange, I noticed that too. Apparently it doesn't like the fact that the "proposed decision" was a first-level heading (= ... =), while other sections were normal second-level ones (== ... ==). I'm afraid with the quick fix I did all the levels below the "proposed decision" would have to be demoted too, which I haven't done yet. Fut.Perf.☼22:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
FPAS, I have removed this comment as it is a snide comment that is inappropriate and is only agitating the situation. If you continue with this behavior, you will banned from all the arbitration case pages. SQRT was asking legimate questions. This is an absolute final warning. You were already warned twice by KnightLago and myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just revolting. Rlevse, if you think SQRT's behaviour is legitimate, I really can't help you. And there was nothing untoward in my question, at all. Moreover, you telling me I had been warned twice, when the last time you had personally confirmed to me afterwards you had nothing against my conduct, is very disappointing. Rlevse, how much can I trust you when I talk with you?
By the way, I would like some information about what was oversighted on that page shortly after, and why nobody was apparently blocked for whatever it was. Fut.Perf.☼05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a privacy issue that was addressed, and I carried it out. That's all I can say about the revision suppression (we're getting away from true oversighting as much as possible.)
As to the question, it isn't a great question, but one must remember that there have indeed been real political issues brought into Wikipedia by various editors in other cases, and some of the issues being discussed are current real-world political concerns. Risker (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So why is nobody going to SQRT's talk and explaining to him he should reword his concerns in such a way as to make a bit of sense? Why aren't these questions removed, when they clearly aren't really questions that the "parties" could possibly answer, in this form? The way his questions are worded I still maintain they are totally unacceptable. Heimstern put it quite well here: [6].
As for the privacy thing, if it was one of the usual harassment IPs who've been after me, they should have been blocked immediately and the page semi-protected, not just removed. Fut.Perf.☼06:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Risker, SQRT's question serves only to insinuate. There is nothing any party there can possibly answer because it is so vague, and yet it's just clear enough to imply misbehaviour without being forthright enough to accuse. Such questions don't belong on the workshop, and taking exception to someone's pointing out that fact is getting the fault in the case backward. Heimstern Läufer(talk)06:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The question is whether they have a sufficiently thorough perspective and understanding of what's before them. As for the main case clerk, all I see them doing is minor formatting stuff, then waiting until the bullshit level becomes unbearable, and then randomly hitting out at whoever has the misfortune of standing in their way, without apparently any insight in the nature of the disruption. Fut.Perf.☼08:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I got the opinion of two other arbitrators beforehand and they both agreed with me. Even if we all agreed that SQRT was wrong, FPAS's response did not help the matter. SQRT is fairly new and not as knowledgeable in arb matters as the rest of us and that is how his question appeared to the rest of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And I maintain that SQRT's question was pure malice and trolling, with more than a hint of veiled threats of "outing" and related disruption. I can find no more charitable way of reading it, as hard as I try. I also strongly object to giving this person a newbie bonus: he invited himself in on this case; his inexperience is no excuse. In any case, inexperience is never an excuse for malice anyway. As for my response, it was measured, matter-of-fact, to the point and in no way impolite. If you found it illegitimately "snide", you must be living in a universe different from the one I live in. Fut.Perf.☼10:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse and Risker's comments are in response to an ArbCom clerk's request for arbs to review the matter and give advise to them about to manage the case pages. As an experienced user, we are asking you to disengage and allow others to deal with any problems rather making comments that inflame the situation. FloNight♥♥♥10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"Asking", Flo? Surely you jest. This is what we call "warning under penalty of sanctions", not asking. Well, at least now it's clear to me what's going on is that SQRT is being given leniency due to his relative newness while Fut.Perf. is being held to a much higher standard because of his experience. Seems pretty messed-up to me, but at least the rules have been set up clearly. Heimstern Läufer(talk)11:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are we saying he's new? Hasn't he claimed that he's been a long-term editor as an IP? If that's so, shouldn't he be treated as an experienced user as well? He's certainly happy to refer to policy, e.g. [7]. Newbies don't usually employ shortcuts like WP:AGF... --Akhilleus (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have thousands of edits and have been here for years, but I didn't learn how to read Wikipedia policy and write shortcuts until just a few months ago. SQRT himself claims to be a long-time editor under an IP. When I read his questions, I saw nothing whatsoever "innocent" in his thinly-veiled accusations barely disguised as questions. (Taivo (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
For those who feel SQRT was trolling, the best thing to do would have been to ignore him. Responding to trolls only gives them the attention and result they seek. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently not, because certain people with poorer reading comprehension than yours were evidently thinking he was asking "legitimate questions". Fut.Perf.☼16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
FP, as for SQRT and "still is", would you care to post diffs here? Please avoid phrases like "poorer reading comprehension that yours" as that could be construed as a personal attack. Something like "some people may not understand what that meant" would be better. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Please look at the continuation of the same workshop thread he initiated. He basically kept repeating the same dark insinuations with every posting the whole day, without ever saying anything concrete. Fut.Perf.☼20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at that a few minutes ago. I just got home from work. I've told him to rephrase, etc, and also to knock it off, there and on his talk page. See two posts there. I'm also trying to contact ChrisO about the one issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a formal warning to remove yourself from my talk page as well. I have no particular reason to tolerate your ill-tempered outbursts any more than anyone else evidently does. John Carter (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I will hardly have any occasion to annoy you on your page and expose myself to your ill-tempered outbursts, unless of course you should again choose to post false evidence about me on the arbitration pages, which is a thing you should avoid. You might also consider not asking me questions on your talk page in future [8], if you don't wish to hear any answers. Fut.Perf.☼13:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to need cause to annoy people, considering you have been made subject to several warnings regarding your own repulsively objectionable conduct during less than one month's time. And, for the record, despite your repeated failure on my talk page to even remotely adhere to the standards of conduct, you will note that I acted responsibly and removed the material when the evidence was presented. At this point, I have to wonder whether you can point to any instance in your own recent history in which you have acted responsibly. Your apparent ignorance of even the most basic standards of conduct, as evidenced by your own recent behavior, makes such a question regretably all but unavoidable. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Shall we cease the bickering, chaps? This discussion is getting patently disruptive, and I'm going to issue blocks if it continues. AGK14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This is now the third time I have found it necessary to protest against grossly unacceptable behaviour that I and other participants of this arbitration case have had to put up with from various rogue parties to the case. Each time, the only response I have got from the Arbcom clerks is a "warning" against myself, and no concrete action taken whatsoever against the disruptors. Something needs to be done to make arbcom cases a less intolerable experience. Those case pages ought never to have been allowed to descend into the trolling circus they have become. It would have been easy, if some people were only doing their jobs properly. Fut.Perf.☼14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I am firmly convinced that most of the disruption we've seen could have easily been avoided, if only during the first two days of the case postings like the following had been consistently removed, and certain new and old editors firmly reminded of the intended nature of the case pages: from the evidence page: Radjenef: [9], [10], [11]; SQRT: [12]; Reaper: [13]; Shadowmorph: [14], [15]; Taivo: [16]; Alfadog777: [17]; from the workshop page: Avg [18], [19] and subsequent sub-thread; Shadowmorph [20]; anon [21] (whole subsequent thread ought to have been moved somewhere else); Radjenef [22] (and multiple later ones). Fut.Perf.☼17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree for the record again with FutPerf. This case is being handled extremely poorly. The whistleblowers are being penalized, not those the whistles are being blown on. As it is, we're being asked it seems to constantly just ignore attacks on ourselves (and I really don't mean that "we" to include myself, since what I've been subject to is quite tame compared to what FutPerf and Taivo are getting these days). Eventually, one tends to snap after such things. Heimstern Läufer(talk)17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I partially agree, it seems that some editors in that case launched into full-blown personal attack mode, instead of adding to the case (they probably have nothing else to add) now they concentrate in attacking Fut. Perf. and ChrisO (the latest thing was the accusation that ChrisO edited the naming guideline one year ago -- while I would understand an honest question about this issue the dedication of those editrs to tarnish names of people even after the argument was dismanteled is a bit too much for me to AGF). I do think that Fut. Perf. should keep his calm better even in the face of this avalanche of accusations, he should just methodically respond and build his case (personal opinion: I think that's their objective, to make people lose it and then say "see, that guy is not civil") man with one red shoe17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I find myself convinced by Heimstern's comment. Future Perfect had had a bad experience with this arbitration case, and I'm sorry for that; equally, I appreciate his frustration—although I'm sure my words won't do much. From what I've heard, unfortunately, a lot of what he's been subjected to is not in itself blockable; and, even if it was, I wasn't following the situation until a few days ago. FutPerf: if you're faced with any more hostilities, my advice is to forward a link to it to User:Rlevse, the leading arbitrator for this case; it could be used as evidence for the final decision. AGK22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(Note: That is not a criticism of how this case is being handled by the arbitrators or clerks; I simply recognise the difficulties every arbitration party seems to go through—including all you guys. Arbitration just isn't a nice experience. AGK21:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
My advice is just to ignore it and focus on your evidence and workshop proposals. The SPAs are providing more than enough rope to hang themselves with; don't fall into the same trap. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the whole handling of discipline in this case has been going according to the following cycle:
— A: "B has been disrupting the case with behaviour X, please do something to restore order."
— Arb: "A, stop complaining, or I'll block both you and B."
— A: "Here are diffs showing that I did nothing to provoke this. I'm just asking for help against B's aggression."
— Arb: "You may be right; I've warned B, so now the problem is solved. Please come to me and tell me if he continues X."
— A: "Sorry, but B is indeed continuing X, so here I am telling you as you requested."
— Arb: "A, stop complaining, or I'll block both you and B."
It also reminds me of parents who don't bother to see which kid misbehaved first and punish both of the kids who fought not caring which one was guilty. Also I see some power trip kind of behavior... Oh well... that's what happens when you are judged by superiors. I almost can't wait to be banned since I'm disgusted by the procedure. man with one red shoe12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Re J.C.
Please post your interpretation of the situation in your evidence section. Don't worry about the Arbs being bogged down. I would stick to the facts and avoid editorializing. There is no need to contact John as it seems you both have differing views on the situation. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt,MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —talk20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Potential sockpuppet
Hi Future,
I have a strong suspicion User:EmpMac is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Emperordarius. Same interests (Illyria,Kaspersky Internet Security and other antivirus software, sexual topics). Account becomes active December 2008, while that of the Emperordarius is blocked indef on October 05 2008 (with the EmpD++ sock active between Nov 3 and Nov 14 of 2008). Even the name is similar. Since you have experience in dealing with Emperordarius, would be willing to look into it?
Huh? Apparently Dab or others before and after him are clearly misciting the sources (which they can consult directly from the links in the talk page) and they don't even care to talk in the talk page. Then? Aigest (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that we are getting in an edit warring situation so it would be a good idea for you as administrator to keep an eye for an article and probably increase its protection level.
Thanks for the kind attention
Tiptoety has logged this block here. The diff in question is here. Having followed this case, I can confirm this is not the only time Future Perfect at Sunrise has been incivil and used intemperate language. An earlier example is here. Block endorsed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
FPAS was warned three times even before my final warning and he chose to ignore them. I endorse this block. — Rlevse • Talk •
Comments by others on this block have been moved to this subpage. Please do not post further on this page about the block until Future Perfect has had an opportunity to become aware of the block and to respond. Carcharoth (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Future Perfect, please restore or delete the additional comments as you wish.
Comment: leaving the 3 nods of support for the block while moving and archiving the protests of 6 other editors to a subpage is poor form. 10-15, R. Baley (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Horologium and Future, bang up job arb-people. Keep going and maybe you can get all of the regulars in the trenches who still give a damn. Sadly there are fewer and fewer of those, but whatever. . . Do not endorse. R. Baley (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither of the above comments are likely to help matters. This is not about "regulars in trenches". This is about remaining civil while participating in an arbitration case. Future was warned previously for being disruptive during this case but chose to ignore the warning. I suggest that no-one else comment until Future Perfect has had the chance to say something here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a comment, but a question: the diff you provide asks Fut. Perf. not to argue with Avg (talk·contribs). This comment is obviously a criticism of the arbitration process and the sanctioning admin, not Avg. Am I to understand that the incivility prohibition applies to commenting on the case and matters relating to it on any Wikipedia page? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The final warning can be found here, and states: "Everyone is now on final warning. Any arb clerk or arb will now ban and/block any case participant who continues the mudslinging, insults, posting of private info, etc." Cheers, Tiptoetytalk22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ruling out "posting of prvt. info," I don't see anything in that comment that is either "mudslinging" or "insulting". While not the best comment, can an Arbcom process be insulted? R. Baley (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
ChrisO, Tiptoety has correctly pointed out the general warning. I was pointing out an earlier warning. There is also a history here of agitation during the case, not all of which is visible on-wiki. To put it bluntly, Future Perfect has been pushing the boundaries in this case for some time, and has failed to modify his behaviour even following the general warning. Two other people have been blocked during this case, and more are likely to be blocked if people don't heed the warnings. Again, I ask that people not comment here until Future Perfect has had a chance to be aware of the block and respond here. This is Future Perfect's talk page, not a place for people to descend and discuss his block. That discussion should take first between Tiptoety and Future Perfect, and then Future Perfect can decide where to go from there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth, are you suggesting that Fut. Perf. was blocked in part because of off-wiki disruption that has not been made public, nor cited in Tiptoety's block rationale? That's not a good way to reassure bystanders that ArbCom is being transparent. I can only go by what I see on-wiki, and what I see is that Fut. Perf. was blocked for making a comment on Horologium's user talk page. It's hard for me to see how making a comment on a user talk page is disruptive of an arbitration proceeding, and as R. Baley and ChrisO have already pointed out, Fut. Perf.'s comment didn't violate the language of the "final warning" anyway--it simply states, in blunt terms, that blocking Horologium was a bad idea. (And he's right--the block of Horologium was unjustified.) Blocking Fut. Perf. for pointing that out was also a bad idea. (I would state this more strongly, but you see where that gets you...)
And yeah, these proceedings are giving me the strong impression that ArbCom intends to let the "regulars in the trenches" hang out to dry. Why else let SPAs register specifically for the purpose of spouting mountains of nonsense during the arbitration proceeding? Maybe when the proposed decision is posted (when is that going to happen again?) my suspicions will prove to be baseless, but the handling of this case doesn't reflect well on ArbCom at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Akhilleus, the proposed decision is nearly ready for posting. Lots of work has been going on with that. My reference to the earlier off-wiki stuff was to demonstrate that there is a pattern of behaviour here that not everyone is seeing. That pattern is the reason I endorsed the block - it was not the reason for the original block. For the third time, I would ask that people please be patient and let Future Perfect speak for himself, either on this page, or by e-mailing ArbCom. It helps no-one to have a long discussion when Future Perfect isn't here to take part in it. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth, if we think ArbCom is doing a poor job of handling a case, it does no one any favors to keep quiet about it. In response to your last comment, what it looks like you're saying is that Tiptoety blocked Fut. Perf. for on-wiki behavior, and you endorse it because of on-wiki and off-wiki behavior. Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Being blocked during these proceedings is quickly becoming a badge of honor. Yes, indeed, this is fucking ridiculous, and indeed, the Arbcom process is failing miserably at establishing any level of rationality. Block me again. – Oh, and, Carcharoth: I also stand by every word of what I said off-wiki. You can quote me on it. Fut.Perf.☼04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This is all very disappointing. I hope it's not too late to ask everyone, once again, to please calm down – this situation isn't helping anyone. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Before we get too concerned, there is still only one vote for each remedy, so it's a bit premature. But yes, this is quickly looking rather grim. Heimstern Läufer(talk)04:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it's premature. On the other hand, the decision has been discussed beforehand on the Arbitrator's email list, right? (Bonus question: note FoF 3.2.10.7 and remedy 3.3.20, and check out the timeline of evidence/findings/remedies presented against ChrisO in the Scientology arbitration--which is still in the voting phase. Tell me if you think someone's got the knives out, or if I'm just paranoid.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The Scientology decision was and is an absurdity. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#The finding and remedy against ChrisO are prima faciae invalid for a dissection, by another admin, of the FoFs against me in that case - it was a topic area in which I hadn't even significantly been active for about 15 months and the diffs presented all related to things that were completely uncontroversial two or even three years ago. The current ArbCom is the most nakedly political one I've ever seen, I'm sorry to say - it's quite blatantly seeking to reach "balanced" verdicts by removing editors on both sides of a dispute and finding (or even, in my case, manufacturing) evidence to justify it, even if there's no evidence of ongoing problems. And in the present Macedonia case, they seem to have punted on the central issue - how to resolve the naming dispute when there's an ethnic block vote obstructing progress at every turn. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What's going on here? I thought April Fool's Day was seven weeks ago. Didn't get involved in this one because I was too busy dealing with <esteemed editors with unusual but forceful opinions> elsewhere. Don't know whether to regret that or breath a sigh of relief now. If you and Chris get desysopped, that means we'll probably be able to count the gutsy, intelligent admins on the fingers of one hand (Moreschi got burnt out by <this sort of palaver>). If I can do anything to help, drop me a line (by e-mail if you like). --Folantin (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Macedonia proposals
I'll take a look at that shortly.
Fair enough; I've changed it to "supervision" throughout.
As the third paragraph of the remedy states, the supervisor is expected to not only deal with misuse of administrative tools per se, but also to help train the administrator "to conduct themselves in a manner appropriate for an administrator". There are a great many administrators who do their jobs very effectively without ever coming up for sanctions; I'd like for you to train yourself to act as they do. Basically, I'd much prefer to have a model administrator than to have no administrator at all; but either is preferable to having an administrator that conducts themselves inappropriately.
Not necessarily; the supervising admin is free to set limits, but not required to do so in any particular way. Personally, I'd expect them to take fairly general forms (e.g. no using tools in some topic area, no blocking editors, and so forth), not a requirement for individual approval of each action. Kirill[talk][pf]18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Strange stuff
There's an user that kinda scrambled a couple of articles (User:Pyraechmes, but that's not my point) and who has created a new account - see User:Pelegon. Now, when you look at his last comment on his old talkpage and his new user page, what do you make of it. I mean, isn't this sorta anti-semitic and well... I'm not sure. Take a peek, please, and then decide if any action is appropriate. --LaveolT21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, wasn't aware he had created the new account. I've blocked it and told him to return to the old one and request an unblock there. BTW, I actually think those "I hate Jews" remarks were just being sarcastic, but they are certainly unhelpful. Fut.Perf.☼21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to qualify them. Thanks, anyway and luck on the arb. I hope you don't get desysopped or anything. I'm not sure if there's anyone to take over. --LaveolT21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The Kontogiorgi book looks decent enough, at first sight, although you should keep in mind that its actual academic focus and expertise is on a later period, so Kontogiorgi's presentation of the 19th-century situations may not be representative of her own first-hand research to the same degree as what she writes about the 1920s. For the earlier stuff, it might be preferable to go back to whatever other secondary sources she relies on, or to other more specialised literature. The John Shea book is not quite first-rate. It can be used for its description of the present-day conflict, I suppose, but it's not really expert stuff when it comes to history. Fut.Perf.☼08:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
John Shea's own words in this book : "I don't claim to be unbiased...". I don't think it would be prudent to use him as a source but you could look into his claims and references and use him as a guide. GK1973 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Stalemate
A referee to do what? We are not talking about changing the reference to RoM here, a term appearing only TWICE in the whole article, but about editors wanting to edit other aspects of the article. Should we lock any article referring to this country? Sorry FP but I cannot see any logic here. A simple reminder of an impending ban on anyone going against the injunction would suffice to thwart any regular editors from playing with the name in question. I know that Horologium will most possibly NOT agree, but I have to state my opinion. Anyways, I have opened a topic about this Greek motto and we will see what happens next. GK1973 (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You and I both know that articles about Ancient Macedonians, Sts Cyrill and Methodios, Alexander, the Rosetta Stone etc are all the time being war edited and attacked by such editors. This does not justify keeping an article about a COUNTRY locked. RoM references will be arbitrated and we will see whether this arbitration will be respected or not. I proposed that the ArbCom should issue a decision instead of organizing a committee, which will engage in a fruitful discussion with the community, which will propose a poll, which will be disputed, which will be arbitrated etc. I think that no "neutral" committee's decision will ever be respected, since it can only PROPOSE and not IMPOSE its will... I see that the same thing happens in every other naming issue in Wikipedia and I am sure that this is what will happen here. Thus, being somewhat of a pessimist and knowing that ArbCom will not impose a decision but urge for consensus (unless they surprise us...), I think that what we are doing here is seriously disrupting Wikipedia, much more than a few edits and reverts would. You know my POV, but here we are not just discussing POVs about the name, but also implementing strategies of pressure to a community, which cannot be characterizd as Wikipedia-like. What we are doing here and our refusing to unlock Greece really sends a message that unless the Greek-sympathizing community will unconditionally agree with the other POV, they will not be able to update the article of the state. Bearing in mind that the name of RoM appears only ONCE as RoM and ONCE as FYRoM, I really believe that this is a clear overkill. Keeping an article locked for a week is understandable, but keeping it locked for months (or years in this case, since you know as well as I do that NO respected compromise will be found, as is the case in EVERY other such case in Wikipedia) is illogical. In my opinion we are already walking a dangerous path imposing a new disputed and here arbitrated status quo over the established status quo ante and I am really concerned of possible implications, once other involved admins start following the examples we set here. Should ArbCom be able to give a swift decision, it would be no problem, but in such cases... GK1973 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Future Perfect,
I got your message. Thanks. I'm working on being more civil and less cantankerous :) ) I'll re-word my note to that gentleman. You're right, he might be offended if I call Mohammed "his deity". Thanks
That user Laveol is folowing me like a dog, and he tray to provoke me to do some stupid things, for shure he will obtain his goal for another BAN for me, but how can i stop that?
Hmmm, I am not following you - I've got the page on my talkpage. And I'm certainly not waiting for you to do stupid things since you already called me some names in your latest edit summary. --LaveolT20:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Like I said Makedonij, it should be no suprise that so many Greeks and Bulgarians are obsessed with Macedonia related issues... after all Greek secret services were caught trying to change WP policy, I wouldn't be surprised if Leveol is just another paid "agent". After all, isn't it strange that a non-administrator is on WP 24/7 like its the only thing he has to live for? Mactruth (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you, please, stop speculating about my personal life. The fact that you don't like me does not justify comments like these. The problems are to be sought entirely in you.--LaveolT15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I know Mactruth, but can someone please explain me how to avoid this conflicts, becouse all my edits are reverted by him, i tray and i'm traying to avoid articles that are of Bulgarian interest, and i went to edit towns in Macedonia, then he present his humor on that page to and provoking E war, he knows the rules more then me, and accuse me when evere i go wrong. But who will accuse him? I wish to send him in PM, but i will earn another Block like always. I will stick to other wiki language becuse this one is ironic, in evry single article related to Macedonians and Macedonia, it is Bulgarian mentionig of something. Yea we know what they think of us, and they express it in evry single article, but if one of us mention their Tataric origin, we get blocked, when Greeks call us Skopians it is fine in the end they will achive what they want, becouse of their larger number of editors. And yes my english is not fine, but i think that you guys understand what i say.Makedonij (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh man. Guys, I'm currently rather preoccupied with other stuff so I don't really think I can help you a lot with your dispute right now. I've blocked Mactruth for this rather crass personal attack above – sorry for not seeing it earlier; I must admit I didn't really read these posts very carefully. But Makeonij and Laveol, could you perhaps try to solve this in some way without me, just for today? Fut.Perf.☼15:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we'll try thinking of something for today. But you've got till the end of Arbitration :) --LaveolT17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Aegean Macedonians vs Greek Macedonians/Bulgarian Macedonians
Aegean Macedonian is a subgroup just like Greek Macedonian, or Bulgarian Macedonian is. I believe Aegean Macedonian should have their own article if the other two subgroups are allowed too. Mactruth (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Defiant ?
Future Perfect,
Who's being defiant? I merely explained my actions. Why the revert was made, how it was made and that it was done in good faith.
Your first post on the matter was you coming out with guns blazing: Wait a moment, can I get this straight please. KoshVorlon, you are saying you made this revert because the other editor was referring to Tamerlane, and you think that because that name incorporates the historic nickname "The Lame" it was vandalism? Can you please quickly say something that convinces me you are not on a trolling spree here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You assumed bad faith automatically. That's not warranted. I didn't return and edit war on the page.
I made one edit only to revert (in good faith) what looked to be vandalism. That's all.
It didn't warrant the trolling mention you put on the page.
I didn't revert your removal of my closure either. It's still opened.
Let's assume good faith in the future ok ?
Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are certainly making it more difficult than it need be. Last time I counted you had repeated three or four times in a row that you still thought the edit actually was vandalism, when just following the link for once and glancing at the article could have informed you that it wasn't; plus, I'm still surprised you could even think the edit you reverted had inserted that phrase, when it had in fact not even touched it. If you'd simply investigated the edit for two minutes, after people had brought it to your attention, you could easily have said: "Okay, sorry, I made a mistake there, misread the diff", and all would have been over. I never blamed you for not knowing that Tamerlane actually was called "the Lame" (although, I have to admit, I would have thought it was common knowledge, probably I shouldn't make such assumptions), what I found questionable about your behaviour was that you still hadn't worked this out in the meantime, when it would have cost you only a click to do so. Fut.Perf.☼16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Correction
Regarding the removal of the image, here you stated:
rem image again, no non-free images of living public individuals, per [WP:NFC [25]
There are several reasons why this statment is false. First of all, the image is free, second Wikipedia:NFC makes no mention of "living public individuals"
So please be careful before you delete other editors contributions next time. There has to be some kind of basis in your deletions. Calendar (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there's a misunderstanding here: The image I removed was indeed a non-free one. There is now a Commons image under the same title which is free; I actually deleted the old non-free one more quickly at the request of the uploader, to make the free Commons image shine through. As for the policy: Photographs of living individuals, with very narrow exceptions (of which this wasn't one), fall under WP:NFCC 1 ("no free equivalent is available, or could be created"), as illustrated further on the same page in the example list of "unacceptable uses", #12 ("Pictures of people still alive [...] provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"). This is also enshrined in the Foundation's licensing policy [27], which says that projects "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". That's the rule I was referring to. Fut.Perf.☼17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Admin reeducation/supervision/rehabilitation
I just read this and the bottom section just gave me a little smile and I have to share with someone. "Reeducation" was, of course, what the Vietnamese Communists called the "program" that they forced on members of the South Vietnamese government after the war was over. And "rehabilitation" sounds like a 12-step program. Sometimes Wikipedia takes itself too seriously. (Taivo (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
Indeed. I've tried my best avoiding to heap scorn on the arb(s) for the rather shocking naming gaffe of "reeducation", but I hope they won't bear me a grudge if I'll be mildly poking fun at it from time to time. What is really more disconcerting is the thought that there might be more than just coincidence in this naming choice. Not that I'd suspect Kirill to have secret Maoist tendencies, but could it be that there is something parallel in the social dynamics of conflict resolution among those engaged in building up the perfect new world of socialism, and those engaged in building up the perfect new world of Wikipedia, that leads them to the same tendency towards uncontrolled use of euphemism? Not a nice thought. – Other than that, preparation for a "supervision" arrangement is actually going fine so far; if they go ahead with that, I'll be ready. Fut.Perf.☼18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that's the best reading I've done all night. My wife is Ukrainian and was educated while it was still the Soviet Union. Remember, "Lenin is just Lenin, he has no title, he's just Lenin". (Taivo (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
Ok, thanks for that. I agree that an indefinite block for one comment is a bit much but he's been here a few months and has been told a few times not to mess around. I may ask User:DragonflySixtyseven myself if Yannismarou doesn't. Perhaps mentoring could help more than anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just look what happened at the PD talk after your one-line comment about "brief responses" :) It might be impossible to be brief and summarize in this case. I have great trouble doing that myself. Shadowmorph^"^10:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Aww, man. Not this guy again...
Hey, Future. You remember me, right? Just saying hi, as I haven't seen you outside of the nationalist circles lately ;p ... Ah, those nationalists. What a wonderful bunch of individuals they are. Am-I-right? Köbra☠15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I was going to delete it but then thought I should see if you have any ideas as to how to handle this. It's gotten to the point where User:Xanxari en. simply waits a few weeks after deletion and then recreates the article verbatim. I don't want to block him but on the other hand, do we really want to just keep deleting this article over and over and over again? I'm a bit lost at this point. Since the user seems to think that you and I are both involved in some conspiracy to get this article deleted, I almost wonder if adding a speedy tag and having another admin delete the article might be a good idea. Thoughts? --User:WoohookittyDiamming fool!05:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You are insisting too much with the deletion of Eagle’s wing magazine. And it’s clear that I have the right to think that you are included in some conspiracies. You are acting on the back of encyclopedia. I am going to complain at the highest instances, up to “New York Times” for your conspiratorial attitude. . You would better include the article because it is the only reference for the Cham issue, for whose solution western diplomacies are so interested in. Positively the article Cham Albanians which takes about tens pages at your encyclopedia has as a main references source our magazine. I am once again waiting for your fair, impartial and honest judgment to put once again the article in the encyclopedia. If more reliable references are needed I can find and put them.
You keep missing the main point, which has absolutely nothing to do with a conspiracy. The main point is that this article was deleted per a perfectly valid deletion vote. And what you keep reposting is essentially the same article. This has been explained to you numerous times now. You need to come up with better, more reliable sourcing instead of just continually reposting the same article. There is no "conspiracy" involved here and there never has been. I can't speak for Future, but I know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. I also know very little about the Cham Albanians. As an administrator, our job is to act impartially based on Wikipedia's guidelines/policies and that's what we are doing. You simply cannot get past the article for deletion or G4 in the speedy deletion guidelines. As long as you keep reposting an article legitimately deleted per a AfD, it will keep being deleted. You need to come up with better sourcing or something to make the article significantly different. --User:WoohookittyDiamming fool!10:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Three users don’t comprise a community and they don’t have the right to speak for a whole community and hundreds of users of Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia. You should try to be “perfect” and rational in your attitudes. I am not exasperated if the article is or not in the encyclopedia pages but we are worried and disgusted by your unfair attitude against our community. We are against holocaust and genocides that different world dictators have practiced. Germans and Albanians have been friends all the centuries and I am surprised why a German has such an unfair attitude against the Albanian issue. Once again I can say that at this point it doesn’t matter if the article will never be part of the encyclopedia pages, controlled by a “perfect friend” like you, and is sufficient that our issue today is in the mouth of gigantesque America and fair Germany etc. We don’t enforce anyone but we were waiting for an argumentative response by you why those hundreds articles with two rows, with any source and reference, aren’t deleted and you go on dealing with “Eagle’s wing” article.
And if you are careful, you will notice that there are new sources and references of the most reliable. I don’t know what can be more reliable than the president of the Parliament of a country (Pjetër Arbnori}) and the National Library of a country?! There are photos there and documents (facsimile):
I talked with Shell_Kinney about my ban. Because she gave me an advice at ANI [28] I obeyed her order for months, and I have not edit the areas where was you banned from 20 January 2009. Please, look my editions during the past few months. I've learned to handle dispute, for example about battle ship Yamato. However, you may think there are few example, but I haven't encounter the persons who had not talked in Talk page after the ban. So there are few examples. Please recall the edition of Comfort women, I talked in Talk:Comfort women, but opponents didn't reply and revert without sufficient explanations. I tried to talk in talk page. And my edition remains for months until now, it tells us my edition is not bad faith. However, I admit that I have tended to revert editions before the ban done, sorry. I mend my rough behavior. I keep promise, trust me. Please release my ban.--Bukubku (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am currently too preoccupied with other issues to give further attention to your issue. If you want to have your ban lifted, I recommend to take it to the wider community (best post an appeal at WP:AN); if admins there agree to lift it, they are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned. Fut.Perf.☼13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you give me generous comment. However Admins think this time my ban release is too premature. I will get better than now. thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Am I going to have to take this?
See User:Pristinick comments: [29] and [30]. I try to cleanup the article and I get harassed and taunted by the user. I can't just make an edit to bring the article up to MOS standards he/she has to make a personal attack and break civility? And not to mention completely revert all my edits. El Greco(talk)14:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming it's another sock of our old friend Shuppiluliuma. He's always had a rather, let's say, possessive attitude towards that article. Please let me know when the next sock turns up. Fut.Perf.☼14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother; he's indef-banned anyway, there's not much more we can do about it, except blocking any new socks whenever they turn up. I'm sorry to see he's still making a nuisance of himself, but his socking energy is apparently inexhaustible. Please report any new appearances here or to User:Hiberniantears, he's experienced with the case too. Fut.Perf.☼16:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I tray to upload this file, but it shows me old version when i upload it. Can you please delete two last uploadings by me? The problem with it is, Strumica is not part of that group of estern dialect, it is part of yellow colored southern part, also the part of Štips and saraundings is deeper to the border including Vinica, Makedonska Kamenica and Radoviš. I fixet that, but when i upload it it shows previus image, can you do it please? Thanks.Makedonij (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no factual opinion about those borders, other than the fact that I copied mine from the sources I had, so if you have other information please cite yours. Please also keep in mind that as a matter of principle there is no objective True or False about such divisions. There is in reality no such thing as a clearly delimitated single dialect. All such divisions are to some degree arbitrary simplifications on the basis of a much more complex network of isoglosses, and as long as we don't know which particular set of isoglosses actually runs between this and that region, there's no way we can even begin to talk about the appropriateness of these divisions. Do you happen to know what linguistic features set Strumica apart from the neighboring "Eastern" dialects? Fut.Perf.☼09:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but my english is not so good, so i can not explain it in English, Strumica is defenitly not a part of same slang group like Štip, Kočani, Vinica, Radoviš, they speak difrent, they use other words for same meaning...I'm not the expert, but i live 50km from Strumica and i can barly understand them.
Hi future. This user has began a new edit-war campaign today on several Macedonia related articles. I do not know what to do with his arrogant vandal-activity:[31], [32], [33], [34], [35]Jingby (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I concur with Jingiby here. He has gone on a spree today, leaving a strange message on my talkpage as well. --LaveolT15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The page [37] offers two columns. The right one is green. Just after the words, "You accept no evidence to the contrary" there is page slide and you can move the text left to right. It cant be that common? Politis (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh that. Lol. That gets automatically inserted in the display because the text above it contained an URL string that was longer than the column width. Fut.Perf.☼23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would add that I suspect this individual to be a sock of the indef-blocked User:Gercekkaynarca. Similar edit pattern, account created recently (May 17th I believe), yet seems thoroughly familiar with wikipedia. --Athenean (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Gah, how many pages did this guy create? Can somebody help tagging the remaining new pages for speedy ({{db-g5}})? I'm too lazy to do them all right now. Fut.Perf.☼08:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried hoax from the drop down menu, since I'm inexperienced in afd tagging and got in trouble. Now I'll use the tag you suggested. Thanks again. Tasos (Dr.K.logos08:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
Me again
I was looking in to this, and i know that you know Greek, this words, most of them are used in present Macedonian language, dont think this like a POV pushing, just a question? Here is a translation of them, if you admins will alow i would like to translate them in Macedonian to?They are written in Greek, and it is not known how the original was writen or spoken, like this.
δάνος dánοs ('death', from PIE *dhenh2- 'to leave') ???
ἀβροῦτες abroûtes or ἀβροῦϜες abroûwes -(in Macedonian used today) OBRVI it is used in Slovenian to,(eyebrows)
Βερενίκη Bereníkē versus Attic Φερενίκη Phereníkē-(in Macedonian used today) BERENIK-POBEDNIK- (victorius one)
ἄδραια adraia ('bright weather'), -(in Macedonian used today) vedro-nebo vreme - (bright weather)
Nah, sorry, I don't think you should try going down that road. That will only end in a rather amateurish OR disaster. Indo-European etymology is really not a topic for these kinds of easy analogies. Fut.Perf.☼16:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll back up Future on this. Generally Slavic and Hellenic cognates bear little overt resemblance because of the massive palatalizations that the Slavic branch underwent. I'm always skeptical of cognates that look alike, but give me a cognate set like do and faire and τιθημι and I salivate ;) (Taivo (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
Ahem. Stop salivating on Wikipedia, Taivo. Where's your dignity. Really. (Dang it, I wasn't even aware do and tithemi are cognates. Damned aspirates. ;-) Fut.Perf.☼16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary - you'll soon find out he does have quite some knowledge on Slavic languages ;) Plus, I surely understand you - we have pretty much the same words in Bulgarian. --LaveolT21:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. the question apparently refers to these fringe hypotheses. Well, I just can't stand so much crackpotry =P If one seriously wants to compare xmk with mkd, the right conclusions are the following: *dhenh2- has "paleobalkan", grc and san descendants (δάνος, θάνατος, and dhvān-tá, respectively) but not any obvious sla ones. bul бровь and mkd обрви are indeed cognates with xmk ἀβροῦϝες and grc ὀφρύες (pie: *bʰruH-). If the first morpheme of Βερενίκη is an actual descendant of *bher- (and not, say, of a non pie root) then βερ- is cognate with chu берѫ - berǫ (any modern sla cognates?). pie h2eidh- (or h2aidh-) "burn" has descendants in lat (aedēs), sqi (ethe), san (ḗdhaḥ), and grc αἰθός/αἶθος, but again no obvious descendants in sla. B.t.w., rus вёдро "bright weather" (confer chu вѣтръ) comes from *weh₁- "blow", and thus it's cognate with eng weather and (maybe) wind. Of course, all the above belong to the Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I kinda messed them up - who was whose sock etc. I wasn't around when they were blocked. I assumed this was Mactruth since he did not deny this on a talkpage. --LaveolT21:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright of this image
This image Slogan NOF.jpg appears in a variety of articles. I have some questions so at to begin to have an understanding of fair use for other like the medal photo that I uploaded in Psara.
Used in Macedonian language, isn' the subject matter (ligustics) very generic so that "a free alternative exists or can be created"?
that clearly violates the "not [be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." since "Η Τραγική αναμέτρηση, 1945-1949" is about those same subjects and is used to market that book about them.
finally, Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, an article about a linguistic minority. I think it could qualify as fair use there since it shows two language scripts side by side.
Besides it is not exactly a picture of a historical event, it's some slogans on a wall that is illustrative of the time period; but still the wall writing is not a historical event by itself
Also take a look at this scanned image[38] that seems to indicate that the original source of the photo and the copyright holder is different (Γενική Γραματεία Τύπου και Πληροφοριών).Shadowmorph^"^12:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Fut, the passage I wrote, was sourced with Mark Mazower, Georgia Kresti, etc, etc, and is totally NPOV-ed. Actually, the Albanian historiography tells a totally different story on this issue, which I avoided since the first day in here. The passage I wrote was just a summary from Cham Albanians, which was not disputed and became a GA just a few days ago. However, thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fut. Thanks for the post. In my edits I deleted not one source I left every source I find from the start, I just added four new. Then Balk. delete them all four, together with the added txt and replaced them with his txt in both four articles. One of the sources was indeed from ELSME which is not a magazine but the Hellenic Institute of Strategic Studies (HEL.I.S.S.) [39], a very prestigious body of studies with serious members. One of them is the ex-Deputy Chief of the Anti-Terrorist Service, Lt. General P. Laggaris who has write a report on the problem of Chams, with dates numbers and the like. Then he told me that "ELME is not considered a reliable source in wiki and cannot be added in any page" and delete it again with all the other references (without any explanation) together with all the txts, sending me a message starting with the words "Take it easy man." That is the story and everybody can confirm it from the postings. I thought that I could have a good disscution about at first and I answer him in a very polite and open minded way (as you may have seen) but as an answer I find immediately after, both of my four edits totally deleted. --Factuarius (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Factuarius your sources are greek friend. In order to be acceptable and they have to be english and reliable. As I do not use albanian sources even if they are translated, you cannot use greek sources on the subject. So, before changing anything(again), review your sources and find reliable english ones. Have a nice day.--Sarandioti (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fut, about Chams issue: I omitted every greek source from tthe txt and in fact I omitted also my txt in order to put an end of the conflict over the sources and the claims. I used only english sources from reliable NPOV editors of the Princeton & Yale University Press as Sarandioti asked me using the exact expresions of them in descripting the facts. Please have a look of the paragraph and the sources. Best, --Factuarius (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
commonly abbreviated as FYROM
I guess the wording means that when the provisional reference is abbreviated, it is commonly towards "FYROM" (while FYR Macedonia is also common). The IP had a point, the wording can lead to misunderstanding that the actual use of the abbreviation is common, or more common than the long form. That concern might need to be addressed in some way since it is in the lead. Shadowmorph^"^21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
by the way, for edits where my English is the issue you can contact me to revert them myself (if 1RR will matter).Shadowmorph^"^22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The article about Northern Epirus, is totally POV, and users like Alexikua are simply not negotiable for changes towards the neutrality of the article. The discuss/change/discuss/change policy is not getting us anywhere, so what should be done? I do not want to report another user, but if I have to I'll do it.--Sarandioti (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The contributions of the above user are kind of 'wierd', deleting sourced comments with inlines [[40]]. As for the n. epirus article the arguements on the disc. page made by sarandioti are viewed clearly on a pov side. Sarandioti, I'm sure you are good on arguments, give specific sources and we can make things seem... let's say less 'offending'. Terms like 'liberated' slaughtered, murdered etc .... are completely avoided u can see that.Alexikoua (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No one deleted sources comments, but POV comments with no reliable references, something very common in wikipedia. On the other hand the NE article is clearly POV, and as I saw it was nominated for deletion. If there was no problem with it as you claim, there would be no such issue. Best regards --Sarandioti (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I never took a class to learn to read ancient Greek, and I can't be sure of the meaning of this sentence: [41], "to plateiai têi cheiri pataxai". Does it mean, "Broad is the hand that smites?". The relevance here is that for the meaning of Plateor, the Perseus entry quotes that phrase. I'm trying to find out what Plateor meant in Greek for clues to what Plator meant in Illyrian: the suufix -tor suggests "one who...", in this case maybe "One who lays them flat" ("them" being adversaries). It looks most likely to me that Plator is cognate to Plato, but the meaning of Plator is as yet obscure. Alex (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The -tor suffix was cmmmon in Illyrian/Delmatic and Liburnian/Venetic names. I haven't seen it in Thraco-Dacic names, and I'm interested about its status in proto-Albanian. For the -tor suffix in Venetic, see [42], Tomator (there stated to be the Venetic form of Domator), Lemetor, Tutor, Plaetorius, etc. Alex (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm also not sure whether Perseus is saying the phrase is from Hesychius. The status of the -tor suffix in proto-Alb is something I'll look into, but it doesn't hurt to draw attention to that, maybe others will pick up that question. Alex (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the word is related to your Illyrian one, and apparently, according to R. Kassel & C. Austin, Poetae comici Graeci[43], it may be a scribal error in the Greek sources. It's a glossary entry ultimately from Hesychius' dictionary and its derivatives in the Byzantine Souda and in Photius, where it's marked as a word attested in an ancient comedy writer, Pherekrates. There are apparently two syntactic variants in which the entry is attested, two of which show the head word as a verb form:
πλατειάσαι = τὸ πλατείᾳ τῇ χειρὶ παῖσαι [Photius: plateiasai: 'play with a flat hand'(?)]
ἐνπλατειάσασα = ἐν πλατείαις τύπτουσα ταῖς χερσίν [Hesych: enplateiasasa: 'she who beats with a flat hand']
If I read the entry correctly, in one of the codices 'πλατειάσαι' is misspelled as 'πλατῆορ'. I can't tell you if and why that would be a plausible misreading (could be because of the use of confusing ligatures). In any case, platêor doesn't seem to make any grammatical sense; I can't even make out what grammatical form it could possibly be, and it doesn't match the following gloss, which must be the gloss for a verb. The verb in the form given here is morphologically trivial, obviously derivative of the adjective platyus ('flat, broad'). Fut.Perf.☼06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That is a lot of specialized info I wouldn't have found, thank you in the name of progress & knowledge. I think though it is likely (not definite) that the Plat- in the Illyrian name Plator derives ult. from the same root, *plat-, "flat", the meaning maybe along the lines I was suggesting. See Latin placare ("to calm"<--a calm sea is flat, a calm battlefield the enemies are flattened) from PIE *plak, "flat". Anyway the Latin examples show the vernacular changes in meaning. Alex (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
3rd opinion
As I have not the right to revert nobody, because the reverter shall always report me, and the admins will always block me, can I have your opinion on Andros article dispute? It is about mentioning or not the Arvanitic name in the lead as per WP:NCGN, which the reverter always takes care off, by doing what he always does, reverting.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, of course it wasn`t me sockpuppeting, I use to report myself on such cases. Remember?. But the reverter has no other thing to do, except of reporting bshs and reverting as always.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see much sense in having that Albanian name in the lead there. I mean, it's not as if it was something our readers would ever be likely to come across anywhere else. It's fine to mention it in the section that deals with the Arvanite population, but that's quite enough. Fut.Perf.☼19:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Yesterday after I had notified you about my last editing you blocked me for 24 hours in "continued reverting". Could you be kind enough to give me a single article's word I reverted? --Factuarius (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Teacher
Long time, you don't visit my page anymore.
Quick question.Did you change the account from Tsourkpk to Athenean? --Taulant23 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This Sarandioti, still insists that the Despotate of Epirus was partly Albanian, although the books he provides say excactly the opposite (only that it have been in war with Albanians, no Albanians themselves).
He just claims that there was a Albanian migration there, but that concerns the geographical region, not the Despote of Epirus itself. If u have time take a look, he seems not to communicate with noone, expressing nationalistic views and pov-pushing (Albanian rule on everything... I'm fed up with this nonsense).Alexikoua (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know much about the ethnic history of that period. What do you actually think it means for a medieval state to "be" of nationality X? (depends on what your definition of "is" is, I suppose). Seriously, whatever you do about that question, please do it in the article text, not in the infobox. Infoboxes are not suitable for any content that is in the slightest bit questionable, in need of explanation or in any other way not straightforward enough to be adequately treated by a single keyword. I've removed the "languages" entry from the box for now. Fut.Perf.☼13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Good detail to attention. The <ḱ>, or in my map the alternate <kj>, in Macedonian, is usually rendered as /c/ or /tɕ/, meaning that the actual pronounciation often varies from speaker to speaker. There is however a distinction between <kj> and <ć>, the <ć> is more of a 'ch' sound. Serbian has a distinction, however 'noć' sounds closer to 'noč' than it does to 'nokj'. In the map 'č' is a way of distinguishing between, the /ʨ/ and /c/, where /c/ is dropped in the Northern regions in favour of the more "ch" sounding /ʨ/. However dont forget 'č' is often used to represent both a /tʃ/ and a /tɕ/, given the closeness of the sounds.
The big problem was that by using a 'ć' as a direct transliteration of 'ḱ/kj', Latin Macedonian was beginging to sound less like the Cyrillic version. The intervocalic phenome is a /c/, which in the Northern regions is more often then not /tʃ/. The use of /ʨ/ ("kj/ḱ/ć/ћ/ќ) is only universal for certain things, eg. names "Radović", the last consonant is a "/ʨ/", not a "/c/". However given that the map is based on intervocalic phenomes, the /c/ is being used as a measure of difference. PMK1 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Plagiarism??
Would you be able to do some checking concerning plagiarism? Under the Dual Monarchy of England and France article this part[44] seems to be too well written. Some of what is written has came from here[45]. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not finding it. The only bit that I can identify in the books you point to is that poem. That should of course be sourced and properly attributed to the modern translator (it is a free modern translation of a medieval Latin original, and as such it is also under copyright, but the extent is small enough that we can assume fair use in quoting it, if done properly). I cannot find any of the "well-written" text around it, in a web search at least. And actually, I don't find it that particularly well-written either, not really above the level of what some Wikipedians can typically cobble together. Fut.Perf.☼17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Jayvdb's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You reverted my edits of the page Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric with a note that it was tendentious editing. Many third-party sources and links were provided to support everything that was written, but all these efforts were ignored.
What was tendentious? I am willing to discuss and elaborate each of the changes that I make (on this and all pages).
The current state of the page contains many inconsistencies, one of the most trivial being the name of the prelate Jovan IV (who lived in the 12th century) instead of Jovan VI.
I have continued editing the mentioned page. I am open to discuss any issues of this and any other edit that I make. Kpant (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are rather blatantly non-neutral and tendentious. If you want to continue editing here, you will have to learn to work towards the neutral point of view, which is our central guide in writing here. A claim like that this church is "the only canonical Orthodox Church", presented as a simple fact, is quite unacceptable. Also, in your writing, phrases like "they soon succumbed to the political pressure", "illegally and brutally expelled", "In the same manner, illegally and without a court order", "The faithful people of the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric were raided" and so on are overtly tendentious, sensationalist and accusatory and cannot stand as part of a neutral article. Fut.Perf.☼12:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. If you want to dispute something, please provide arguments and evidence, at least not worse than what I strive to provide. Otherwise any discussion we could have would be fruitless. For example, the claim that the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric is the only canonical church in R. Macedonia is a fact, acknowledged also in this Wikipedia (long before I joined in). So, how come you say it's unacceptable? The sentence about the raiding obviously derives from a third-party report. The illegal and without a court order expelling is also part of a third-party report, and was also made public by the authorities that carried it out. If you could prove otherwise, I'd be very happy to hear, and of course, the article should be modified accordingly, once these evidence is provided. Like this, it seems as you attempt to present your personal viewpoint as a "Neutral point of view". You did exactly that when you changed the name of the prelate from "Jovan" to "Zoran" under the false excuse that it was his civil name - which is not true. Kpant (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Buz- & buz-
Hi, once again :) Only if you have time later, I won't make this a habit, but the standard (DEX) etymology of Ro. buzunar (pocket) is from modern Greek buzunara. I'm wondering about the etymology of Greek buzunara, is it said to derive ult. from Greek buo, "to stuff" (pockets are something you can stuff, but it's not recommended to always stuff your pockets, unless you have something worth stuffing your pockets for)? The relevance is, a paleolinguist/linguist Paliga groups buzunar with buza/buze (lip, lips; substrate words) and thus derives buzunar also from *beu-, "to swell", the standard etymology of Romanian buza/buze and Albanian buze (lip) [46]. I'm doing research for the etymology of Byzas, which I will detail once I have the references. No rush, and of course if you're not into this stuff, no problem. Alex (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, if I read Babiniotis correctly, he derives βουζούνα from medieval βυζί(ον) ('breast'), and that in turn via an irregular consonant change from an earlier stem μυ, which would ultimately a mama-papa word with no apparent etymology further back than Greek. So, apparently no link. Anyway, aren't you a bit in OR territory? Fut.Perf.☼19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This is background research! So when I do add whatever sourced info I add to Byzas, I (We, because I share info) will have a better understanding of the info. Okay, so Paliga I assume did his homework & knew about the buzunara etymology, did not find it compelling, and therefore suggests in a paper of his that buzunar/buzunara may in fact derive from *beu, "to swell" (note: the English word bosom is traced back to *beu-, so is the word pocket in my Calvert Watkins reference; βυζί(ον) like Bosom may also reflect *Beu-?). He suggests in that paper that buza, buzunar, Byzas etc. may all derive from Thracic/Thraco-Illyric *beu derivations. However I wanted to find out the other etymology of buzunara. Now that I know it, I can't evaluate which etymology is more likely, the one mentioned by Bab. or the one suggested by Pal. My own idea (in which buzunara is superfluous) about the etymology of Byzas is maybe: Byzas, from Byzia, naiad of a spring, from Byza (south Thracian), Bussa (North Thracian), a Thracian word for "spring (as in a water source)", perhaps from PIE *beu-, "to bubble out". I don't have a source for my suggestion as I spelled it out, so I won't ad it to Byzas; however the identification of Bussa as a north Thracian word for "water source" is sound & sourced. Alex (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Etymology of English pocket: probably from O.N.Fr. poque (12c.), probably from a P.Gmc. *puk- (cf. O.E. pocca, M.Du. poke, O.N. poki "bag, pocket"), from PIE base *beu-, an imitative root associated with words for "to swell." Buzunara/buzunar is superfluous, but since beu- itself is kind of an imitative root/mama-papa-ish, buzi(on) may also derive from that "swell" notion, or it could just be from baby-talk. I don't remember whether Paliga explicitly suggested that buzunara is from Vlach (or whether there is evidence for such a derivation), but as far as I'm concerned with this, if it's native to Greek (as it probably is) it shows to me tendencies of a Balkanic connection between the buz- sounds and notions of something swollen, though buzi(on) does not necessarily trace back to PIE *beu-, "to swell" (maybe the Thracian word -bussa ("spring") is also more from Balkanic baby-talk, for all I know). The important stuff to me is the etymology of Byzas/Byzia, this other stuff was background.Alex (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well Paliga looks to be wrong/too hasty about including buzunara, I find it unusable because it could just ult. be from muz-, a Greek form denoting "suck" (as from breasts)[47]. It could well have went muz (suck), --->buz- (breast), then from a similarity of a little bag/pouch to a breast, pocket. Alex (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
S. Paliga (also of the Urbian theory, which has something to it though) is known for (or was, that file of his that I read was from like 2003, I read it in early '05) wild claims in his etymologies, such as duşman deriving from Thracian, when it certainly derives from Turkish, then from Persian; ancient Greek Dusmenes being a cognate to the Indo-Aryan forms. A very different, and very careful and scientific fellow is Olteanu & his LTDM site, and I'm waiting for him to list the attestations of Byzas/Byzes and whatever etymologies are considered likely. I found mention in a Greek inscription at Olympia, Greece of a Byzes of Naxos Island [48], so I don't even know at the moment whether it can safely be said that the name is Thracian. I'm a careful researcher again dude, that buzunara/buze stuff was Paliga's idea. If you're an ex-admin now, that's too bad. Alex (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you very much for your talk page message regarding the Macedonia MOS stability. It is sincerely appreciated. --Vassyana (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Greece-Albania articles, some thoughts.
I would be more than happy to sit down with you, Alexikoua, Balkanian and anyone else who is interested, and hammer out a MOSMAC-style compromise to these articles (when you are done with ARBMAC2 and have the time, of course), however I am afraid it's going to be sabotaged by the extremist LRK crowd of Sarandioti & Co. I have left a thread on Nishkid's talk page on how best to deal with these people. Any thoughts would be appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note. Yes, maybe that would be useful, although from prior experience I'm a bit skeptical about the chances of success. We once tried to work out such a guideline for the corresponding issues with Greek-Turkish placenames, and it never got anywhere. The trouble is, these conflicts never get solved as long as editors come to the issue with the idea that mentioning or not mentioning a name in the article lead is somehow a symbolic badge of recognition of a national "claim" to a place. As long as people think of these things more in terms of "satisfying" this or that group's "rights", rather than in terms of what is actually interesting for our readers, the issue remains untractable. Unfortunately, that misconception is extremely deep-rooted and ubiquitous.
I agree Sarandioti is probably not a suitable partner for such a discussion, but I'm confident he can be dealt with in a suitable way. (Only, the way things are going, I'll probably be expected to refrain from enforcing anything admin-wise myself, so it'll be better to keep some outside admins informed.)
I hope I'll soon have a little bit more energy to spare again, when that freaking arbcom case will finally be over.
Thank you for your thoughts. I can understand your skepticism, nevertheless I think it's worth a try. The reason being that the parties I mentioned are amenable to reason, although they can all be stubborn at times (incl. myself). Alexi, Balkanian and I pretty much had an uwritten consensus which was more or less stable for a while now, until the recent arrivals started tearing the place apart. This is why I think a MOSMAC-style approach might be worth it. We could in that case point out new and inexperienced users to it. But whatever, it is not urgent at this point and you definitely have your hands full. Good luck with the arbitration case and let me know if I can be of any further assistance. I am gratified to observe that while my note may not have swayed any arbitrators, it seemed to have unleashed a torrent of support for you that may have. --Athenean (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually came for another reason, but, I think this is a good aproach to the issue. We may start trying such a thing. The problem is that I do not see anything that we can add on it, except WP:NCGN; but we may discuss if is there anything which is unique on this case. Good idea.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Heads up...
See User talk:85.75.155.167. I have already declined his unblock request, and I have no idea what it is about, but you are listed as the blocking admin, so I thought I would bounce it to you to see if you can sort this guy's problem out. Toodles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Mac talk
I'll announce this centralized discussion at AN and to arbcom, Please announce in pertinent other places. I'll also nosed into finding admins for it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
hmm. i know maybe my edit have some gramatical error. but, i don't think my edit is unreadable and highly tendentious additions. even if you are adminstrator, you must explain detail. i want discuss it. and i don't make any edit-war. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you participate discussion? [49] Please check my edit, my edit based off refereced material. please, point out "what" is the problem from your side. ony by one... we must discuss detail. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Your email...
...Thanks for explaining the situation. Since it is clearly a rangeblock, I would never have undone it anyways. If I get anymore requests in this range, I will simply direct them to WP:ACC to create an account. And I will keep an eye out for the problematic editor that led to the rangeblock in the first place. --Jayron32.talk.contribs23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Macedonia
Thanks for the invite! My primary interest here is to follow policy, whatever policy is. That said, I do prefer the current system (use "Macedonia" when it's unambiguous) to the previous system (use "FYROM" when the subject is an international organisation and uses "FYROM"), so I'll drop by Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/international organisations and note my support.
Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise can you please give me instructions (of course if u know), how can i crop a picture in wikipedia of course... Greetings... --1111tomica (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica--1111tomica (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't really do that within Wikipedia. You need to edit the image off-wiki with some graphics software, and then upload the cropped version under a new name. When you do this, please be very careful about copyright and sources – the new image needs to have a clear description what the source was and what the copyright conditions of the source are. Fut.Perf.☼11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
mmm...bad :S ... I know I had big problems with the permission off the pics that I have uploaded...:S ... ok thanks anyway ... Greetings --1111tomica (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica--1111tomica (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The box itself is fixed, it just didn't yet show up on the pages where it was transcluded. Perhaps it takes longer to shine through because it's not from Template namespace. It does appear when you say "...?action=purge". Fut.Perf.☼15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What I think is a brilliant idea has crossed my email inbox. Rather than using the phrase "civil POV pushing", call it "skilled POV pushing". Using the phrase "civil" invariably brings in the issue of what is and isn't civil, which we all know people have varying ideas of what is and isn't civil and opens up that whole can of worms. Using instead "skilled" forces people to focus more on the POV pushing itself. Worth a try. Of course, decorum is still one of the Five Pillars, but as I said that's a whole other issue. I also hope the ideas in the case about collective behavior of blocs of editors does some good. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. It seems to be a continuation of the established trends, doesn't it? -- ChrisO (talk)
I guess so, but I think right now you can't see that, because the new version isn't yet showing through. Or is it for you and not for me? Fut.Perf.☼18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You've probably got a cached copy of the image in your browser cache. Try pressing Ctrl+R while viewing [51] in order to force your browser to do a hard refresh. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
What I edit is fully documented from already mentioning in the article sources. Why can mention a part of a book and not another one. Who can deside what part we can mention and what cannot? Every phrase of my editing is part of that books. Every word someone editing in that article is leading directly to an edit war from these 3 fellow Albanians who consider the article their property that nobody else can edit.--Factuarius (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian`s word accuse me in misciting authors but this is totally untrue. Most of my text is almost word-by-word part of the original book's text. Since their pages are mentioning in my references he can check my references.--Factuarius (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Balkanian`s word please help yourself by reading more careful the noted pages. You tell me again and again that you cannot find the references, but are there. Read again the pages what else can I do about? --Factuarius (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Factuarious until now you have brought no RS, just texts from greek authors. That is WP:POV. When you do that, then we'll start discussing the issue. --Sarandioti (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No Sir, Owen Pearson and Bernd J. Fischer are not greek authors. As for Manta, is one of 23 greek authors already mentioned in the article before my editing. The issue is what you and Balkanian want to mention about their books and what you don't want, I believe. But in that way we write fiction not history. Is that what you want?--Factuarius (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a matter of protocol first, Factuarius: it is very impolite to make multiple editings in a row fiddling with your own text on somebody else's talk page, because it may bring up the "yellow bar of death" multiple times, which is bothersome. Please review your edits by using the "preview" button, and then send them off once. As for the dispute, I haven't got much time for dealing with it. I might have a look at it later; until then, I'd suggest you both take your debate off my talk page. Thanks, --Fut.Perf.☼13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I only answered Balkanian`s & Sarandioti's accusations they in parallel running both here and in the Chams discussion page. But now they are not answering in the Chams discussion page although they called me to discuss there the issue. Sorry for the trouble, I will do so in both suggestions. --Factuarius (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Acropolis Museum
Hello! I am thinking that it would be good to transfer the page of the New Acropolis Museum to "Acropolis Museum" because it is about to open on 20 June. I redirected the page of the obsolete museum to "Old Acropolis Museum" but the "Acropolis Museum" is already used. Could you delete that page in order to redirect "New ~" to "Acropolis Museum"? Dimboukas (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll be without admin tools for a small while. I've listed your request at WP:RM, I'm sure it will soon be processed. Great news about the museum, can't wait to see it. Fut.Perf.☼21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but the whole thing it is how can I make an image free on wikipedia I can't understand that... can you help me.. For example what if I find some Vlado image from I don't know blog or his official website... so for putting on wiki what should I doooooOOO and make the picture non copyrighted... btw If I write something about his albums in the Vlado Janevski article can we keep the picture??? Greetings --1111tomica (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica--1111tomica (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ahha... and what about if in his article a write a little bit about his album "Povtorno Se Zaljubuvam Vo Tebe" will I than be aloud to keep the picture I mean the cover in th article??? --1111tomica (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica--1111tomica (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Turkish names of Greek islands
Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise
If this electronic encyclopedia is free, Turkish names of Greek island will be written. Your disinterestedness about these names can not be a valid excuse. If it is valid then I has the disinterestedness about former names of Turkish places and I want to erase them from Turkish names. Sincerely,--Cemsentin1 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A copyright issue.
Hi, you seem to have the experience. Unusual assertions about government corruption and too much focus on smuggling attracted my attention in 2001 insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia. The first two sections were copy-pasted from this source (which, eitherway, seems to me of questonable value). Haven't checked the rest. Can you deal with it ? Thanks.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be "ondood", wouldn't it? But maybe yes, that's not too bad a description for my current zombie-admin status. (/me growls in a deep voice: "Tooools....! Tooools ...!") Fut.Perf.☼14:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Psikxas
Hi, Fut.Perf. There've been some new developments with regard to the apparent fraud; I've updated the discussion at ANI. If this isn't the first report I've made at ANI, it's the first in recent memory; what happens now? Thanks, —ScheinwerfermannT·C18:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What source do I need on that?? It is a dance of albanian origin, danced also by greeks. So why should we use the greek names on a dance that means in english dance of the chams?!?!?!? --Sarandioti (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The name itself does not make things clear about the origin. Actually, it makes nothing clear. Etymology and origin dont go necessary together.Alexikoua (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait I have to see it again, cause I do not have a sound device on my comp, and I just saw the valle, which was like the dance of osman taka. I will tell you in about 3 hours, exactely.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Cases where disambiguation of Macedonia is definately not needed.
Afraid not: the first is again that 9/8 pattern (3/4 + 3/8), i.e. three regular steps and one slightly longer one; and the second is a regular 4/4 pattern (i.e. four equal steps). Greek Tsamiko has 3/4, i.e. groups of three equally long steps. Fut.Perf.☼12:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
These is a dispute on Cham Albanians, I've raised a question about the use of non-Albanian-Greek authors (was agreed with Balkanian). It seems that one author (kretsi) is both (most probable of Albanian ethnicity-Greek citizenship)Alexikoua (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Some help, I'd appreciate it
Hi, I remember some time ago you gave me a piece of advice what to do when an admin on another project is abusing his power. You'll never guess who that is - MacedonianBoy, of course. I was browsing through articles about Bulgarians when I got to this lame article - [53] where you can extensively read how Bulgarians are actaully tatars and the main theory about their origin is the Tatar one (info was added by another good friend - RasoMK). There is also a dab saying "For the old people see "Bulgars", for the people in Russia see Tatars. I tried removing the stuff that looked to racist, explaining to Raso (or at least I thought that the person who added the info would respond) that this is not appropriate and ... oh, just read it. What MacedonianBoy did was to revert my edits twice (or maybe three times), threaten me with a block and protecting the page (after reverting me). Now, I get the impression this is not proper admin behaviour and I canot even make a single edit anymore or I'll obviously get a block from him (despite the fact that he's edit-warring). So, where should I go? --LaveolT13:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
For a start, try not to delete referenced text and to delete a text without explanation. As an active user, you should know that you have to give explanation before deleting, but you did not. And that is called vandalism pall + you continued with vandalism and that was a cause for the warnings. What is not clear Laveol?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Plus: the section about the BG origin does not tell that BG are Tatars. There is another section about that and the text is supported with Bulgarian references, not Macedonian.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it says it outright in the first paragraph. And only two of the sources are Bulgarian and as Raso noted when he added the info, they might as well come from Ataka. And this was not my question. I did explain my action on the talkpage and for it I got reverted and threatened with a block. I just want to know how to act in case of dmin abuse, thank you. If you're not here to help me, let Future answer this. Thank you. --LaveolT13:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Laveol please do not lie, when you got the warning than you have provided the explanation. You have understood that what have you done was a vandalism, but you continued with it.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can obviously not solve anything here, but I'll say this much: M.B., if you pulled such a stunt as an admin here on en-wiki, you'd be desysoped in no time. First, Laveol's initial edit was clearly not vandalism; everybody could see it was made in good faith and it also had an appropriate edit summary ("- расистки коментари"). Your revert, in contrast, would certainly qualify as rollback abuse here with us, because you failed to provide even this minimal amount of a justifying edit summary. And protecting the page subsequently would most certainly be abusive use of admin tools, according to en-wiki criteria. I strongly suggest you remove that protection. Laveol, I really don't know how to go about this. There must be some more reasonable admins over at mk-wiki. If everything else fails and this shows an abusive anti-NPOV pattern that the local community is clearly unwilling or unable to handle, then theoretically there is the possibility of opening a cross-project RFC at Meta, but to actually get people there to intervene would be quite hard. Fut.Perf.☼13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Removing a text with reliable source is not vandalism??? Come on, I will remove the protection if he would not continue to delete referenced text. I do not care about the text itself, I am writing about Maya people right now, not about BG.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If a reason is given in good faith for the removal, then no, removing text is not automatically vandalism. A passage of text may be perfectly sourced, but still constitute a violation of NPOV, place undue weight on a fringe position, be off-topic, tendentious, or just plain poorly written. There are multiple reasons somebody may legitimately want to remove a sourced passage of text. If they do so and indicate a reason for it, and you disagree, it's up to you to initiate a good-faith discussion. Fut.Perf.☼13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No man, I am not interested in such a discussion. I have never edited it except small edits. There are other users who edit that article. But removing a huge text cannot escape from your eyes on the Recent change page :) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to contact some of the more reasonable admins. I hope it works out somehow. Btw, looking at it now, I see he actually protected it twice - once after he reverted me, then he unprotected it, seeing that he has to make another revert to get to the "right version", reverted and protected it again. That is a Wow.--LaveolT13:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Laveol again you lie. The second time I have put the tag that the article is protected. I thought you are more familiar with Wikipedia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I must've mistaken. But I remember seeing the protection template, but the article didn't have its lame dab and though you protected the "wrong version". But, yeah, it figures you would protect the "right" one only. --LaveolT13:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No, indeed, I can't see IP addresses behind logged-in editors any more than you can. On the other hand, I'm pretty knowledgeable about anatidae (not to mention monk seals), and in this case I seem to hear some faintly familiar noise somewhere in the back of my brain. Unfortunately I lack not only the checkuser bit, right now I have not even the admin tools. Perhaps our trusty friend Hiberniantears would oblige again? Or you, J.delanoy? Fut.Perf.☼18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I guess since you were pretty knowledgeable is discovering sock puppets....I thought that's how it was done. Nonetheless, would J.delanoy or Hiberniantears care to look into this inquiry for me? There seems to be a user/sock puppet on the Istanbul article - Future Perfect has dealt with him/her before which is why I came here. El Greco(talk)20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Bogus proposals
Let me guess, now they will accuse you of breaching WP:AGF. Personally I think the trolls' ass should have been banned long time ago, but the ARBCOM was too weak and too preoccupied by their their head position between their legs. How is possible to let those two trolls do that is beyond my power of comprehension and beyond my limit of endurance. I'm trying not to post on that page because I feel like I will blow a fuse. man with one red shoe07:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Query
Dear Fut., I didn't have the time to follow the Centralized discussion/Macedonia in dept but would like to cast my choice; could you please advise where are the relevant proposal options A, B, C etc. defined? Thanks in advance, Apcbg (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
They are at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles and at the four other "topic sub-pages" listed at the top of the nav-box you will see at that page. Please be aware that this is currently only a procedural poll about which of the proposals are worth submitting to the wider community for further comment (probably in the style of an RfC collecting endorsements). Fut.Perf.☼10:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Pls give me the link of the discussion you refered to that the community decided not to inlcude the etymology of the word "Macedonian". Im new here and didnt manage to find it. Thanks. Psikxas (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
And please, dont accuse me as if i provided a "naive pseudo-etymology". Try to translate thsi abstract from the Greek Wikipedia. If needed, i can provide more refferences. "Έχοντας κατά νου την πορεία αυτού του λαού επιστρέφουμε στην ετυμολογία του ονόματος Μακεδονία και Μακεδών.Προέρχεται από το Μακ+δων που σημαίνει ψηλή γη και κατ΄επέκταση ορεσείβιος. Ανάλογη κατάληξη έχει ο Ποσειδών=πόσις+δων=άντρας της γης=στα Δωρικά Ποτίδας. Ο πιο παλιός όρος για τη γη είναι "γδων".Κάποιες ελληνικές φυλές αφαίρεσαν το δ και έμεινε "γων,γην,γαν,γαιαν".Άλλοι πάλι αφαίρεσαν το γ και έμεινε "δων,δη,δα" (π.χ. Δήμητρα=Δήμητηρ= μητέρα γη).Τέλος άλλοι "μαλάκωσαν" το γδων σε "χθων".Έτσι στην πρώιμη Αθήνα ο Ποσειδώνας από σύζυγος της γης (Πόσις γδων) έγινε εραστής της γης (Ερεχθών -> Ερεχθεύς)΄. Μία άλλη παραλλαγή του γδων είναι "κτων" εξού και αμφικτών=κοινή γη .".
Among others, here it says: ...Macedonia comes from Mak+don which means "the tall ones", or "highlanders." Same etymology has the word Poseidon=posis+don=man of the earth (Ποσειδών=πόσις+δων=άντρας της γης). The ancient prefix for word earth was "gdon" ("γδων"). Some races removed letter d and left "gon,ghn,gan,gaian" ("γων,γην,γαν,γαιαν") - try to translate the word "γην" to an online dictionary see that meaning is "earth" pls-.Some other races removed letter g and left "don,dh,da" (e.g. Dhmhtra=Dhmhthr= mother earth -(from Dh, meaning earth, and mhthr (μήτηρ) meaning mother, try to remember Greek goddess Dhmhtra or Dimitra (because letter "η" becomes "i" or "e" in latin and not "h" in order to sound the same as the Greek word, known now in other races as first name :Dimitrios, Dimitra, Dimitri etc-... This is a free translation with my poor english from Greece, pls search it further, we have bad past, but really i dont mean to damage the article or accept accusations that i added a "naive pseudo-etymology". ThanksPsikxas (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive 16#Etymology, and you can check the article history around 20 April or so, when the removal was made. And please understand that your passage from the Greek wikipedia is worthless unless there are reliable sources from the literature. Wikipedia doesn't count as a source. I've seen lots of discussions of this etymology in reliable referece works, and I can't remember ever having seen one that involved an element "-don" meaning "earth". Fut.Perf.☼05:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Pls consider again the text i pasted you from Greek wikipedia. I think that Greek wikipedia has also reliable references and they dont do whatever they want. After carefully reviewing the text ive given to you, and reading till the end, it says..."..Finally, some others made "gdon" to "chton". So, in early athens Poseidon, from man/husband of earth (Posis gdon) became her lover (Erechton) (from Eros = love, and chton = earth)." I can provide you a full list with -don, or gdon, or -chton. Like autochtone (=native, this who lives in his own land, auto->my own). Like amfikton=same land (amfi- we share together, , and -kton = earth, land). See here [54]. Search for word "χθών". Like "ypochthonios", meaning "ypo- , under, and chton - earth, so this word means someone who leaves underground. Υποχθόνιος. Look here [55]. If you know Greek as you mention in your user page, you should eassily understand. Anyway, could you tell me to whom admin here should i address to and could explain better than me in english, that knows this matter, that know etymology and from where words come, and that he can understand sources i provide from Greek? Its a Greek word, so my "free translation" to english, cause many misunderstandings to you. Its my fault that cant explain better, but pls help improve the encyclopedia.Or at least, can you tell me where you have seen discussions of etymology online? Maybe i can have a look, because whatever search i make, i do it wrong maybe and end in greek sites, not english. ThanksPsikxas (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and i though you have seen this reference [56], where clearly states that mak=long, large. Considering macro gdon, Macedones means people are tall/leave in high ground/earth -->highlanders,the tall ones
The identification of mak- "long" is indeed uncontroversial. It's the -don part that's at issue. You can debate all you want, if you can't demonstrate that this -don = "earth" etymology has been proposed in a reliable linguistic academic source, there's just no way you can get it included. As far as I know, linguists have discussed all sorts of sources for that suffix, but I haven't come across this version. Besides, the result of the discussion in April was that we don't need any section on ancient etymology at all, in this article. Fut.Perf.☼07:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
About "high earth", Frisk attributes to Pisani a form *Maki-kedones (> Makedones) where *kedon is the Macedonian equivalent of Greek khthon; he considers it unlikely. Chantraine mentions Frisk's attribution but doesn't comment any further. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that etymology does trace to linguistic literature, though it's not often quoted. I don't know if Poseidon is included, but Mygdonia I've seen it included, with a possible meaning of "swampy/wet land" (PIE *meug-, "wet, slippery"; the river mouths & lakes there or that were there etc.), or so I remember. Macedon on its own didn't look like much of a case and Poseidon as "earthman" sounds like a wild speculation, but Mygdonia does seem to fit well. Alex (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at info about the etymology of Poseidon at our article here:Poseidon, and there is info about don maybe meaning "god" (masculine counterpart of Dea), though I found some info that could suggest "earth" in that article. See this: In Linear B clay tablets, the form "PO-SE-DA-WO-NE ("Poseidon") occurs with greater frequency than does DI-U-JA (Zeus). A feminine variant, PO-SE-DE-IA, is also found, indicating a lost consort goddess". Further the text says: "Poseidon is already identified as "Earth-Shaker"— E-NE-SI-DA-O-NE— in Mycenaean Knossos,[3]". I notice that ENESIDAONE looks a lot like Enosichthon, "Earth-Shaker", but if DAONE meant "god" then I guess ENESIDAONE meant "the god who shakes things up" :) ? Alex (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No, indeed, I can't see IP addresses behind logged-in editors any more than you can. On the other hand, I'm pretty knowledgeable about anatidae (not to mention monk seals), and in this case I seem to hear some faintly familiar noise somewhere in the back of my brain. Unfortunately I lack not only the checkuser bit, right now I have not even the admin tools. Perhaps our trusty friend Hiberniantears would oblige again? Or you, J.delanoy? Fut.Perf.☼18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I guess since you were pretty knowledgeable is discovering sock puppets....I thought that's how it was done. Nonetheless, would J.delanoy or Hiberniantears care to look into this inquiry for me? There seems to be a user/sock puppet on the Istanbul article - Future Perfect has dealt with him/her before which is why I came here. El Greco(talk)20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Bogus proposals
Let me guess, now they will accuse you of breaching WP:AGF. Personally I think the trolls' ass should have been banned long time ago, but the ARBCOM was too weak and too preoccupied by their their head position between their legs. How is possible to let those two trolls do that is beyond my power of comprehension and beyond my limit of endurance. I'm trying not to post on that page because I feel like I will blow a fuse. man with one red shoe07:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Query
Dear Fut., I didn't have the time to follow the Centralized discussion/Macedonia in dept but would like to cast my choice; could you please advise where are the relevant proposal options A, B, C etc. defined? Thanks in advance, Apcbg (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
They are at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles and at the four other "topic sub-pages" listed at the top of the nav-box you will see at that page. Please be aware that this is currently only a procedural poll about which of the proposals are worth submitting to the wider community for further comment (probably in the style of an RfC collecting endorsements). Fut.Perf.☼10:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I haven't got the energy right now. I sure wish somebody would step in with a good number of topic bans, but I unfortunately can't. Fut.Perf.☼10:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Oxford reference
It strikes me as odd that you don't have access to Oxford reference because you cite that in MOSMAC2 which is in your userspace. I believe you can find a password if you want to.Shadowmorph^"^11:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I have also notified the NPOV noticeboard [58] and the talk page of WP:NCON[59], using your words plus a mention of why it's relevant to those talk pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This poll has several flaws. First of all, it would be nice to have a link to the full range of considered texts; this need not invite discussion, if (to take the most obvious means) it's a old diff of the survey page.
That's technical - as is the confusing structure. You sent five links, and I seem to have looked at all of them; but have I voted on all the questions asked.
(By the way, to answer complaints of ethnic exclusion, I trust you have invited Macrakis?)
More seriously, a poll should either be approval - and permit multiple ranked choices- or it should permit opposition. Either would be acceptable; imposing both constricts my !Vote within the Procrustean bed of a single box - ignoring the key point that I could accept any of the three, and oppose a fourth.
Lastly, and most seriously, any poll that permits no voice for "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is simply silencing one side of the discussion. There may be a simple, direct, policy-based argument for it; I don't believe it, but we shall never know unless it is available as a choice.
On the other hand, having a convenient reference to show that its most passionate supporters can't come up with such an argument when invited would be the crowning blow. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was kind of in two mind about this as well. On the one hand it would have been nice to have had the "FYROM" option in there so that it could be squashed by the community once and for all. However, the referees have all agreed - and I would have to concur - that the "FYROM" option is so fundamentally at odds with policy that it can't be put to the community; the ArbCom was clear about the referees having to work on the basis of consistency with policy, especially NPOV. Given that there was no way it could have been implemented, it would have been a waste of everyone's time to discuss it further. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Then this poll is only of the most marginal utility; indeed, it serves no purpose that a severely administered move request would not. It is clear that A and B and C are all acceptable to most people; we have preferences between them, but I don't think any one accepts one and rejects others - and D has most of the same problems as FYROM. (It's not actively odious to citizens of the Republic; but that's not a policy based objection, any more than "think of the millions of poor oppressed inhabitants of Greek Macedonia".) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) To answer the other points, the state of the proposals before the filtering can be seen in the page history prior to yesterday c.19:00 UTC, e.g. [60] for the main articles page. If you want a link to that stage somewhere, I'm sure the referees wouldn't mind you adding it. There you will also see the state of the argument for the "former Yugoslav" option. We had an intermediate vote about which proposals to filter out, and this option was one among those that failed. By the way, I note that there are "former Yugoslav" options on several of the other pages still active, so if you want to see their validity judged, you still can – their rejection with respect to the Greece article and the international organisations will serve as a signal a fortiori also for the other cases. As for the polling procedure (single endorsement), that was apparently a decision of the referees, not discussed in advance with the participants, and I honestly don't know what thoughts did or didn't go into that. Maybe they would have no objection to changing that modality; I haven't thought of asking so far. As for the page structure, I'm sorry if you find it confusing; I have to admit that was originally based on my own ideas. What I was trying to do was to factor out domains with higher and lesser levels of expected controversy. Fut.Perf.☼22:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Darko Trifunovic
Thanks for that useful comparison of diffs - I've taken the liberty of adding it to the checkuser request. Hope you don't mind! -- ChrisO (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, checkuser has confirmed what I expected. I've raised the matter at WP:AE#Darko Trifunovic (where I probably should have taken it in the first place, given the congenital uselessness of AN/I). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hallo F.p.. Just wanted to inform you I've created this article [[61]] most part of it it's based on H.F. Meyer's last book [[62]]. When you have time, take a look. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You were very quick in the past to delete sourced edits I had made in that article yet now seem rather reticent to revert an obvious case of vandalism.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Macedonia
Hello, I've noticed that you have performed many edits on lots of articles which changes "Macedonia" to "Macedonia (country)", these edits should not have been done because we are supposed to avoid redirect. Ijanderson (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I did these because according to the outcome of WP:MOSMAC2, the Macedonia article is going to be moved back to Republic of Macedonia, and Macedonia will become a disambiguation page again. Therefore, all these links had to be disambiguated so they won't end up pointing erroneously to the dab page. Of course, I could have changed them to [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]] too, instead of [[Macedonia (country)|Macedonia as I did, but it doesn't really matter, since "redirects are cheap" and there really isn't a need to avoid them. I find the "...(country)" link a bit easier to type, and marginally easier to read, and it might also be good for later maintenance to have those links that actually display as "Macedonia" together on one batch of "whatlinkshere", that's why I chose this version. Fut.Perf.☼18:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Macedonia
As you know, we're about an hour away, and I'm not anticipating any objections at this late stage. I see a lot of incoming links to Macedonia, which is about to be replaced by disambiguation, which may not be appropriate. Any thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Whut? Incoming links to plain Macedonia? But I spent hours upon hours removing those! I eliminated several hundreds during the last two days. Article namespace should now be clean: [63]. I don't think links from other namespaces are a problem. Most of them must have been created during the time when it was a dab page anyway, so whatever people meant when they made them, it's basically their own fault if they are ambiguous. Fut.Perf.☼20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha - foolishly, I forgot to hide the redirects, which bulk up the count somewhat. Good work stripping everything out - chaos will ensue shortly. Thanks for the pics on my talkpage, by the way. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Changes in Illyrians
As I am new here, I really don't know all the regulations. I believe that the information that i insisted in putting in that page were more than useful to any reader. I mean, isn't the purpose of Wiki knowledge to be non-biased and objective. Information on the Illyrians page lacks some sources of very notable foreign and local historians and scholars. All I did was to enrich the page. Madalbanian (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Macedonia Timeless
hey !!! I am here for new problem with Macedonia linked articles... I made a great article (i consider that) about Macedonia Timeless, the tourist videos about Macedonia and now I have problem with the user Shadomworh or whatever saying something about the neutrality and other things... can you see the discussion page about it and tell me how to make the article more neutral or more help to make it ... because I don't want the same to be deleted because I lost a lot of time on it...
Greetings! 1111tomica (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguating Macedonia.
I know FPatSunrise, you´re right. I´ve noteced your disambiguations and I fully understand them, I´ve just completely forgot it while writting fast. Sorry! I sware I´ll keep it in mind. Thanx and Regards! FkpCascais (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
how exactly is that "logical"?. So the name of a modern minority must go in the end, but a mediaval name used by nobody goes before that??.
Since the Albanian form is evidently derived from the "medieval Greek" form, I find it indeed a lot more logical to state the latter first. Fut.Perf.☼14:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please follow the guidelines. According to them modern names go first. And last time I checked *your logic* was not part of the guidelines. So please rv the article to the previous state.
Epirotes
Could you join the disccussion here [65]? Epirotes is a term to reers that ALL Epirotes regadless of ethnicity and nationality. Athenean tries to present it like only greek epirotes are epirotes trying to remove the albanian and aromanian heritage of the area. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am finally starting to reach an agreement with Factuarious, but I am sure it is going to be hijacked by Athenean --Sarandioti (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've commented over at the talk page, though it's probably not the answer either of you expected to hear. Fut.Perf.☼10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Fut, can you please elaborate on the plagiarized parts of the Independent State of Macedonia? I might be looking to rewrite it because I found the topic pretty curious. I don't really have enough time to review all the sources for any similarities, so I thought I might ask, seeing as you have done this already. Thanks :) Todor→Bozhinov14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm afraid I'm not too certain. Most of the material is certainly too good English to be written by Jingiby, but then the problem is that Jingiby always reuses big chunks from other Wikipedia articles, so it's extremely difficult to find their ultimate sources and paths of transmission. For instance, the whole "When the Bulgarian army entered Yugoslav Macedonia..." passage exists in almost identical form in Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization#Second World War period. A later passage featuring "But the Bulgarians soon fell into the old Balkan trap of centralization" is in Macedonian nationalism. "The policy of minimal Communist resistance..." is both in Demographic history of Macedonia and National Liberation War of Macedonia. This is all cobbled together by chunks, and I suspect much of all this Macedonia coverage in these various articles ultimately traces back to Poulton and/or Danforth or other authors, just paraphrased shallowly so it isn't immediately google-obvious.
As for identified outside sources, the only clearly identified verbatim passage I can point to right now is the "Balkan trap of centralization" thing, which is from Poulton. (I think the corresponding passage in Macedonian nationalism uses even more of it.)
I don't mind you rewriting the stuff, but somebody also needs to clean up the original articles, and the whole structure of redundant coverage through "background" and "history" sections in multiple articles needs to be reduced. Fut.Perf.☼15:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Athenean
He is vandalising the Himare article by removing large parts of medieval age and when I reverted him he actually threatened me of of edit-warring!?!?!. Look here [67]. In greeks template I removed karamanlidika, arvanitika, and slavika, as they are not greek dialects, and also removed the link of Epirotes which no longer leads to a greek community, but the general article of Epirus. He reverted me by saying "rv tendentious editor" [68]. He has been warned TWICE by admins for his actions in the past, and no action has been taken yet. Others for much less have been blocked.--Sarandioti (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Sara-logic: Any mention of anything even vaguely Greek that is unsourced should be removed immediately. Any mention of anything even vaguely Albanian, however, is sacred, and its removal is vandalism. In this instance, the article is full of unsourced passages, yet Sarandioti in typical fashion only removes them "selectively". Then he has his tag-team revert buddy I Pakapshem to get around 3RR. Why oh why have these two not already been indef-blocked like they deserve to be? Why do Sarandioti and Pakapshem need to have wikiedia accounts? Have they made a single positive contribution to wikipedia? This is getting really old. --Athenean (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sara-logic: somebody agreed with you on one out of six points and disagreed about all the rest. So you guess you must have been right. Well, how about, you stop arguing for a change? I'm quickly losing patience with you. Fut.Perf.☼10:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh noes! I'm part of a CABAL!! Good lord, Abd again. And Arbcom. Each of the two is bad enough on their own, but the combination of Abd and Arbcom is probably too much to digest. Fut.Perf.☼18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was named too, I want in on whatever club is happening. I'm just so happy that I made someone's list. We should all definitely start planning something - but let's do it in sekrit! We'll talk at the usual place. I really want to comment too, but I haven't figured out the mandatory minimum of 2000 words to keep up with the discussion. Popcorn for all! :) Franamax (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
BG dialects
Hi, I have seen just now about your comment on BG dialects. I want to make some things clear. It is acceptable to include Pirin dialects in that article since they are spoken on the territory of Bulgaria, but including all dialects of another language that is nationalism and irredentism, right?. How do you (as community) accept that fringe theory here? For example, we did not included all BG dialect in the article about Macedonian dialects. This is very serious about the image of Wikipedia and you offend the Macedonian people as well. I do not know about the other users, but personally I strongly dislike to participate at this Wikipedia because of the freedom that you give to the BG users. This is serious problem and you should think about it. Regards --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your input on the ANI thread and taking the time to look into it. I had posted in the past and got no response. I think this time your input may have made the difference. --Athenean (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Krste Misirkov
Since I am not planning to control Laveol's behaviour, it would be nice to see and to choose as admin which of these two versions is better intro for the Macedonian slavist Krste Misirkov. Here is my intro which more encyclopaedic and professional and here is Laveol's which he thinks is combination of some "standard" (probably standard according to the BG propaganda ) version and my intro, but it is not. He deletes my intro and reverts me all the time. Please take a look. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, I already explained you on the talkpage. There's not much difference between the two. I just rephrased the words you took from the intro of the new Macedonian edition to make it sound like "in the Republic of Macedonia he is regarded this and that" since he's not universally thought to be a reformer of the standard Macedonian language since that "standard" language became standard much much later. And I've told you before that quests aimed at other editors that you happen not to like are not a reason to continue with this. --LaveolT14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I see you've called my edits vandalism again. And this after I explained you a content dispute is not vandalism. You get your ANI. --LaveolT14:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You obviously do not undrestand what I am talking or doing. The new intro should cover first of all his professional life, since that explains why he is famous and why he deserves an article here. Instead saying "he is controversial" (only in BG, in MK he is not considered as such), the intro should begin as it should be. I do not understand your logics and BTW, you do not put my new info, just half sentence. FPS would decide, you are not admin here.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
PS:In the new intro I am not writing his nationality and I do not include some info of mysterious sources, but just the facts that are well known, at least by someone.
Two things: One: Please, sign your comments. Two: He's that famous mostly because he's central to the whole issue of the existence of the Macedonian nation. And he cannot possibly be a reformer and the writer of the first book in the language since he never wrote in any other type of "Macedonian". Reform means change. And he never changed the way he wrote, no? (at least in what was to become Macedonian). --LaveolT15:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that you haven't read anything from him. I do not have any additional comments concerning our discussion. And the ANI, no comments at all, but I am only astonished of the problem-solving actions.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Themes
I'm about to give up on the whole enterprise. I'm tired of being told to be careful every single day when I am. People make mistakes. Doesn't mean I'm not being careful. --User:WoohookittyDiamming fool!08:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Every time it is used it brings fruitless debates and edit wars. I highly doubt its academic value and reported it here [72] is it ok or should I have done it differently? You have more experience than me here on wiki (edits, rules, debates etc) can you help me? Thanks Aigest (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
hey there is a problem with the Skopje article. Somebody redirected it to Hitler article and when you open it ... it opens a redirected article that brings you to Hitler... I don't know who vandalised that... but for sure we should get it back in normal... I plead you for help ... thanks 1111tomica (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Having lived there most of my life, I feel I'm in a position to understand –at least partly- that kind of concern. Because of the low level of discussion, reached due to mine initiative and responsibility, I will no longer participate on that topic.Alexikoua (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Quick one
Do images of one's signature fall in the public domain if there author has died less than a hubdred years ago? Cause this one is tagged as PD-old, currently, although the author died in 1926. We can change it to another appropriate license. --LaveolT20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem, since the relevant criterion is 70 years, not 100 years, in most countries anyway, and copyright in the US would only hold under special circumstances. Also, I remember there was some talk about whether signatures were protected anyway. In any case, I wouldn't bother too much about this one. Fut.Perf.☼21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Pretty quiet. The implementation was more or less completed within a few days as far as the phasing out of the "F.Y.R."s goes. No follow-up disputes over that among the established editors, as far as I'm aware. The guideline would open up the way for quite a number of additional edits changing "Republic of" to plain "M.", both in article text and in various page titles, but so far nobody seems to be in much of a hurry to make those changes systematically. The minor follow-up discussions at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/miscellaneous and at WT:NCCAT seem not to have drawn much interest; not sure whether to interpret the silence as consensus or as a sign that people don't think there's anything worth regulating. Repristinoaustroslavofication attempts from the usual IPs or newbies at a constant moderate level, nothing beyond what was to be expected. I'd say things have pretty much settled down, all in all. Current editing conflicts are again more along the Greek-Albanian (User:Alexikoua vs. User:Sarandioti and friends) and the Macedonian-Bulgarian (User:MacedonianBoy vs. User:Laveol) fault lines. Fut.Perf.☼22:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite interesting. So, so far the outcome of this case is that it's worked fairly well in this regard? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi future, I have to ask about the main square of Skopje, Macedonia. I understand the article page is macedonia square, but this is unrepresentative of it's name. I am considering a name change to "Macedonia (square)", would this be acceptable? Mactruth (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
But is the square ever called plain "Macedonia", rather than "Macedonia Square", in English? I can hardly imagine that. Would our readers find sources out there that write "he met his friends at Macedonia", or "the demonstrators assembled at Macedonia", when they mean the square? That's hardly English. As long as it's called "Macedonia Square", like any other well-behaved square or street out there, why would there be a reason to have the article anywhere else? Fut.Perf.☼17:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
At the dab page, one could say the same things about the airport. I don't think anybody "departs from Macedonia" the airport, rather than the Greek region... BalkanFever08:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Do not delete comments
I noticed that you deleted my entire contribution in Ancient Macedonians. That is not compatible with Wikipedia ethics. What we usually do is counter-comment, ask for clarification and allow the comment to be edited. I will not report you this time and I hope you see sense in this, I beg for your understanding and cooperation and thank you for your attention. Politis (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for you response. I have been off wikipedia for a few months now so heaven knows what you mean. Did you seem me taking part in the Macedonia naming debate that lasted for weeks on end? Answer: no. In case you have a point, could you compile comparative edits for me that show what you mean by being stalked. But please remember that it is normal for editor to meet time and again over articles in which they share an interest. One could also accuse you of stalking me :-). I am sure that reason will prevail. Politis (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You obviously keep track of things, but do not necessarily interpret the data correctly. I could do the same with you, especially since your profile was a little dented after the Macedonia name issue (in which debate I did not take part, even though I was asked to), you even attacked Nicosilver... one of the best editors in Wikipedia. For everyone's well-being and our constructive co-operation, may I appeal to your better self and suggest keeping cool, responding to comments by fellow editors as they come and not tagging users ethnically. Politis (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hallo,
thanks for the nice map! I wanted just to tell you that you forgot to close the bracket. :-)) Moreover, actually the border that you marked was valid since 1932. I have a nice Italian map of 1929, where all the islets from the one in front of Kalkan up to Kekova are marked as belonging to Italy. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating! That must be documenting the maximal Italian claims, over which they were in dispute with Turkey before the treaty. Do you think you could make a scan of that map and upload it? (If it was published without an author name, it would be public domain by now.)
Thanks for the correction about the bracket; I noticed it myself in fact but didn't yet find time to correct it. Will do now. Fut.Perf.☼14:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No deletion
Dear sir,
Please do not delete this page.
I am working on articles about prizren, an historic city.
For this, I am researching the names of streets and public buildings.
This man had a music school named after him and is a composer, there are articles in german and albanian.
I resent that you are trying to delete it.
Also we are working on promoting wikipedia here in kosovo, and this type of deletion is on
of the main reasons why people get frustrated with the wikipedia.
Hello, I just checked the German article and I can now see there may be enough notability to support an article. What made me tag it at first is that it had no reliable sources cited to support the subject's notability. Good sourcing is really the most important thing in such matters. Sorry for the trouble. Fut.Perf.☼14:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
category page prizren
hi there
I am working on the category page until i can create new articles out of them.
you can see that I have created 2 articles already.
ideally it will not contain any data, but until then, please leave it.
thank,
It is on that page so people can find it. It is not hurting anyone.
If I stop editing it for some reason, you can move it away, but for now, please just leave it.
you can help me edit it if you want, there is lots to do there.
Thanks for your message. I was not aware of this policy. I can assure you that my intention was not disruption just simply was curious if the same principles are applied in the case of those British guys or there is a discrimination against non Anglo-Saxons. I am pretty sure that these guys are not more important than "mine". Thanks for your understanding. --Aleksveliki (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ancient Macedonian Language article
I proposed something there. Maybe the article can be improved further having a more simple view just like other language articles. All the inscriptions can be put in separate article keeping in the main original article only a short summary the scholar interpretation of these inscriptions and glossary. I think that the actual listing affects somewhat the view of the article and does not add useful info, while having them in separate article with their scholar interpretation which will be included in the original article will be more logical, useful and esthetically correct. What do you think. Regards Aigest (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
IP 94.67.131.86 has made a couple of particularly odiousedits. I hesitate to use the term evil, yet I can scarcely think of another term that does justice to describe Darko Trifunović. Therefore, I respectfully request that you ban the address from editing Wikipedia ever again. Thank you for your time in considering my request. --NBahn (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Reality check
I have been assailed, at WT:Naming conflict, by edits in FULL CAPS, personal abuse, and revert wars; as of now, it reminds of a certain Balkan country. As an expert in such matters, could I have your evaluation? Am I being oversensitive? At this point, it is only two problem editors; so there may be a difference in scale from an entire nationalist faction.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson03:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier – I was hoping I could take a bit of a break from all the ugliness. I must say I find it difficult to make up my own mind about this text. It could certainly do with some clarifications or tweaks, but I honestly don't know how I would word it. Is there some particular POV background of an application case that has triggered this recent bout? Fut.Perf.☼18:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Could you take a look at this article? Some newcomers have added large ammount of info (which is particularly Bulgarian POV) and thus destroyed the very concept of the article. Thanks. Bomac (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha.
Thanks for the update re. the abuse filter. Most times, it seems that serial vandals edit from only one or two addresses, hence the long block. Will keep it shorter next time. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Violation of the 3RR rule
Hello. I'd like to inform you that with the goal to improve and clarify the corresponding subject, I added one of Misirkov's works in this article. However, I noticed that the user Bomac has just violated the 3RR rule in regard to my edit, that was made on August 19, 2009 at 09:41h, without giving any valid explanations for his actions. May I ask you for your evaluation? Viele Grüße aus Mazedonien. Relativefrequency (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In terms of content, I would rather tend to agree with Bomac here: the addition is tendentious; the relevance of that text for the history of the ethnicity is unsourced (no secondary literature cited); if you could cite such literature, then we could only start discussing about due weight to give to the issue; besides, I thoroughly dislike that cheap trick of using images of text pages for no other purpose than to give the citation of a text more optical prominence than it would otherwise have. In this case, the image as such clearly adds no relevant information whatsoever, especially since our readers won't be able to even read the text. – as for edit warring, none of you seem to have breached 3RR yet (3RR means more than 3), but if you brought the case to the attention of administrators, you'd probably have a good chance of getting people sanctioned in some way, including yourself. Up to you. By the way, you placed yourself in an awkward position by gratuitously accusing your opponent of "vandalism" first [73], usually a bad move. Fut.Perf.☼18:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your prompt reply! What can be considered a bad move, in my humble opinion, is deleting an image that is also supported with relevant sources cited in the text. The contemporary historiography in the Republic of Macedonia cites Misirkov's work selectively and there is no mention that he completely renounced his book "On the Macedonian matters" that is regarded as one of the cornerstones of the Macedonian ethnicity. And here comes the obvious advantage of Wikipedia. Relativefrequency (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
So, what does that text say, exactly? And, more importantly, where is it discussed in the reputable secondary academic literature? As long as you have only the article itself and your own reading of it (which may or may not be correct, for all I know), the reference to the article is worthless (see WP:NOR), with or without the image. Bring reliable secondary sources, or the image and the reference to the article goes out, in all articles where you inserted it. I looked round a bit and couldn't find any reference to this article outside Wikipedia, not even on the usual Bulgarian propaganda sites. Fut.Perf.☼08:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.png)
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=File%3ASonia+Sotomayor.jpg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1){kind=link}
![[38]](http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/8113/civilslavdse2nu3.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macedonia_view_statistics.png){kind=link}
