Ah, sorry I didn't react at once, I don't normally do TV series a lot. In this case, I don't feel entirely confident to judge at a glance whether there was a real consensus either way, so I'm leaving things open. But I have deleted and freshly recreated the redirect from the "original format" title, so you can now technically move it back yourself again. Please do that only if you feel confident there is consensus to do so. Fut.Perf.☼22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am prepared to compromise but the greek users arent. Even though they havent even added any information to the article. P m kocovski (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking about my self, honestly, there is a lot I can add to this article, but then again, if I do so, it will be like as if I approve it, which I don’t. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well apart from everything else, this could singlehandedly win the POV title of the year contest. "Aegean" AND "Macedonians"? Please, this is way too ridiculous.--Avg16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Removal of comments
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't have a problem with you removing my comments from the talk page, but I have a problem with you leaving the comments where Avg, all so abruptly, refers to ethnic Macedonians as Skopjans and Slavomacedonians. KöbraKönverse08:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Kiro Gligorov image
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Any suggestions on your part as to how I could minimise the apparent "war" between him and me would be more than welcome. I can assure you that all my conduct at Wikipedia is in good faith. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I haven't been following your issue at all. Right now I have no idea what this is even about. Fut.Perf.☼20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ela
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:Emetko's user page -- needs attention, I think
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, from what I can gather, this user was falsely accused of being a sock puppet for someone, and blocked indefinitely, but the next day, unblocked by you (hence this missive). Yet, his user page contains only the template announcing indefinite blocking. I hesitate to remove it myself, as it is is after all someone else's user page. But as you were the undoing admin, could you do the honors? I discovered this by following the user's signature from his current contribution, hoping to see a Babel template, but all I found was this. Best wishes, --Mareklugtalk07:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's gone too far
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
The whole canvassing issue has gone too far. Once is OK, twice is not that bad. But it's continuing and I think it's kind of mixed up with sockpuppetry already. Is there a way to check Kadeshli (talk·contribs), Alekishere (talk·contribs) and Fatmanonthehorse (talk·contribs)? It's not like long gone users come back and vite within 30 minutes of each other on a nomination for deletion. Further the canvassing on En.wiki continues. And to hide it Raso has written it in German [2]. I think action needs to be taken now. There off all rules and guidelines and were warned on a number of occasions not do so. --LaveolT09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't care about Tsourkpk - they were warned not to that stuff. And the new old users are a clear evidence what's going on. --LaveolT09:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(un)Amazing, though. Users who have been inactive for a year coming back to life! Let's hope that they'll be cooperative when it comes to editing the article, though. It's quite a dishonest move, to be fair. It almost makes me feel like changing my "Delete or Merge" to "STRONG DELETE" ;) Aah, the Balkans. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Here I come again - I know this is turning like a habit, but what can I do about it. I have a real problem with the two editors that somehow happen to come to each others aid when it's really needed. But that's not the matter. I was trying to get to th reason as to why MacedonianBoy was constantly adding a POV tag on the article Grigor Parlichev. I did not get any real answer to my question. You can see the whole discussion on Talk:Grigor Parlichev#Reasons for the tag. I tried to act in appropriate way given the previous problems I had with MacedonianBoy. Well, it just didn't work out. I repetedly asked for valid reasons and didn't get any. I'd be satisfied with anything, but this is just another Bulgarian propaganda, but it was the only thing I got. And since it started to look more like a forum (again) I asked them to stop [5] with the forum stuff. And what I got was some attacks on my contributions (again) by both of them. Since that is an article talkpage and I had ask them to stop with the chit-chat, I don't think their comments about me [6][7] compile with Wiki behaviour standards. And since this is obviously becoming some sort of a practice by those two contributors, I ask you to warn them in some way. I mean, I warned them that this is not appropriate on a number of times and they don't seem willing to listen to me. The only one, they would listen to, is you. So: Help?!--LaveolT22:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Future, I would like to inform you that according to the voting results, we have are ready to put the symbol that took the most votes and which is the most used symbol by ethnic Macedonians world wide. I'm just waiting for your approval here - Template_talk:Ethnic_Macedonians#Recapitulation. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
Hello! I want to inform you that AVG is vandalizing the template again, maybe for third time. Accourding to the voting that we have done recently, the Star of Kutleš must be on the template, but he is so smart and do not want to get it. He is putting the Coat of Arm of RM. Please tell him something to stop offending me and to vandalize the pages. And if you can to put the Kutleš Star it would be wonderful. Thanks a lot, regards --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
He's not talking to you, how exactly is he offending you? Did you take those words from me? --LaveolT18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a joke, Fut.Perf. either put some reason to these guys or we would have to go the arbitration way again. They try to impose a result that came from obvious canvassing and sockpuppeting. --Avg19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please take a look at this page [[8]] and especially on the last section of AVG's and of the other Greeks comments. They are so offending and rude. They should be blocked not the Macedonian users. We have never used words that offend them such as Sub-Saharians but they do. I think you will take this in consideration. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"We have never used words that offend them such as Sub-Saharians". You mean you did it behind their backs. Add the Bulgarian "Tatars" to that. Comparing Slavomacedonian to Sub-saharan in the context they are used, especially. Amazing. Stop acting like the oppressed minority. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
User:3rdAlcove
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
User:3rdAlcove told me to "fuck off"[9], because I didn't listen to his unsourced POV-advice that Macedonian Rainbow party members "are not sure what to call themselves." He also thinks I broke the 3RR rule. Polibiush (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Kindly, though. That's something, right? You did break the 3RR rule actually since you reverted 4-5 times. I didn't exactly revert you because of the Rainbow members, eh (though they're honestly confused about what they think they are; still, I even added a "See Also")? Start a friggin section on the talk page if you disagree instead of constantly reverting. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't revert, you had a problem with the Rainbow members, but you reverted the numbers from Britannica without knowing, so I put it back. Hmmm, it seems you do not understand how wikipedia works, do you know what a POV is? What you are claiming is you own personal opinion that is based on nothing. These people are leaders of the Macedonian minority party "Rainbow", they are Macedonian. Polibiush (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I directed you to the talk page of Macedonians (ethnic group). If you disagree, you should start a new section at AM. Britannica is a tertiary source in case you forget, btw. I couldn't give a toss about the self-identification of prominent Vinozhito members, though based on what I've read (ie the wild changes in their self-identification) I removed their names and added a See Also. It was about everything else, actually. Now be so kind as to start a section. Oh, and add the Rainbow party members back in if you feel sooo inclined. Obviously you reverted, 4-5 times. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't get the message, do you? What do you mean "based on what I've read" ??? What have you read???????? You are obviously mis-using Wikipedia guidelines. Now look, these people are Macedonians, and Britannica is an encyclopedia. If you have a problem, then start a discussion in their own respective talk pages. Polibiush (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. It's you who is not getting the message. I couldn't give a toss about them.
Britannica is a tertiary source and a similar discussion took place in Macedonians (ethnic group). Take a look then start a new section. Your Macedonian comrades (though intentionally(?) obtuse; like you are acting right now) seem to have agreed. OK?!?!?!!!!!!??????????????????3rdAlcove (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at the second foot note. There are a lot of sources that verify the same estimate, not just Britannica. Polibiush (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Christ, man. Stop ignoring me completely and take a look at the talk page I mentioned. Far too late atm. Take it easy, everyone. ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well, every time some changes on Liancourt Rocks occurs, some sanctions tend to follow. Jimknock (talk·contribs) edited Sea of Japan/East sea on the article which suits the naming lameless[10], so I restored to the original and gave him an advice from a good faith even though he is obviously not a new editor.[11] This small notice is to prevent any possible confusion like the previous case. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Pulevski
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I suppose so, as long as any description is articulated along the lines of the published book, and not according to post-WWII 'revisionist' interpretations that transpose modern terms on past text, in order to assuage current concerns... Politis (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A fleeting discourse analysis of the article shows that it was created on irredentist grounds, to verbally appropriate Greek Macedonia into the concept of a greater Makedonija. Also, the Ouranio Toxo / Rainbow party does not identify with this terminology. It looks like a professional hit :-) than an article. Also, just look at the links, many of them have more to do with blogs than worthy of quotation. I would be interested in your view. Politis (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Unblock intention
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Please do not unblock, the block was made after an ironclad CU was performed, please contact a CU before acting further. MBisanztalk08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not doubt the identity, or the CU that established it. I doubt whether the discussion has so far established a reasonable consensus that there was abusive sockpuppetry of such an order that an indef block on the main account is necessary. Fut.Perf.☼08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like there's been one benefit at least: the rate of posts to that thread has slowed down since the template got added. DurovaCharge!09:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Mistake
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your mistake is evident here because IPs of user PIO were different: no 151.70.... or 151.67.85.227 were used by PIO. I am an informatic and I know edit war by user DIREKTOR/AlasdairGreen27 on that article. Regards.--Ciolone (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
He constantly rotates his IP, among others to this one. Anyway, the guy's manner or expression was identical. I know I appear biased in this matter, but its plain obvious. --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
DieWeisseRose: "That group and its archive have been deleted."
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
have you been able to find out when? there are 12 members belonging to wikiforpalestine who criteria for belonging required proof of pro-palestinian/anti-israel bias, actively engaged at wiki.
i am not going to let this pass. you banned blocked me for some juxtapostion and did not even consult my posts to understand where i was coming from. now you are playing mickey mouse with diewiesserose knowing full well that that person promoted wikiforpalestine: definitely a statement about what wiki is: a brutish clumsy entity infected with viruses that it has absolutely no control over.
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Say, I wonder if you could help me out with moving Yugoslav partisans to "Yugoslav Partisans". I started reorganizing the article and I can't fix the title (overwrite), could you lend a hand? --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would you want it capitalised? It's not a proper name, is it? Common nouns in descriptive phrases should remain lowercase, according to our house style. Am I missing something? Fut.Perf.☼14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing: the "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia" were an organization/movement generally known as the "Partisans", with "Yugoslav" being used to differentiate from partisans (military). In other words, this is their common short name. For example, you have the Chetniks article title, that does not need to be written in the form "Yugoslav Chetniks" since there are no other non-Yugoslav Chetniks. One can easily compare "Chetniks" with "Partisans".
To put it differently, there were many resistance militias in occupied Yugoslavia, i.e. partisans, while members of the People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia are known as thePartisans. Also, the Partisans did not for a significant portion of the war function as partisans in the strategic sense of the word, consisting of several hundred thousand men and fighting by conventional (WW2) warfare. The distinction appears significant to me. --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure you have me convinced, but I've cleaned up the history of the target page so that it will no longer prevent you from making the move yourself, if you are confident it's correct and consensus. Up to you. Fut.Perf.☼16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! Since you are an expert on maps, I would like to ask you a favor when and if you have time. I am rewriting the Roman-Persian Wars article, and I saw two excellent maps in the German wiki, that would enrich the English article, Bild:Julian vs Persien.png and Bild:Justinian Byzanz.png. Could you translate them in English? It would be a great addition to the English article. Cheers and thanks in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Those are fine maps, for sure. There's only a technical problem: they are bitmap graphics, and I know of no way of separating the writing from the background. They don't constitute logically different levels in the file, as far as I can see. I'd have to manually erase every piece of writing, pixel by pixel, replacing the black with an approximation of the background color around it. Or I'd have to re-do them in the SVG format I use, from scratch. But that would be quite a bit of work, and I couldn't do the geographic relief the way it's done there. Fut.Perf.☼16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they could certainly do that much easier, in the original software they used for making it. Unfortunately the creator seems not to have been active for a longish while. Let me know if you need someone to make inquiries on de-wiki. Fut.Perf.☼18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A solution would be to use a legend explaining which colours correspond to which states, ie Yellow - Sassanids, Orange - Sassanid vassals, Blue - Roman Empire, Purple - Acquisitions by Justinian and so on. Are the Parthians customarily considered a "Persian" empire, anyhow? 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Ethnic Macedonians=
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, i was just wondering if you could unblock the ethnic macedonians template? I had some more information to add to it. (nothing to do with the flag issue). P m kocovski (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's better to keep it protected at least for a few more days, until tempers cool off. Just tell me what you want to add and I can put it in for you. Fut.Perf.☼14:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)\\
Oh, yeh. I didnt mean to be taunting him it thats what your implying. Its the frist time ive actually taken notice of it, and i thought that the whole collection of POV's, 3RR etc. Would make a glood laugh. I didnt mean to taunt him as you implied. P m kocovski (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Military operation
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Again Future. It seems I'm in the Balkans again. The basic problem here is like this. I am reviewing and editing all the Eastern Front articles. The process roughly includes reading, weeding out, and referencing what's there. Now, I have no problems with collaborating with other editors (and I have) as long as they understand that shuffling my words around, giving prominence to their POV, and using the first thing that pops up in a search engine as reference is not on. And this is largely the problem with this new editor. He seems to refuse understanding that if one referenced article in Wikipedia says something, it is also true for another article dealing with the same subject. He also needs to understand that Wikipedia guidelines do not over-ride sourced historical material. We do after all edit a reference work, and not a company procedures manual. In any case, looking forward to chatting again later. I am far more relaxed this time then during the Romanian interregnum --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I was not "shuffling your words", the article was nigh illegible ([13]). And Vojska.net is a perfectly reliable source, used and accepted all over Yugoslavia-related Wiki. Anyway, leave this for the article. I just wanted to give a short heads-up... --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Α' Δημοτικού
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Heh, before I clicked that link I was half afraid you'd found out it had been myself. :-) (Don't worry, I didn't mean to imply anything about you. Fut.Perf.☼13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Das kann nich wahr sein
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's better. Avoiding all that usual trouble about "Macedonian" vs "Slavic Macedonian" etc etc., plus having all the silly explanation to do why there's suddenly talk of "Solun" and "Voden" when we (of course) say "Thessaloniki" everywhere else. State right at the outset that we are talking "in the context of Slavic dialectology", and all the problems go away. Of course, if your famed sense of aesthetics sees some need for stylistic tightening, be my guest. Fut.Perf.☼16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the essence of the edit is fine. I was referring to your "more elegant" English: "It is called after...", "It is traditionally spoken in an area covering also Veria (Ber), Giannitsa (Enidže Vardar) and the surrounding region up to Thessaloniki (Solun) and the Aegean Sea, as well as stretching into a small part..." ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I often don't find time enough to tweak my English for optimum style before hitting save these days. Go for it. (But at least you won't find me mechanically cramming repetitive syntactic garbage into articles just for the sake of political correctness; I mean, that's something, isn't it.) Fut.Perf.☼16:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is that you should probably think twice before belittling other users' English, especially that of a native speaker. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What was the template you should put on an image that has a false PD-old tag. I tried removing it, but is this the right action. See this--LaveolT21:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever your opinion of me may be, one cannot simply revert without any reason or discussion (except perhaps The Truth). --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re: Kirill Lokshin's talkpage - utterly agree, and I will be doing the same. This is utterly farcical - no wonder people use the phrase Arbitrary Committee. Black Kite17:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Deucalionite
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
I've responded to this user at his talk page. Deucalionite requests an apology for several problems he highlights in your interactions with him. I see no evidence of shenanigans on your part, and have responded. FYI. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with it and for the notification. :-) LOL, this guy is incredible. Now he wants me to apologise for exposing his sockpuppeting? That's a new one. Fut.Perf.☼19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you "expose" something on inconclusive evidence? If I were you Future Perfect, I'd at least apologize to Elysonius. His email address is elysonius at yahoo.com (have a chat with him and see if he agrees with what you have just said right now). Prove to me how much "good faith" you really have. Go on. Deucalionite (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice number (1036678991237754920553399283811). I am guessing you didn't apologize to Elysonius, right? Must be pretty scary apologizing to someone. Where's your "good faith" UltraExactZZ was talking about? Deucalionite (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Trolling? I am asking Future Perfect to apologize to Elysonius. The poor bastard didn't even get a chance to show what he was made of. Are you really that stuck-up to deny my student a chance to do some good? I never saw you do anything immediate when Dodona was going around pissing off users (technically, Dodona was given a second chance after he was severely banned in case you missed it).
You know, I wish I was being silly. I wish you were right so that we can all go home. However, inconclusive evidence proves that you erroneously banned a different user who wanted to be my student.
I have “Pissed off” not all the users only some of the “Greek team” the ones that they want to build their future on the back of Albanians. All this bias, why, to make you feel comfortable now days, you people without country and clear ethnicity?? Greek but not Albanian, Albanian but not Greek …mix Byzantine remains
Why you say such a things for me, I think you are using my trust I had on you. Anyway, I never trusted (it was just my wish to be in that way, so any one could have smell how things are and could be) I knew you were manipulating me (“ Besa” is between honest mans ,you could not make “Besa” with thief’s) to come to your argument (many sources just ignored or turned useless); but you were my Mentor I had to respected you for that one, what is this all about? Is this that you feel that you fail with me or s.th ?? Dodona
Ethnic Groups
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
hi, just a question about the Ethnic Groups info Box. When there is census which shows the number of an ethnic group, do we still add estimates from the ethnic groups home country.
eg. AAA (2005 Census) - A,AAA,AAA (estimate)??? Just wondering. See Bulgarians where there are many estimates over the official census figures, is that accepted on wikipedia? it might set a precedent? P m kocovski (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, an interesting warning "it might set a precedent" - wikipedia is not a court. And besides a lot of articles use native sources as well - see Germans and Poles. We've discussed that already - why the sudden turn (again)? And what's the problem with the Bulgarian ministry of Foreign affairs to have an estimated number of people that have left Bulgaria for another country or have registered in the embassies? But why am I repeating myself - we did already discuss it.--LaveolT22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying that official censa are more accurate. See Greeks in America here, MFA - 2,500,000, census - 1,380,258. And Macedonians in Australia here MFA - 200,000, census - 83,978. The MFA figures are usually an over-estimate. I have just added the numbers of both columns (of bulgarians) and the difference is astonishing, 472520! close to 500,000 people extra if the MFA estimates are given. That is not very encyclopedic, when the official censa and figures are given the MFA figures need not be displayed, only if there are no other sources available (many of the sources do have other sources). P m kocovski (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
CAMERA in the Signpost
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you get a chance, I wonder if you might take a quick look at User:Ragesoss/CAMERA, an article intended for the Wikipedia Signpost this week (as in, probably tonight or tomorrow), and make sure I didn't make any major mistakes or critical omissions (it's not intended to go into too much detail, though).--ragesoss (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgot?
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Ah, sorry, yes, seems I never got round dealing with this one. Is the problem still ongoing? What would be the latest IPs? Fut.Perf.☼21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy, so I haven't responded promptly.
E.g., this one [15], 2 May 2008. This kind of communication does not belong to Wikipedia. Have in mind that he was warned several times before, and blocked once. It didn't help at all. He repeated his bad behaviour.
In short, inflammator again directly calls other users as "mentally unstable persons" [16] (25 April), "defective brain" [17] (9 April), "unnatural, fake creation" [18] (2 May)(calling someones ethnicity like that, insulting whole nation!).
Recently, he's mostly active through IP 24.86.127.209 (talk·contribs), but he also used these sockpuppets: 24.86.110.10 (talk·contribs) (blocked once) 24.86.127.107 (talk·contribs) 24.86.124.155 (talk·contribs)
This kind of behaviour doesn't improve Wikipedia at all, it disrupts it. Wikipedia is not a forum, nor a place for streetfight and trashtalk. That user was supposed to know that long ago. It's time to take sharper measures towards such users.
Greetings, Kubura (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
05:54, 30 April 2008 , [19]. Ideology spreading. On the other hand, there he propagates "language unity" as something good (that's his POV; he neglects thousands of imprisoned persons who opposed that ideology, there're related articles on en.wiki about that), while he etiquettes politicians (and indirectly, all his opposers, as he directly did before) that were/are against violent merging of languages as "those who offer hatred and division" [20] (because they oppose to his personal attitude; such accusations are heavy thing).
Future Past, you don't have to know or learn the matter of disputed topics (differences of those languages etc., history or related peoples) - generally speaking, there're some languages (a and b; respective languages have their Wikipedias), certain peoples (A and B) that call their mother tongues under certain names (A as a, B as b). Such cases we have all over the world (see diasystem). Unregistered user disrespects that and uses Wikipedia for his ideas.
That unregistered user is etiquetting those who are against his own personal points of view, and again, use Wikipedia as forum (despite being warned on talkpages, like User_talk:24.86.110.10). So, we have a cases of breach of WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:NOT, WP:ATTACK (see his insults above), WP:CIV (see his insults above), WP:TALK (foruming, chatting, fighting [21]), general lack of basic behaviour on the Internet (using of capital letters and exclamation marks).
Does this kind of behaviour belongs to Wikipedia [22] (03:32, 23 May 2008, as 24.86.127.209)? This one's from today. Kubura (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you told Deucalionite "you rock", up there, btw. I guess you really aren't the tough aesthete you pretend to be. 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You keep the Greek nationalist pov-pushing up and we'll give you a position of power in the new (and improved) Greek-led United Macedonia (capital: Salonica!), you hear? Assuming you leave fair Australia for the barren Balkans, that is. Don't insult our intelligence though, your abuse of exclamation marks (as subtle as Macedonian propaganda (hover over) made your intentions clear. We have spoken. 3psilonTeam (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I shall leave my beloved Hellas Fan Club behind on the condition that you appoint me Official Macedonian Flagmaster Guy. BalkanFever11:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Beh-nam
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think you should take a look at the sourcing at IMRO (about the "Macedono-Bulgarian" revolutionaries) and Ilinden Uprising (the image caption). The Bulgarian flag doesn't have blue - it was brought up on the talk page, but no to-the-point answers. I brought this up at Talk:Republic of Macedonia as well. BalkanFever08:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Dear FP, I am trying to insert a footnote in the first sentence of the article but it simply doesn't work. Could you help me out? The whole reference is: Lenore A. Grenoble, Lindsay J. Whaley, Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization, Cambridge University Press (2006) p.18.. The only thing I' ve managed to do is to insert the footnote number--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried, in a very friendly way, before you bumped in the other day. It's become painfully obvious that he can't read and is not prepared to listen. Now get off this page. Fut.Perf.☼17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Fut,
If you remember this user was reported to WP:ANI ([23] here) some time ago for his consensus breaking edits and failure to grasp npov editing, for which you blocked and subsequently unblocked him. The editor has now taken to reverting the intro I rewrote to the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus article. Three third party uninvolved editors have stated on the talk page that my version is more neutral and more in line with Wiki standards, yet 3meander returns everyday to revert arbitrarily. Please remind him of the condition on which you unblocked him and ask him to cease reverting. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I already told you that your text was a copyright violation and was POV. As simple as that. --LaveolT00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that passage is partly plagiarised from its source, partly overtly POV, partly redundant with other parts of the article, so it's unuseable on a number of grounds. Fut.Perf.☼08:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
But he did remove links to!Not only writen text!What is the matter whit the link showing Bulagrin authorety denideing Ethnic Macedonian Minority.And it is not any LINK,there are 2 from OSCE and one from MHRMI.And why is LAVEOL reverting all my articles??When you mention POV,you shoud look in to article TEMPLATE Bulgarians or Bulgarians in ALbania or BULGARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH!That is POV without neutral sources!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Under my personal policy of not reverting admin edits, I wish to know why you removed the Prison Break episode images from the articles without a clear explanation. They had all the required information (fair-use rationale and source info). Thanks. --Lakeyboy (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, I would like to know who I have to contact in order to have all FYROMian propaganda removed from Wikipedia. I thought this was a serious encyclopedia, however it is fullfulled with Skopjan crap. There are so many lies in here that you cannot even get a single line of light in this place.
The most horrendous things I have seen here being used that do not correspond to reality are:
- Republic of Macedonian being used instead of the legally international name FYROM.
- Ethnic Macedonian... everyone knows they are Bulgarians... what are they trying to pull.
- In no place it says that it was Tito in 1948 the one who brainwashed this population and made them believe they were Macedonians as an intent to have a unified Yugoslavia and remove Bulgarian population from there.
- There is missing information about the slogan "Macedonia is Greek, don't call them by my name!".
--87.219.84.239 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
9000??? I can has lnks plz? I see a few dozen. – He's of course the same weirdo from Spain who's been active for several weeks now, ever since the issue of the "minorities in Greece" map. I'd say, any returning IP from that range that engages in nationalist editing can from now on be safely regarded as a banned user and rolled back without any ado. Fut.Perf.☼07:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I was actually wondering why things were so quiet 'round these parts. The salad bowl erupts once in a while. 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bir yerden alıp kolleksyonu yaptım. Nereden aldığımı hatırlayamıyorum. Ona göre kararını ver. Kolay gelsin. Takabeg (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
PICTURES
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Well thanks Fut P.,you manige to delete them all,even i spent 5 hours madeing them so that wont be copyright!Not single of them were from other sources,than from my own!There are 3 pictures in Macedonian orthodox church maded by my own,one is with my dother in the corner and oltair,pleas remove them to,and all others maded by me,thouse in Macedonian Americans!!But,they are all main and you cant take them from me.THANKS A LOT,your NEUTRALITY is once agin proven!Makedonij (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just wanted to say with while I still disagree with you, I would still like to try to get along with you outside this issue. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, yeah, it's good to reassure each other of that from time to time. I know I have strong opinions on these matters and they are probably a bit outside the "middle" (although I don't consider myself among the totally dogmatic free-content-only defenders.) I hope you found my latest comments on the DRV page constructive. Fut.Perf.☼20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Would you take a look at the image use in this article, the usage is excessive, but I dont know how to prune it, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, most of those images strike me as relatively good, actually. I guess showing what that series would have looked like if it had been made is not too bad as a general fair use rationale. That certainly goes for the protagonist images. The top spacecraft image would certainly be unproblematic if it was used to show something specific about that series (is the craft different from that in the previous series? The caption could be improved if that was the case.) One might argue that the number of images in the gallery is a bit excessive, and it would be nicer if there was more accompanying text to it (like, comparing those draft features to those in other series, etc.) – But on the whole, this is not really a case where I'd personally press for massive deletions. Fut.Perf.☼21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, a user [[User:|Beam]] has started an edit war on topic Kosovo with me. What is the correct solution to the problem of edit waring?Mike Babic (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Firstly, I just read a lot of your talk page, and even clicked a few of these people's talk pages for curiosity sake and ... holy crap! This stuff is insane, I have no clue how you deal with some of it. Specifically that sock puppet Prime...just wow.
Anyway, I really appreciated your comments regarding Husond. It was very nice to be defended and to be honest vindicated. I was about to give up on Wikipedia. No one wants to look like a self pitying victim, and I was starting to sound as such when referencing Husond. It was pretty gross. To see a neutral third party agree with me, and to support the facts as I saw them...well it reignited my faith in the Wikipedia system. Even though my reputation is all kinds of messed up due to Husond's bias and cruelness at least I am able to continue to contribute. Thank you again! Beam01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"tobatera" vs. "tombatera" thing
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It may be more than 8 months since you asked me, but I did not forget! Believe it or not!! Well, in my edition of Triantafyllidis (1988, reprint of the 1941 edition) the only thing I found about "tobatera" issue is this in page 21:
"Και το τον πατέρα το προφέρουμε τομ.μπατέρα, όχι μόνο προφέροντας μ στη θέση του ν, αλλά και λέγοντας το π σα να ήταν (μπ), ακριβώς όπως και στο εμπρός δε λέμε (εμπρός) παρά (εμ.μπρός)."
I am afraid that we may have to do with two different works. The "Ιστορική Εισαγωγή" written in 1938 y Triantafyllides himself, and the "Νεοελληνική Γραμματική", written in 1941 written by a committee presided by Triantafyllides, under the auspices of the ΟΕΣΒ (Οργανισμός Εκδόσεων Σχολικών Βιβλίων).--Yannismarou (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User Beam continues to add content that I consider POV. I've added a POV tag to the section because there is not a consensus about the section. User Beam has removed the POV tag, which is clearly improper because there *is* and issue that has not been adequately discussed and resolved. Proxy User (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
HELP
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Now you are violating and don't say that I'm violating the copywrite because I have sourced the data from an important website. why are you saying that that website is not good, don't say its not good because you think so it has all the anthropology info for the rest of the world which was carried out by professionals. It doesn't matter if its old, there were more smarter people in the past. You didn't understand what I explained in the ethnogenesis section. What I explained was that bulgarians have other anthropologic features. You are removing the data because you don't agree with it and don't like it. You don't accept other facts so you are corrupt!
Why don't you accept other facts?
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I don't particularly like it when another admin comes to my talk page arguing in the manner you did. A simple note asking for an explanation suffices. Last night I performed over 200 image deletions while cleaning out CAT:CSD, so forgive me if I may have made a mistake (which seems I may have with the second photo, but Ill get to that). First off, if you are an admin and feel a photo meets CSD criteria, than use your buttons and take responsibility for it. The only other reason I can see that another admin would not delete a photo would be a COI, or the admin wants a second opinion. So by you tagging the image instead of deleting it, you put the power to decide in another's hands. And now I AM " position to "decline" anything here," because I am an administrator of this Wikipedia. So next time you want a page deleted, do it yourself and you won't run into any problems. Now to the first photo, the image in question has been on Wikipedia for three years, and has two rationales for fair-use. That alone takes away speedy, because the uploader is making an attempt at following policy, and the photo has obviously been seen by a heck of a lot of people and never deleted. NFCC#8 usually allows photos that show characters in-character, as there never is a free alternative. Even, if you feel this doesnt meet this criteria, it is debatable, and thus not speedy. Speedy is for blatant cases, where there is no doubt the photo doesnt meet one of our criteria. Take the image to WP:IFD if you want to get it deleted, and allow the community to decide. The second photo, I didnt see the talk page, all I saw was what appeared to be a very old painting that met the tag that was on it, so my bad. I don't see why the statement that was on the talk page wasn't placed on the tag so an admin could easily see it, but heck Ill take the blame for that one (and I see you already deleted it, make sure you delete the talk page too). In conclusion, next time you have a beef with me, coming to my talk page the way you did does not help the situation, and if you are going to put the decision in someone else's hand, be ready for a decision you don't want. « Gonzo fan2007(talk ♦ contribs) @ 14:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, you are taking this way to seriously. Personally, I dont care about, nor do I have any interest in this photo. To me, it was one decision out of 300 last night. I do not need to argue my point until someone complains about it. If we had to do that on Wikipedia, nothing would get done. And get over the fact that I "disrespected" you, cause thats a load of crap. This is a Wiki, look at WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, and then discussion ensues. I dont care if a newbie or Jimbo himself is the other editor, I felt that your speedy was unjustified, so I reverted to the previous version, which contrary to your belief is perfectly within my authority to do. Admins are allowed to decline any speedy they feel is unjustified, it is not meant to "disrespect" the tagger, its just a decision. And you, being an admin yourself, do you really feel that you were respectful to me and the way you wrote your comment was the most productive wording? I really would like to hear an answer to that.
Now to the image, here's my argument:
Image:Ep01 tony.jpg provides a description, a source link, a licensing tag, and fair-use rationales for each page it is being used in.
The image in question shows a real person portraying a copyrighted character of a famous TV show, a subject of public interest, thus there is no free alternative that would be able to portray the person while "in-character."
The image has been hosted on Wikipedia servers for just under 3 years (this is not a reason to not delete, just a reason to not speedy), thus thousands of editors and administrators have viewed the image in question and have not acted to delete it.
It is only used to portray the character, where the articles in question both address and comment on said character. This allows readers to be able to not only be told what the character looks like, but also be able to view the character, thus "increasing the reader's understanding of the subject."
Without this photo, it would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the character.
The policy you are throwing at me (WP:NFCC#8, is being discussed, as the policy is not clear and many editors are confused by it! Do you really think you should be basing your whole argument on a disputed policy?
Please, if you really care that much, just bring the photo to WP:IFD and let the community decide. Another admin clearly disagrees with you, thus WP:IFD is the place to bring it. And in the future, be a little nicer, I am a fellow admin and thus deserve at least a tiny bit respect before you come accusing me of disrespecting you. The whole way you started out your post turned me off from you right away. All you had to do was say "Hey, you declined this speedy, could you elaborate on your reasoning?" and I would have been more than happy to give you my full reasoning. I would see it as very poor taste to just go and delete the photo by yourself, as per the obvious disagreement, the fact that technically that would appear to be wheel-warring, and the fact that this is clearly not a blatant case. I hope that this explanation suffices, and that you take my advice. « Gonzo fan2007(talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
To address your numbered points:
(1) Per WP:WHEEL: "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions," my administrative action was declining the speedy, thus you deleting for the same reason without any change would constitute such a war. But this is not my point, nor do I care to argue it, as I would obviously not go running to WP:AN/I because you deleted the image.
(2) I again made it clear that I was not saying that the image should not be deleted because it is an old upload. I said that this is a reason for there to be a discussion before deletion, as it obviously has been hosted here for a long time without any action, meaning that some users may want to comment on the deletion. I specifcally endorsed going to WP:IFD so such a discussion could happen.
(3) The CSD criteria for deleting an image based on NFCC is that it obviously fails one of the criteria. I have no doubt in my mind that you have a good point about it not being useful enough to satisfy the criteria, but it is not obvious or blatant, especially when someone else gives you reasoning on why it isn't blatant. Again, this is why I asked for you to go to WP:IFD.
(4) I will work on providing a short reason for such deletions, but I still hold true to the belief of WP:BRD, where I am always open for discussion of any of my actions, and will gladly undo any of my actions if someone feels I was wrong. If you would have come to me in a nicer manner, you would have realized this.
(5) My question still stands, do you think that the way you acted was appropriate?
dropping by, though I do not usually work with images. (and I am deliberately not looking at the items in question) In most situations it is highly preferable in most situations that an admin not directly delete an item, but just tag it. Any one of us is subject to making mistakes. I can not see objecting when someone places a tag and another admin removes it. That's the very purpose of CSD. I decline other admin's tags regularly, and other admins people decline some of my tags also. Any good faith dispute is for XfD. There is not much point in arguing between people when an established editor, admin or not, objects to a proposed speedy. That part of things belongs in XfD. And I would never replace a tag some other admin had removed, unless it were the most dramatically obvious sort of mistake . if an admin ever replaced a speedy I removed, unless I had obviously really goofed, i would certainly expect that he remove it. Though I can't remember anyone every doing it unless he had not noticed my action in the first place. Not doing so is indeed wheel-warring. DGG (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
All I ever protested against was the fact that he removed it without an edit summary (other than "decline"), which is exactly as impolite and disruptive as a bare "rv" or rollback in a normal content dispute between editors. Plus a couple of later statements that to my mind demonstrated poor grasp of the relevant policies. - I still disagree about the wheel-warring, although obviously I agree that in a situation where an earlier removal is backed by a tangible policy-based argument and a discussion-based process like IfD exists as an alternative, that is then the obvious choice. Fut.Perf.☼13:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I always use some sort of specific edit summary in declining a speedy, though I must admit I have them pre-built as macros, as situations tend to recur. The thing to do at this point is obviously for everyone to stand down about this. DGG (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
User Titus001
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please, terrify this user (User:Titus001—he has no user page but he has a talk page: User talk:Titus001) by blocking him for a while. He changes the date of the end of the Roman Empire from 395 to 1453 with no reason. The 395 was a result of a major discussion and that user without having talked at all and without having expressed his opinion changes it. I tried to talk with him but he didn't answer. Dimboukas (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mere membership by an editor in some external group that has been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations. Sanctions previously imposed are confirmed. An amnesty is extended towards any editors who may have been involved in this external group and who have not been sanctioned for their participation in it. This is coupled with an expectation that these editors will not participate in similar efforts in the future. Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. Hypnosadist(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is admonished to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism at all times, and to avoid misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to other editors. For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Do you have an un-POV'ed version of this map that you could re-upload? This chump has overwritten it yet again. I'd suggest protecting the image to stop him doing it again. I will be warning him about his editing too. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The original version is still in the history, we can revert it any time. In fact, it's probably hardly worth fighting over it now, because I'll re-draw parts of the map anyway, having found new and better information for Vlach (see User talk:Koryakov Yuri). Fut.Perf.☼05:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hy
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Me again,isn't this the same what i was doing here,and you baned me becouse of that????If you un baned me, i will show the sources just like you,i realy didn't know about that linking,and you should look my problem on Commons??!--Makedonij (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, which exactly of your images do you think is similar to mine? Please note that copyright pertains to the graphical appearance of a map, not to the contents it represents. I re-drew the map independently (different colors, different arrangement of legends, etc.); it's quite dissimilar from its model except for the fact that both represent the same underlying data. Fut.Perf.☼15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
edit summary
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is this edit-summary ok? I'm not a big fan of any of the people in it, but saying such things is not right. Balkanfever has been warned before for such summaries, but that one beats them all. --LaveolT13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
What happens if someone has got personal info about a contributor and is sharing it with the world? I tried to dig out Wiki rules or guidelines about this, but couldn't. --LaveolT21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I e-mailed them. I hope it will be resolved soon. Raso and Makedonij have been discussing me for some time now in Macedonian, but the thing today was a real shock. They were just joking with me till now, but I made it clear I don't want my name to be used (I'm still trying to figure out how he did it). Can I remove it from Raso's talkpage now or should I wait for the oversight to do its work? --LaveolT22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Acatualy i speak whit Raso mk in Macedonian,with you i speak in english and you dont want to answer,also you dont want to do compromise about some pages..... No hard feellings,Pozdrav--Makedonij (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Future, there's another IP running amok on Serbia-related articles. Possibly a sock of User:PANONIAN, here are his edits: [26]. What's your call on this guy? --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Images, copyrights
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Those two photographs seem more or less harmless to me. One could probably nitpick and find that there's this or that gap in their descriptions, but on the face of it the PD claims aren't too implausible, I'd say. Fut.Perf.☼11:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Can i upload some images in this page,they are copies from book,black and white,also you must see judgement on commons in problem which you report there.
I'm waiting answer on my page??--Makedonij (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have started to edit the mentioned article and after two minutes the article has been deleted by the administrator User:Cobaltbluetony without any reason or warning. I wrote him twise but obviously he doesnt want to answer me. I will ask you lake an administrator if you can to revert it so I can continue my work. I plan to finish the article and after that if you think that the article is not good delete it or live it like that. here are the reasons why the article should be there:
The biggest NGO in Macedonia
Participate on many elections in European countries
Please revert the article because there were good references that I cannot find them right now. And there was a good stub. Thank you --Raso mk (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I do not know if you have noticed but there is small problem (and there is no controversy) in this article. During this year User:NeroN BG is deleting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia&diff=202523439&oldid=202519047
again] and again without explanation Holocaust accepted sources (USHMM, Yad Vashem, and Jewish Virtual Library) and changing them with Jasenovac research institute (this is not Jasenovac museum) which is having aim to :"understand the true context and history of war crimes and civil wars in Balkan history" [28]. During february 2008 I have tried to start discussion about sources [29].He has not answered but only continued to delete again and again statements from USHMM, Yad Vashem and Jewish Virtual Library . I am sure that in next few days he will again delete statements confirmed with this sources..--Rjecina (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oversight
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Can you please clarify something for me, if you know about this? Editors are not allowed to modify or remove other editors comments - right? If editor A has made a comment including the fact that editor B is the author of an article (presumably editor B's name is on the article), is editor B allowed to modify/remove the comment? Isn't it meant to be left alone and referred to requests for oversight? (particularly because editor B is clearly involved in a dispute with editor A) Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the backgrounds (especially not how and why A thought he knew B was the author of that paper, and whether B really had a legitimate reason to expect that information was private), but supposing for the sake of argument that B's complaint is legitimate, removal strikes me as okay. Note that offending edits on a high-traffic page need to be reverted quickly, before oversight can even get active. If many people have added more comments after an edit, there's no way even oversight could get rid of it later. Fut.Perf.☼05:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. This is concerning an editor who was already warned by a notable admin [30] not to remove or alter other people's comments and explicitly told "Mucking with the comments of others is not acceptable. If you feel something is inappropriate, please raise the issue to the attention of uninvolved administrators, via WP:ANI or another appropriate venue". See my edit summary on this edit [31]. Then he reverts it [32] and leaves this bogus warning on my page [33]. Please look into it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ethnic Macedonians template
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oh, sorry! I think I updated the template per another edit request, and later that day another editor contacted me about an image vote that appeared to be concluded, with consensus favouring the sun image. So I didn't think much of it when I requested the edit (and would've done it myself if I knew how). I hadn't realised that there was so much controversy about it, but I knew nothing of the image etc. so apologies. Ooh, what a response on the talk page though; oh well, it's hardly unexpected as my edit was much more controversial than it first seemed!! So apologies, and thanks for letting me know. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)08:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
BULGARIAN ETHNOGENESIS
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey stop removing sourced data, that is a real data that describes Bulgarian anthropology from the snpa nordish website. Bulgarians are not only characterized by Mediterranean, there are other features as well like nordic, dinaric, central asian turanid, slavic and alpine. Bulgarians are mixed with all these types NOT JUST MEDITERRANEAN. In fact mediterranean are quite low. Mediterraneans are only in countries like spain, portugal, italy, greece and the middle eastern countries. NOT BULGARIA!
So don't mess up the ethnogenesis section because I have given important sourced information from a good website. And the paragraph about relation to anatolian turks and armenians is total rubbish and that source is corrupt. Bulgarians are related to romanians, macedonians, bosnians and croats. Bulgarians are balkan people not middle easterners. Bulgarians have nothing to do with the middle easterners or the mediterraneans. As fact says Bulgarians are people that descended from a mix of indigeounous balkan people like the thracians and the illyrians, slavs, celts, central asian bulgars from western china of iranic stock and germanics.
Well the macedonian data which you say is unacceptable is unknown as i have nothing to do with it. BUT PLEASE leave the ethnogenesis section alone except that macedonian paragraph. delete that macedonian section if its unacceptable!--Ivailo82 (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Future, I see the chapter about Bulgarian ethnogenesis is fully vandalized from user as Ivailo 82. Please, bring it into order! Jingby (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hegumen
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I guess I just cracked. It's really quite stressful having to refute such things. I'm sorry for causing such a disruption. I think I'll take a break, completely abandon my current account and possibly create a new one some time in the near future. It was nice working with you. --124.182.139.162 (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Gee, I'd have to nominate them in a new section? I'd rather not bother at all, tbh. They don't bother me and the usual suspects might cry "WIKI RACISM". What's the point in nominating any if "we keep dealing with these kinds of userpage elements and they keep bouncing back at us." anyway? Freedumb for everyone. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
His Way
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks, and thanks for re-adding it to the article. I now have it in my watchlist, to keep an eye on it. I might as well check out and watchlist the images in the other articles I am working on. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Protection
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As you saw,I am fighting against anti-serbian propaganda.I will not allow to Croats ,and similar to write bad things about Serbia and their personal opinions.I deleted things about some 'attrocities' etc.And I will do it again.Maybe you support their opinions.If someone is overtly tendentious and non-neutral,that is User:R-41 and User:Rjecina . You can stop me,but you can't stop the truth.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
About baned from uploading,did you see this ? Maybe you will want to put another opinion there? Dont judge me becouse my bad english, i didn't want to enoy nobody (almost). See that page please and then a tell me what do you think? --Makedonij (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK,what do you have against me?? You think that i'm nationalist ?? NO I'M NOT!!! I'm fighter for freedom, for all peoples, but it is not shure if that could be saied for others, who dont like me!!--Makedonij (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
FP i can be clone , it is not my fall that the other support me, please do not delete the sources nothing it is made up or it si fake , I hope you define my ban afterall because i had enough.Greeks are lying can you see. What idea of mine you exactly oppose and why??Can we have a deal i will respected it.
But, Dodona, one of your sources actually states that the upper macedonians, tribes considered akin to the Epirotes I believe, were greek-speaking. What would Pirro Burri say? 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you got a long tradition in bilingualisem.
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Future Perfect... I think I already wrote my argument done earlier, if it was possible to create an image then someone would have done it by now (obviously). Look, the only complaints I'm getting from are Greeks, it figures that every little error is immediately argued against. I wonder how many Greek photos are under the same situation. If I were to do the same action, it would be reasonable that you would state an argument and simply ignore my statements. The photo contains more then just the flag, it also contains Macedonians, buildings and environment. We had another photo which contained that but it got deleted (I'm sure you had NOTHING to do with it). Anyways, its like an image fully shown and one zoomed in to show just a certain item. If its such a big deal I'll change the caption. Mactruth (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
1) When another photo is AVAILABLE it will be replaced, until then it should remain, it doesn't mean its laziness. You forget that Macedonians in Albania hardly have running water let alone COMPUTERS and I live half way around the world and find it a bit challenging to go there with my schedule at the moment (Sorry I don't know if you get paid to be on Wikipedia for being an administrator, but I dont).
2) Sorry, but I myself feel Greeks on Wikipedia are given a lot more freedom to say or write what they want. And I understand your liberal but it is difficult for an outsider to comprehend Macedonia.
3) I have viewed many many many photos that are copyright violations, yet no arguments to them. For the images, many Greek photos are conveniently "self made" whether it be a singer or tanks. I suggest you take a good look and go through them when possible.
4) I don't view the non-free images as showing the same things. Yes, one does have the flag but it also contains many other features to itself that are unique, but if that is the case I will simply update another image that is dangerously similar. Mactruth (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to show you how far it goes, look at this [[37]] and read the information BEFORE I edited it. This page has been snuck into Wikipedia for TWO YEARS without any administrator raising a word which has been created by Greeks with an intent to MONOPOLIZE the term Macedonia. The article (before my editing) was pure Greek POV and only talked about Greek Macedonia, yet they tried to sell this as the "modern Macedonia" without any statements or reviews from any administrator. Two years?! Mactruth (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Macedonia Naming Dispute is rediculously POV bias towards the Greek side, any argumentation from Macedonians that make Greece look bad are not included for a variety of reasons, why arent these informations included?
I also have sources (cant find them rite now) in which Greek priests state to take over Macedonia. Yet none of these are in the Wikipedia article Mactruth (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If you can prove that Romanian language is not spoken at all....
...Then the Moon will collapse into a cheese singularity, depriving the Universe of this much loved product. Oy vey. --Illythr (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tose Proeski
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm afraid not. It's clearly non-free, and you already made the best fair use case for it that could be made. But it's just not good enough. Pictures from commercial news sources are almost always off-limits to us (except when we need to explicitly talk about the image as an object of encyclopedic coverage in its own right), because with our coverage we are essentially entering into competition with them. If you want an image of the guy, I guess your best bet is to look round on things like flickr for amateur photographers who took pictures at concerts or something, and ask one if he would release it for us. Fut.Perf.☼05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
image
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, thats alright if you choose to ban me for a short while. Just a question how can i upload picture's like banner/masthead or the flag? I know they arent self made but i didnt know what other category to post them under? Could you please tell me for future reference.? PMK1 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
hi, can i have my image ban reverted so that i can upload this image which will be of great use to this article, Macedonian Australians. I will add this tag to it and post as NON-FREE. {tl|non-free logo}}. is that alrite??? PMK1 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Becuase it would go well in the Media Section where the Newspapers are listed. I plan on fully updating the page and will write about Makedonska Iskra. Also the newspaper was the leading symbol of macedonian unity for nearly two decades, it finished with the MAPL. Is that alrite? PMK1 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
References
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Come on, now. Macedonian genocide? There were "ethnic cleansings" all over the Balkans at that time but that's ridiculous. Since 1800(!), no less... 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
With a genocide raging that long, its a wonder that any are left, or are busy editing Wikipedia, instead of fleeing the death squads.;) - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yeah, I'm new to the whole image-deletion thing; sorry if I seem overly cautious! There was a tag on there saying that there was a grace period, so I thought I'd de-tag it until that had passed (11 June, I think). But yes, there was nothing wrong with the criteria, and it should be deleted, but I've seen other admins decline deletions until that grace period is over, so I thought cautiousness was needed.
Actually, scratch the above, I just realised that it was an invalid fair-use claim, and not simply because it was unused. Right, sorry for the hassle, deleted. :D Best, PeterSymonds(talk)18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Zdravo
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hy, Fut.Pf. i found some numbers of Bulgarians in the world here,is that a reliable sorce, i mean can i insert them in Bulgarians article, most of the infos there is just from Bulgarian foregin ministry. And my apologise to you in first place if i offend you. --Makedonij (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've come across "Joshuaproject" before, it's quite certainly not a good source. I would recommend against using it. Fut.Perf.☼17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that a Request for Comment was added to Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia regarding a content dispute between User:Revizionist and User:Kobra85. Basically, both editors believe their respective versions of the article are "better" than the other's, with regard to WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. I've been trying to defuse the edit war between them, warned them both about WP:3RR, etc., and in the process, Kobra85 said that he had made extensive edits to the article that you requested. Since he's named you, I figured it would be best to ask for your opinion on the content.
I do not have any strong opinion on either version since I have no knowledge of the subject. The extent of my participation has been to explain general policies and to try to keep these two settled down enough to where they can work constructively.
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
The article History of modern Macedonia is a POV pushing article because it is trying to assort the only modern Macedonia is the Greek Macedonia, when in fact Greek Macedonia is part of the region of Macedonia. The article is trying to monopolize the term Macedonia and should be looked at carefully. Mactruth (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A differentiation is needed btw Republic of Macedonia and Greek Macedonia. Stating "modern Macedonia" is to state any part of the region of Macedonia, or the entire part of Macedonia... and this term cannot be used exclusively for Greek Macedonia. Please look into this. Mactruth (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I have made the issue of history of modern Macedonia clear for a while now without any response. Please read "Discussion" of each and you will understand why I did that (not out of monopolization or propaganda). I find it one sided that Kekrops complaints are responded to immediately while my complaints, which are legitimate, have been ignored thus far Mactruth (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Modern Macedonia is a region, not just Greek Macedonia.
When I created Modern Macedonia and had it goto Republic of Macedonia, you immediately deleted it, isn't that the same scenario (having history of modern Macedonia speak ONLY about the history of Greek Macedonia)? Mactruth (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
IP Problems
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi there,
I'm having trouble with an anonymous disgruntled Serbian editor. His IP keeps jumping, but it's obviously the same person. The problem is less his edits, and more his vitriolic edit summaries.
I've left a very polite civility warning here, which led to the final message. He apparently hasn't figured out how to attack my user page or talk page yet, and anyway it seems like a block would be problematic given his range. I'd appreciate any suggestions on how to handle this. Thanks! // Chris(complaints)•(contribs)00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There was an RFC on the TV MoS, I raised the issue of infoboxes, and wasn't taken too well. I think it is worth raising the issue of non-free images used in fields in infoboxes at policy level. I did a lot of work on WP:DW a few months back, made some progress, and then went back to square oneFasach Nua (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo. I have finished editing the article about MOST and now take a look at the article and tell me whether it is good and if it is good revert it and make it a real article. I have one graphic that shows the organizational structure of Most, is it good to be put on the article? Regards --Raso mk (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you revert the article, please. I put enough references and if you think that something is POV correct it. --Raso mk (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, sorry but I don't really see that the issues I pointed out have been solved, it's still a rather problematic article. I mean, it's up to you, you can move it back into mainspace yourself if you want (don't need me to do that), it's your responsibility – I'm just saying, somebody could still come along and AfD it any time. Fut.Perf.☼18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's not just POV wording, as I said, the biggest problem is lack of external reliable sources. You need outside reports in reliable publications talking about the organisation, in order to demonstrate notability. Fut.Perf.☼19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not allowed to notify editors of arbitration sanctions?
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
FP, I think you should take a look at this discussion - Moreschi opined a few days ago that any admin can log a notification, but the converse is being argued here. This has obvious implications for our own policing of Balkans articles. I've left a request for clarification on the thread. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, is there a centralized "cooperation board" or reconciliation project for Balkans articles? If not, it might be worth setting one up. That way uninvolved admins could monitor the page, and it would be an easy way for involved admins (such as yourself) to post notices about editors that you though should be placed under restrictions, and then uninvolved admins could make the call. --Elonka03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To Chris: Yeah, I noticed there's been some confusion over that in the Balkanian case too. There's an ambiguity in the term "warning/notification". Does it mean: "I just want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place", or does it mean: "I want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place, and you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you, the way you've been acting"? I personally find that the second type of message is a lot more helpful, because the first type leaves the addressee confused whether their behaviour has been coming across as disruptive or not, and whether or not they are expected to change it. It's also much more in line with how "warnings" are used elsewhere. We don't go round telling people: "Hey, did you know you can't make more than three reverts in a day", unless they are actually revert-warring. But if these notifications are supposed to be of the "warning" type, the person who makes them should be competent to make them. That doesn't mean they need to be the same uninvolved admin that might also carry out the sanction, not even that they need to be an admin, but it should only be done by experienced editors who can truthfully claim they have an objective, neutral judgment of the situation and know very well in what circumstances these sanctions are likely to actually happen. So, not usually a direct opponent in a dispute, for instance. I've given these warnings myself in some cases where I was "involved" and knew I wouldn't be allowed to carry them out myself – but then, I know very well that even in such situations my opinions carry some weight and that if I ask for sanctions, it's likely they will happen, so I thought the warning was fair.
I'm opposed to having warnings themselves logged at the Arbcom pages as if they were already a kind of sanction. If people want to do that, then of course the criterion for who should warn and when should be a lot stricter: only an independent admin and definitely only where actual disruption has already occurred.
To Elonka: No, we don't have a specialised Balkans bord. Suggesting sanctions has so far been done either on WP:AE or on individual admins' talk pages – typically either mine (often "involved") or Moreschi (typically "uninvolved"). A new bord might be a good idea, but I'd say only if it doesn't end up as a place only for asking to get other people sanctioned; there is a danger it might degenerate into that. Fut.Perf.☼06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to look at my experiment page? It's been pretty successful, IMHO. I've been putting together a set of tips at WG wiki on how other such projects can be setup, in case you'd like to add anything. Also, Folantin's group has been talking about putting together a "Cultural disputes noticeboard" that might serve a similar (though more general) purpose. See User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5. --Elonka06:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As a followup, I just got this message on my talkpage, about Aegean/Macedonian/Greek issues.[43] I'd say that the timing for creation of a "Balkans" conflict resolution board is quite good. --Elonka13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be also a good plan to prepare one for Iranian issues as well, since there is significant resistance to any article that mentions unpleasant bits about the country, culture, history or people. - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Might I trouble you to help me find a deleted image removed via bot? I cannot seem to even find a listing nomination for its removal and, as this has come up before, I'd like to know how to find these things on my own, as well as maybe discuss the possibility of concreting some guidelines regarding article discussion notification when nominations are made. - Arcayne(cast a spell)14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Your best bet is to go to Special:Log and enter the name of the image [44], which gives you the deletion log entry; you can also click the redlink and then "What links here", which should show some incoming link if the image was previously at IfD or some similar nomination. In this case (looking at the deleted page) I can see that the deletion reason was purely formal, lack of explicit naming of the target article in the fair use rationale. Since I don't otherwise see a problem with the fair use claim, I've restored it. Fut.Perf.☼15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much on the explanation. Some of it still escapes me, but it will prolly sink in as time goes by. As well, I am curious about how long the waiting period is before deletion for these two charming images (1, 2). - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Normally five days from nomination, like AfDs, but it sometimes takes a few more days until someone passes by and closes it. Fut.Perf.☼04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I really hope you edit that existing map, you're right it is better. I'm up to my neck policing that article myself, your presence is always appreciated. And I truly hope you make that new map. Beam13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Map
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have not responded to other, similar linguistic maps because they seem motivated by criteria against which one cannot argue constructively. But this latest one is different, it purports scientific backgroud and calls on the wikipedia and academic experience of its author. Politis (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ethnic and cultural conflicts
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article Kostas Novakis has been completely changed by 157.228.x.x into one which I can only argue as POV pushing (Revision history of Kostas Novakis). The current article has removed most Macedonian sources which shows he states his language is Macedonian, he is ethnic Macedonian and so on. I luckily have saved Macedonia related articles which I knew would be changed constantly:
You can easily compare this to the current article to view it is in fact POV pushed. Since I cannot edit Macedonia related issues, please use this template to create an article which is fair and neutral. Mactruth (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Mactruth Ban + Macedonia (region) + Macedonia (Greece)
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I wanted to state that my block is over but I have been banned from Macedonia related issues for 2 months. I wanted to state my POV, which was I felt that there was a bias in terms of reaction to complaints. I complained for a week about the article, which is still monopolizing under the article name history of modern Macedonia (Greece) even though you renamed it "History of Greek Macedonia." The reasoning for the monopolizing is that is still states "modern." If I made an article called "History of modern Macedonia (Republic)" it would be changed immediately, which is my main complaint. When a Greek made a complaint about me redirecting articles, you immediately reacted. I have gotten over it and have learned my lesson, but I must insist that no reaction bias should be considered in the future. Mactruth (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The article name is still monopolizing the term "Macedonia." I must ask the Greeks, what would be your reaction if I created an article entitled "History of modern Macedonia (Republic)"? You would object to monopolization. I believe a good compromise would be:
History of Macedonia (Greece) - this is consistent since "Republic of Macedonia" has the article "History of the Republic of Macedonia" therefore the article "Macedonia (Greece)" should have the article "History of Macedonia (Greece)" to be consistent.
History of Greek Macedonia - The name implies it is the Greek region of Macedonia and it differentiated from the Republic of Macedonia without monopolization. Mactruth (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is canvassing, I tried to make it a friendly notice. I kept a limited posting, I don't believe I had a POV, I simply posted articles. And it is open (I don't understand how it would be closed). Mactruth (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyways, if you want to discuss that, make a separate topic, instead of coming into this topic and trying to distract the issue with a new one. Mactruth (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the greater region article should include all history up to modern times (when?) and the sub-regional ones, "history of macedonia (greece)", "history of the republic of macedonia" etc. only modern events? Otherwise, there'll obviously be some overlapping. The concept of a "Macedonia", of course, changed throughout time. Then again, we project modern boundaries into the past in every "History of X country" article, anyway. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Mactruth, your whole complaint about my "inaction" regarding that article is based on a misunderstanding of what administrators do. It is not an administrator's job to rectify content problems. Admin intervention is about technical help and about behavioural issues. What you spotted was a content issue; the solution was to enter into a normal discussion with whatever other editors felt like discussing it, try to work out a consensus about a better naming, and then (if technically necessary) call in an administrator to help with carrying it out. With 3rdAlcove you had a reasonable person on the "other side" to discuss with, and I'm sure you could have worked this out reasonable and calmly. In my function as an admin I'd have no business intervening in that debate before it would have been concluded (unless I had wished to join the discussion in my function as an editor, but I didn't really feel like it, that moment.) Fut.Perf.☼04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, this [49] kind of canvassing is certainly unconstructive. "Tell other Macedonians to help!" comes across as a quite overt call for recruiting meatpuppets to join on the Wikipedia battlefield. Not good. Also, my understanding is Moreschi's topic ban was intended for "all pages across Wikipedia". I'm not sure to what extent that is supposed to cover user talk pages, but it certainly does cover article talk pages. Plus, please don't use your user page as a political soapbox. Fut.Perf.☼04:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Future, I wish the definition of Admin was given to me a while back, now I feel foolish for immediately asking for Admin intervention. I thought before changes would occur (that would be contraversial) Admins were needed to be contacted. Well I'll keep that in mind. Mactruth (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize it was canvassing. When I stated tell other Macedonians to help, I meant just that. Because it seems like they are the ones doing the most work, and not getting much help in having the Macedonian view presented. I didn't mean it like "grab a groupie and start internet wars" I simply meant that they shouldn't be the ones constantly doing it 24/7. Moreschis ban was stated to me that it is Macedonia related topics, I'm not sure if its all pages, but that was not indicated to me based on what was written on my discussion, but I'll double check. Mactruth (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"I'm banning you for two months from all pages across Wikipedia that relate to Macedonia: in addition, you are banned indefinitely from creating or altering any redirects that relate to Macedonia." I didn't find anything to indicate talk or discussion pages were banned. Mactruth (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I found in Kontosopoulos ("Dialects and Idioms of modern Greek", 2008 - first edition 2000) an excellent table about the phological and grammatical dialectical features throughout the Greek-speaking areas, with indications if they are widely, not frequently etc. used (four levels). But it has in Greek a series of terms (στένωσις των ατόνων, ατελής συνίζησις, ασυνίζητες καταλήξεις, απουράνωσις των συριστικών, διάσυνσις των συριστικών etc.) which are Greek to me! We could enter this table in the article, or even make a map based on it (although I think that the latter is a dissicult task).
In any case, thanks to your efforts all these years the article is at a quite good level. With a "little pushing" I think it could reach the top of the project's quality list. But the last thing I want to do is to make you feel that I try to "usurp" your legitimate rights on the article. I worked a bit an the article, because I saw a potential, but I want to continue only if you don't have a problem, and if you are interesting in co-operating to bring the article to FA status. In such a case, it would be a pleasure to work together and co-nominate the article. In case, you want to work it alone wherever you have time, it is again ok with me. Respectfully,--Yannismarou (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that Kontosopoulos source sounds great! Is there a chance you could make the relevant pages available somehow? In some of the cases I can pretty well imagine what he means (a number of his terms probably match the phonological variables we are already discussing), but it would be much easier to come up with appropriate translations if I had one or two examples of each for illustration. Fut.Perf.☼12:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm .... I think I can, but I think I have to study all his book (μπουυυυυυυ). Anyway, I'll also see If I can scan the table. I'll come back with the phainomena in details, and with examples! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
The article Georgi Puleski is totally wrong. That man is not called GEORGI as Laveol wants but his name in Gjorgjija Pulevski. I have changed the name og the article but mr. Laveol does not want to accept it. Please, react, because his name is not GEORGI. It is same as if we change the name of George Bush into Gregory Bush. And also, there should not be BG categories. That article is full of bg propaganda. Thanks.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You've been playing with articles all day long. I'll paste my explanation here so Fut. Perf. can see as well. We already had a couple of similiar disputes so I pretty much know the answer to this one:
As Fut.Perf. already explained English language usage defines the name of the article. So Google books:
To sum it up - on the same bases on which the article Makedosnko devoiche is with the MK transliteration, this one has to be Georgi Pulevski.--LaveolT18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way what happens if someone is on a civility password and in the same time tells me to piss off on en wiki and to go f*ck myself on ru wiki? --LaveolT18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the name to be written on Zulu language because maybe there are more written text. Stupid thing. He is Macedonian and the name should be on his language not as Laveol wants. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to the "correctness" of any of these name forms, but we do normally prefer whatever is most common in English, Laveol is right about that. Laveol, could you please check whether the same argument also goes for our friend G. P(a?)rli(c|č|ch)ev? The Pr... variants seem to be more common in western scholarship. Oh, and both of you, if you're interested in name variants, please make sure all plausible variants have redirects, that's always non-controversial. – Another thing, MacedonianBoy, can I ask you something about Macedonian dialects? We were discussing this guy Kostas Novakis and his folk song collections today. Just out of curiosity, could you check whether the titles of his CDs are in standard literary Macedonian, or in the local (lower Vardar) dialect? Fut.Perf.☼19:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would love to edit on EN Wikipedia, but when i see Laveol's edits I am losing the will for editing and also this BG propaganda is tooooo much spread away here so I totally lost any will desire or wish to edit here. Untill Laveol is here we cannot have neutral Wikipedia --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you guys are both pretty deep in revert-warring. 3R on Dame Gruev? If I may comment on that one, do we really need trivial transliteration variants such as "Damjan" vs. "Damyan" and so on? "j" versus "y" is so incredibly trivial I'm not sure we ought to be wasting screen space on it. Redirects, yes, sure, but bold and in the lead and everything? English-speaking readers will never know what the difference is supposed to be, and if I couldn't guess it's a Macedonian-versus-Bulgarian thing I wouldn't understand either. Please please bear in mind that 99.9% of the world population really don't give a fuck about how to transliterate from either language. Fut.Perf.☼19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As I can see you were also edit-warring on the verge of breaking the 3RR. So it is more of a 157.228.x.x-Balkan Fever situation.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure is. But take a look at his slow edit warring on those pages before today as well, not just this thing with me. BalkanFever13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I actually meant the titles as written, like "Бело поле до Белото море" and so on. What exactly do you mean by "and also"? Fut.Perf.☼19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I was on looking at sources as you suggested (btw when I said hoax I meant it in the way that this was not an actual Macedonian church, but nevermind) when I saw the article as a whole was copied from the Canadian encyclopedia. Should it be re-written, cause it surely has the same text? --LaveolT21:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Holy shit, you're right. A blatant copyvio from the very start, and we had it for over a year. I've deleted it. Needs to be rewritten from scratch. Thanks for spotting it. Fut.Perf.☼21:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) Well, I was about to ask if we're allowed to re-create it and start it all over. I guess this answers my question. I hope no one will be mad at me, cause I didn't mean for this to happen. Even I think the article is worth it. --LaveolT21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You Deleted Macedonian Canadians, can i have a look at the old version please. I was after the pictures and some more information which i could add to it thanx.PMK1 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
MacedonianBoy
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
I'm having real trouble communicating with him. He has spent the whole day re-arranging the names and removing valid categories which he doesn't like [50], removing wikiproject banners [51] that he doesn't like and generally removing stuff his doesn't like. I don't want to take part in the lamest edit-war ever, but he's been rather disruptive. I saw you already got familiar with his edit on the Macedonian language article.--LaveolT10:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Do making conflicts on your own. We both have equall status here so I can edit as much as you can edit here. This is not war and BTW this is not your Wikipedia, here can edit every user. And it is not destruptiv just making the neutrality more visble because every fucking article is full of BG propaganda. That is not good for the neutrality that we want to get.And you are working on the same way as I work now. Do not complain all the time because you are reverting every single edit from every single macedonian --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
According to me there are issues in every article, but what you're doing is plain disruptive and it really resembles a child playing with a toy. Switching Bulgarian and Macedonian, removing Bulgarian cats and leaving only names that you like really helps build an encyclopaedia. --LaveolT10:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to make sure you don't block us for 3RR - we haven't reverted each other on every single article - we've mostly removed promacedonia.com links, although MacedonianBoy doesn't want to remove the MK nationalistic site. --LaveolT11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I love the fact that you two chose to have a fight on someone's talk page. Kosova2008 (talk)
Laveol will purposely begin edit wars and then cry a river to an administrator simply to try and get someone banned. He's been doing this for a while now. Nice strategy Laveol, but your not fooling anyone. Wait approximately 3 months, I will make sure not one BG nationalistic websites are on WP, considering you complain constantly about MK websites (most of which are not nationalistic) while ignoring the amount of BG nationalistic websites on WP. Mactruth (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Tag as unsourced. The fair use rationale is bogus too, because the image as such is not really historically significant (the person is, but that's a different matter), and any fair use claim for the image can only be evaluated once we know whose copyright we're infringing on. Fut.Perf.☼06:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion
What is the problem with the article about Pirin? The province is something different and this is something different. We cannot confuse these thing. This is not right. Pirin should be separated and we can clean the POV but on this way no. Please correct it. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no particular opinion about whether there should be an article or a redirect. I can well imagine a short article about the term as such. But that article text you were reverting to was grossly unsuitable. Come on, read my edit summary, even you must understand those two reasons I gave. Fut.Perf.☼06:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You are complaining to everyone. This is just a childish. I do not reject the fact that in Bg that dialect is considered as BG, but that article is for MK dialect. When you will start the BG dialects, then you can put that at the beginning. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well since you don't listen to me, I hardly have any choice. And no, you're not right since the problem here is dual - MK linguists consider it Macedonian and BG ones - Bulgarian. I see you're only interested in promoting your POV, but it is not ok. --LaveolT14:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll stop reverting since if I don't do it, this will never end. I'll just wait for Fut.Prf. to come back. He'll know how to deal with this. Btw we can always add a BG reference as well - NPOV remember. --LaveolT14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats why I have put the American reference. I am keeping my word about what I have said and I am not braking any promises or my principles. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Here' s what I found on the subject since MacedonianBoy insists on having English references. It would be nice adding it, but I don't want to break 3RR on the article. --LaveolT14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way you have forgotten to add the primary author of your source - Božo Vidoeski. Hmmm, this couldn't be POV now, could it. --LaveolT15:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it could be POV. People in the real world have POVs ("points of view", for those of you who may have forgotten what a simple reality that abbreviation stands for). People out in the real world, including scholars who we use for reliable sources, are entitled to have their points of view. The trick is that we try to represent all sides, if and when we find that there are several reliable sources representing several points of view. Now, Vidoeski is (or was?) a well-respected academic and the leading local expert on Macedonian dialectology, so we can hardly ignore him. The fact that Friedman, the leading international expert, cites him as an authority gives added weight to that. If there are other authorities who describe the integration of that dialect within the Bulgarian diasystem, bring them forward. Fut.Perf.☼15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I already did that - see [52]. As far as I know the dialects are transitional - therefore included in both languages. See, I'm not a guy who'd claim a whole language, but I don't think having only one POV in an article (which was created with an irredentist concept to start with) is fair. It's pretty obvious that a work about Bulgarian dialects would have them as Bulgarian and work about Macedonian as Macedonian. This book is on Slavic languages. --LaveolT15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Mhm, you know I'm not an expert on this, but it's written in a way any non-linguist can understand it. I'll add it tomorrow obviously since I'm out of reverts for today. --LaveolT15:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
as far as I remember VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN is very respected lingust, so no objections about his books, writings or work. Probably he had made analisys before put that dialect in the Macedonian group. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Please change your vote so we can change the map. I understand your objection but the current map is militaristic in nature, I won't begin to mention how it is POV (only portrays Serbian names). Kosova2008 (talk)
User:Lila2021
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'm pretty sure (around 101%) I've seen this picture on various websites (btw, care to guess what kind?) before, so I honestly doubt it's an "own work". What do I/we do in this case? Yes, I will bug you about such matters until I read the relevant guidelines (or until you tell me to piss off in verse, I guess). 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
As good a find, my friend, as e'er was made.
The only problem is, the image dwells
on Commons, where, just like on foreign soil,
my Cluebat wields no force. You need to trace
on Google-Images the miscreant’s steps [1],
Then armed with proof of his ill deeds, direct
Your busy course to Commons, there you file
Your due request for its deletion. Note
That you will find a special link, convenient
Just at the screen's left edge, which with a click
You prompt to do all necessary work,
And in a few day’s time it will be gone.
You're really into poetry these days. :-) I've done that just to try out how it works. Here's the sbpage for the deletion.--LaveolT17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm still trying to get the hang of the uploads. I advised MacedonianBoy that he can't claim fair use on images that are replaceable in practice. What I mean is that basically you can't take a photo of a public place (that anyone can easily photograph) from a media (a paper) and claim that a free equivalent could not be obtained. Or am I wrong? I think there was the same case with Simeon of Bulgaria. --LaveolT23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
See my comment on my talkpage. It is mistake or something. I do not know too much about uploading pictures, so maybe I am wrong. I do not know. But any way the pictures are very good, so I do not think that they should be deleted. If you can correct it ok. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Images
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As per your request, with the collaboration of some other admins, last time I tried my best to clear up the pictures that are violating the policies. I thought that matter was over. Now that you tell me that there are more such pictures, I will have to ask you to instruct me how to keep track of such pictures and act accordingly. I will do all that is in my power to keep each image in order if I know how I can find all those that aren't properly tagged and how to police other uploadings in future. I await your instructions. Thanks Б. Јанкулоски
Hi. I'm Brainmachine from the Macedonian Wikipedia. I'm addressing you about the image matter. You should know that there are some of us at this project who understand the gravity of this problem and are taking actions. Personally, I'm not a sysop, I'm just a regular user, but in the next couple of days I'll be doing a lot of image tagging - marking inappropriate images (without a source and/or license), and iNkubusse (who is a sysop) is doing a lot of deleting these days. We are thankful for your concern, but you should know that our greatest problem for now is the lack of manpower; we don't have enough Wikipedians and we don't have enough administrators. But there is a lot of work. To inform some of our (active, hopefully) Wikipedians about the seriousness of the image issue, just look at my userpage. I really don't know how to attract more attention than that... What I'm generally trying to say here is: we know, some of us are doing the best they can, but we so desperately need more editors. And again, thank you for all your concern and help. -- Brainmachine (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
help Zeibekiko
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Calling someone a moron is a personal attack Yangula. Please do not resort to calling people names if they do not agree with your opinion. The users that disagreed with you did not resort to any name calling or vulgarity as you have.
PD Serbia images
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since you were the one who brought up the image deletion discussion, mind as well tell you that I am starting to remove the images from here. I got the same copyright notices, and some even said that "all rights reserved, not part of this website...blah...maybe be used." Plus, I been telling the Serbian users here and at the Commons to start playing email tag with their Government; they haven't done so. So just start deleting away. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
unban
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry for not responding earlier. The idea is of course that this ban can be lifted as soon as you demonstrate some understanding of copyright rules and willingness to abide by them. So, can you describe please what images these are, and under what kind of license you believe you could use them? Fut.Perf.☼10:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats ok.
1.This image [54]. Would this be the appropriate tag? {non-free fair use in} and as free use i guess?
2.This image [55], as a logo. Under the same non-free rational. with the same tag? - {non-free fair use in}.
3.The third image [56], under the same conditions as the first image. Both are mastheads.
4.Also possibly a better resoloution of this [57] logo, and
5.Here is also another image [58] which would be uploaded as in the public domain as it is over 70 years old in America. Is that appropriate?PMK1 (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Permission requests
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, I was wondering, what if I get permission for using an image from its author by email? E.g. I asked for permission for this one, but I wouldn't know what to do if the guy says 'ok'. How can I prove that we have been given permission? Thanks. --iNkubusse?14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Modern Greek revisited
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
Well, I scanned Kontosopoulos' table (I think the characters are readable), and I'll mail it to you tomorrow to have a look. I'd have done it today, but I forgot the CD-R where I have the file in my car, and it is too tiring for me now to go to the garage!
But I wanted to share some thoughts with you and some grandiose plans of mine (planning is my specialty; implementation my main flaw!). I thought why not to initiate a co-operation to bring to FA status the major Greek language-related articles? What I mean: There is already a FA Team, accepting proposals to support them bring an article or a group of articles to FA status (but I am not sure if there is around them a specialist on linguistic issues). We could create a task force in the WP:GREECE named "Greek language" or something like that, make its objective clear (promote to FA status the major Greek language-created articles), invite any other interested member of the WP:GREECE to assist as energetically, and then, when we know if it is just the two of us or we'll have further assistance, go to the FA-Team, asking for their assistance (and find out if they can indeed be helpful) to bring the 2-3 major articles within our scope (such as Modern Greek, Varieties of Modern Greek, Ancient Greek Language) to FA status.
Hey, first off, thanks for sending that data. Here's my translations and comments so far. In a couple of cases I couldn't be certain what he meant, I think in those cases I'd need to have a look at his fuller texts and examples of each phenomenon. Next step, we should check if the geographical distribution he reports fits what we have in our map based on the Trudgill sources. Fut.Perf.☼21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(i.e. of unstressed */i/ before other vowels? Or of verbal types in -άω > ώ?)
Ασυνίζητες καταλήξεις -ία και έα
lack of synizesis of word-final -ía, éa > /ja/
not treated
Απερρίνωςις των μπ, ντ, γκ
lack of prenasalisation of /b, d, g/
see our treatment of "nasals and voiced plosives
Απουράνωσις των συριστικών
de-palatalisation (???) of sibilants
[makes no sense; sibilants aren't palatal to begin with! see our treatment of "palatalisation"]
Δάσυνσις των συριστικών
aspiration (???) of sibilants
[makes not much sense either]
Τσιτακισμός
tsitakism (/kʲ/ > /ts/)
treated under tsitakism
Διατήρησις και ανάπτυξις τελικού ν
preservation and extension of final -n
treated under "Final -n"
Αφομοίωσις τελικού ν σε συνεκφορά
assimilation of final -n under coarticulation (?)
not treated
Ποικίλα αλλόφωνα του λ
various allophones of /l/
we have a treatment of Macedonian dark /l/, but this seems to refer to something different
Πτώσις μεσοφωνηεντικών γ και γι
deletion of intervocalic /γ,j/
treated under "medial fricative deletion"
Ανάπτυξις μεσοφωνηεντικού γ
extension of intervocalic /γ,j/
Διπλά σύμφωνα
geminated consonants
treated under that term
Περισπώμενοι ρηματικοί τύποι
?
not treated. Possibly refers to past tenses in -αγα-, -οντουσ- et cetera? Or those in -ώ/άω?
Χρονική αύξησις σε ρηματικούς τύπους
preservation of past tense marker e- (in unstressed position?)
Sorry for interfering but although I am no expert myself I think that with απουράνωση συριστικών he probably has in mind examples like σπρωξιά [sproksá], κλωτσιά [klotsá], κορίτσια [koritsa], πρασιά [prasá] and the like. Does this make sense?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting thought, could well be. In the pronunciations you have in mind, would that be a normal [s] sound, or a "παχύ" sh-like sound? But anyway, I guess we'll just have to wait for Yannis to check the rest of the book, I understand there's more to it than the table he sent me. Fut.Perf.☼21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is a clear [s] sound. The -sh- rendering would probably correspond to what he calls δασυνσις συριστικού, which is attested in Epirus, South Italy and the Dodecanese if I am not mistaken. I have a paper on Greek phonology from a colloquium, but I' ll have to start digging endlessly into my library. If I find it I' ll try to scan it and send it to you--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought I may be mistaken on my first point. I can think of regions where κλωτσιά, σπρωξιά, κορίτσια would be pronounced with a sh sound. Thar would make more sense in terms of απουράνωσις... χμμμ--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that by Χρονική αύξηση σε ρηματικούς τύπους he speaks only of the ε [e-] tense marker? What about η [i-] as in ηύρηκα, ήφερα, ήπρεπε, ήθελε etc.?
...I am probably becoming obsessed but I 've been breaking my tongue trying to understand how an απουρανικοποιημένο (in the sense of "de-palatalised") [s] might be pronounced in Greek and I can't get it right. My tongue ends up continuously near my palate which does not make sense if απουράνωσις is synonymous to "de-palatalisation"... I am starting to think that απουράνωση means actually "palatalization" in this context and not the opposite. (The απο- preposition would be similar in meaning to the απο- in αποθέωση=getting closer to God ergo απουράνωση=getting closer to the palate?)... Να με συμπαθάς για την εμπειρική φωνολογία "του κώλου", αλλά έχω φάει κόλλημα εδώ και μισή ώρα. Θα κοιτάξω κανά λεξικό....--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was actually exactly my problem. An [s] isn't palatal to begin with (it's alveolar, but it becomes palatal (or more exactly palato-alveolar) when it moves towards sh. I had thought about the alternative semantics of apo- too but didn't dare assume it. Fut.Perf.☼04:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)+
Haven't managed to find any proper definition of απουράνωση yet, but I think that the απο morpheme has a meaning similar to the one encountered in αφομοίωση, αποχαύνωση, αποβλάκωση. The latter corresponds to my current state of mind it seems... LOL--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
So you are suggesting that my frame of mind is actually pumpkinified rather than stultified I presume. Κολοκύθια κατάσταση!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Απουράνωσις των συριστικών
I have it! At least what he means (for anyhbody interested in the book, the ISBN is 960-333-257-7). Page 74 about Peloponnesus (according to the above table, the phainomenon has a catholic use in South Italy, Ikaria, Peloponnesus, Lemnos and Imvros), I quote:
"Το ημίφωνο ι χάνεται μετά από τα συριστικά σύμφωνα. Πδ. ατζά αντί αντζιά (=κνήμες, πόδια), νησά αντί νησιά, φορεσά αντί φορεσιά, τραπέζα αντί τραπέζια, κορίτσα αντί κορίτσια, κεράσα αντί κεράσια, Έχομε δηλ. "απουράνωσι των συριστικών."
Page 96 about Northern Greece, and I quote:
"Στη Μακεδονία, τη Θεσσαλία και σε άλλες βορειοελλαδίτικες περιοχές παρατηρούμε και ένα είδος ατελούς συνιζήσεως, δηλ. το ημίφωνο i μπροστά από τονιζόμενο (σπανιώτερα και άτονο) α να παίρνη τη χροιά ενός ανοιχτού ε, όταν προηγήται σύμφωνο και μάλιστα ρ. Το ε αυτό συγχωνεύεται κατά κάποιον τρόπο με το α που ακολουθεί: παλαμαρεά (actually for this ε Kontosopoulos uses a symbol I cannot enter here, described as "ο απροσδιόριστος μεταβατικός φωνηεντικός φθόγγος που προέρχεται από ατελή συνήζισι"), πουρεά, αχλαδεά, αντί παλαμαριά (ξύλινο χειροκτόνιο των θεριστών), παριά (η ξύλινη είσοδος στο αγρόκτημα), αχλαδιά."
I continue (if I get tiring just tell me!). Page 95, again about Northern Greece, although the phainomenon is pe the table also catholic in Cappadocia, Cuprus etc.:
"Σ'ένα μεγάλο τμήμα του χώρου αυτού [Northern Greece] το σ και το ζ προφέρονται δασέα, όπως οι γαλλικού φθόγγοι ch [[ʃ]) I think] και j αντίστοιχα (like <ʒ> maybe he means?!). Υπάρχουν, όμως, περιοχές όπουτ ο σ προφέρεται δασύ μόνο μπροστά από το ημίφωνο ι ή μόνο μπροστά από τα σύμφωνα κ, τ, π. Παραδείγματα: ισύ, σένα, διακόσα [...] Δεν είναι ακριβώς γνωστά τα όρια της περιοχής όπου παρατηρείται η δάσυνσι αυτή των συριστικών. Ακούγεται πάντως στην Ήπειρο, στη Μακεδονία, σε μερικές θεσσαλικές και στερεοελλαδίτικες περιοχές και στη Λέσβο, όχι όμως στη Λήμνο."--Yannismarou (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Αφομοίωσις τελικού ν σε συνεκφορά
Although Kontosopoulos says in the table that the phainomanen is catholic in Dodekanisa, Cyclades and South Italy, I see a detailed treatment in the main text only about Ikaria, page 64:
"Διατηρείται το τελικό ν σε ονόματα (τυρίν, παιδίν κλπ.) ή αναπτύσσεται σε περιπτώσεις που κανονικά δεν έπρεπε να υπάρχη (πράμαν, άκουσμαν κλπ.). Το τελικό αυτό ν αφομοιώνεται με το αρχικό σύμφωνο της επόμενης λέξεως, όταν αυτό ειναι "συνεχές" (δηλ. φ, β, δ, λ, ζ), πχ. τον φόβο>τοφ φόον, τον βήχα>τοβ βήχαν κλπ."--Yannismarou (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Episodic images
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Delete. As I've often said before, essentially all episode screenshots in infoboxes should go; the very fact that they are in an infobox is a strong indicator they are not being used to support the text as they should. If there's anything interesting this image is meant to convey, over and above the mere fact that a certain plot element happens, the text should at least name what that interesting something is, and the image should be structurally integrated with that part of the text. Encyclopedia articles must analyse, not just evoke. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. Walking into this discussion with the consideration that all episodic imagery should go the way of the dodo doesn't exactly render you neutral in the evaluation of single images, now does it? From what I understand of IfD, each image is weighed on its own merits. While I agree that this image is crap, having a presumption that all images are crap is like deciding that all apples are bad because some have brown spots. If you cannot be neutral, then perhaps you should take a pass on images in episodic articles.
Well, I'm not really saying all episode images should be deleted. That statement on the IfD page was a bit strongly worded perhaps. What I'm saying is, the fact that people put these images in infoboxes, and not in the text where (presumably) they are supposed to support some content, and the fact they do so as a matter of routine and expecting that each article in a series should have one, is a prima facie indicator that something may be wrong, and makes me regard any claim of fair use justification with an extra portion of scepticism. By the way, I don't see why I should be under a special expectation of neutrality, just to participate in such a discussion? I guess each of us have their own understanding of policies and their own principles and priorities with which they approach such discussions; those are mine. Fut.Perf.☼21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh of course, i wasn't suggesting that you cannot be skeptical regarding IfD's, FutPerf; I was instead suggesting that if you arrive with an pre-assessment that none are ever acceptable, you maybe be unable/unwilling to weigh the actual image on its own merits. As for strongly wording things, I can empathize with that, as you can likely recall. I think I have improved somewhat since those days, though.
What might be helpful is to suggest that a lot of these articles be merged into season articles, such as Alias, though I imagine that windows would shatter at the volume of the furor raised in the related wikiproject.
I think that what a lot of episodic articles suffer from is that fans are the ones doing the uploading. Fans know the series pretty much backwards and forwards, and will upload images that might appeal to the fan devoteé, but make little or no sense to the casual or new reader. There is a significant difference in descriptive value of imagery between say, this image, this image and [Image:Silence in the Library.jpg this one]; the first two (note that the second of these two is an image I uploaded for the body of the article) actually describe something rather important that occurred in the episode and directly relates to the text, whereas the third image doesn't do anything of the sort (and should removed with all due speed).
The point I am trying to make is that all images have to be able to easily pole-vault the bar of NFC#8; deciding ahead of time that the images shouldn't even be allowed into the sports stadium seems non-neutral. Thoughts? - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Image
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I don't claim anything. You know that I don't understand of licenses and I just copied the license from the Bulgarian Wikipedia. If the user who had uploaded it there is wrong, then delete the image :-) But... isn't Flickr a place from where you can upload images on Wiki - or I have wrong impression? --Gligan (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha, so if below the image it writes all rights reserved, then it can't be uploaded' and if it writes some rights reserved, it can. Did I understand it correctly? --Gligan (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I've already settled that for myself. Go to Commons and you'll see the explanation there. Only two of the "Some rights reserved" are valid. I've already uploaded some of Evgeni Dinev's photos (the ones that are not copyrighted). --LaveolT11:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the pics on bg.wiki, but I have a question. What happens if a picture on a flicker with a tag allowing its use on Wikipedia, is uploaded here and the author changes the tag to "All rights reserved" or something else subsequently? It was already uploaded and therefore tons of people might have used it again. --LaveolT11:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Good question. In principle, that ought not to happen, as these licenses are in theory not retractable. If the uploader has given you assurance you may use it, and you've relied on that assurance in good faith, there's no way he could sue you afterwards if he wants to take his word back. The only problem might be whether you could prove it. Fut.Perf.☼12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, so if a proof is available, there's no problem. Oks, thanks a lot - I'm almost a specialist now :). --LaveolT12:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Rhodope
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I won't insist but I will ask you to step down from administration if you can't come up with anything worthy of the Bard himself. By the way, I'm glad that you stopped edit warring over at Bulgaria, because I was about to issue a monthly block for all involved parties.
On an infinitely more serious note, have you ever come across a Thracian derivation for Rhodope? Most sources I've seen seem to support the Greek etymology. However, I only have Babiniοtis (your old chum) here atm. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
View this persons edits here. I believe the person does not believe Steve Stamkos is Macedonian but Greek and has therefore changed the article to suit his agenda. Mactruth (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Steve Stamkos
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the notice Future, a lot of the photos uploaded on mk wiki were in a period when I was still learning how to operate in wikipedia and use the open source. But yes now I am aware of the procedures and will regulate everything. Thanks a lot. --Revizionist (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You might find it interesting
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The person you've warned once against bullying other users - see [[59]]
is on rampage again against some other user - see [60], [61],- unblock request
Greek and Macedonian names for Albania in intro for the Albania article
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I also said that I believe in the need to treat all articles consistently. Either all articles include the minority language(s) or none include them. I won't edit it again out of lack of time to sort it all out. For the sake of consistency and equal treatment, would you have been in support of editing the Montenegro page to include just the main language and not the Albanian version in the intro. There was a similar dispute over adding the Albanian name for (FYROM) Macedonia on the Macedonia page - it was concluded that only the Macedonian name would be presented. If I take this issue up again in a few months would you be in support of arguing for removal of nation names in local languages that are not predominant in the nation. Specifically, removing "Mali I Zi" from Montenegro's intro?99.234.179.83 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Cargese
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If you happen to be aware of any relevant literature on the Cargese dialect I would be most obliged if you would let me know. I am asking you out of personal interest. I haven't been able to trace any detailed discussion of the dialect and I find the subject most interesting--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No, unfortunately not. I haven't got much of the relevant literature on Greeek here right now anyway. The Cargese article itself is not too strong on good sources either. Fut.Perf.☼21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Could you semi-protect my talk page too? (I'm not an admin and I don't think I've ever had any serious messages from anon IPs so I can't see the harm). --Folantin (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello I need a bit of advice from an administator - I'm having some problems with an editor who seems to be just following me around trying to run me down. There are constant accusations but never any diffs provided. I was going to build a page of evidence here and present it to AN/I - but thinking about it, that's just a road for more wikidrama. I've decided not to respond to the guy but what do I do if he keeps following me around? some people at AN/I were unhappy with some of my edit summaries when I first got here but I took that on board and if you look at my contributions over the last few days I've avoided that - I've tried to stop disruption on articles where it has happened by starting discussion, I'm now in the process of creating articles. I just want to be left alone to edit - but it's difficult to do if some guy is following you around telling people that you are "bad". --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Arvanites and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there, this is gonna be quick. :) Image:Shanghai World Expo.gif, for example, is a copyrighted logo, but has no fair use rationale attached (as well as many other images). Am I supposed to just delete these? I mean, if I'm not willing to provide a rationale myself, I'm ought to delete it, right? (I'm talking about mk.wiki, but this one has no rationale on en.wiki as well.) --iNkubusse?00:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think this is really a matter of process that you can and should decide on mk-wiki yourselves. As far as I'm aware, the requirement of having fair use justifications explicitly spelled out as a "fair use rationale" is something we decided here on en-wiki, it's not something dictated by the foundation. I don't think there's a requirement for you guys to follow our rules in that respect. In fact, personally, I'd advise against it: this whole bruhaha about fair use rationales here on en-wiki has led to an unhealthy fixation on formalism, on the mere physical presence of what is in most cases pretty meaningless boilerplate text, rather than on the substantial merits of the justifications. So, in cases where fair use justifications are truly routine, like in the cases of "logo / organisation article", "title page / book article", "film poster / film article" and so on, I personally don't really see why extra FURs should be mandatory. Explicit FURs could be useful where the cases, and the justifications, are really individual, such as with screen shots from movies that are supposed to illustrate a particular scene. But see what happens with those on en-wiki: people manage to turn those into meaningless boilerplate too, totally perverting the idea behind it.
So, I'd recommend focussing on content rather than form: delete when usage is not justifiable, not just when the justification isn't spelled out.
But if you decide to follow our process rules, then the idea would be to first tag the image as missing a rationale, give the uploader a notification and a chance to fix it, and then delete after a week or so if that's not been done.
I think I understand what you're saying and I absolutely agree. Perfectly formulated: "delete when usage is not justifiable, not just when the justification isn't spelled out"! Thanks. --iNkubusse?12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Greek letter jot revisited
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Fut.Perf., edits similar to those CBMIBM made at this project concerning greek letters has been made cross-wiki by various IP-adresses, and the concern has been raised on meta m:Meta:Babel#Cross-wiki_hoax.3F_Greek_letter_.22Yot.22. If you have any backgroud-info on how this was handled here at Wikipedia that may be valuable input, please comment here or preferrably at meta if possible.
In connection with this: I noticed that the banned user template was put here by an IP-edit, which strikes me as somewhat odd, especially since the user does not seem to have been blocked indef. as stated [62]. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, I've replied on meta. This CBMIBM guy is incredible. He actually posted that false ban notice on his own page himself. Fut.Perf.☼14:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
...Now why would he want to do that - somewhat odd indeed ;O) Thank you! Your posting at meta was very helpful. I've posted some cross-wiki messages pointing to the Meta discussion, and clean up has started on several projects as far as I can see. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Map crisis
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You are right. But i'm very angry now! Some users are having double standarts! They changed Turkey's map but they didn't changed other European countries's maps especially Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus(Asian island) which are located around Turkey.--Izmir lee (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, take one first.
Yeah, and so what? I'll give you a hint; first: please don't edit when you're very angry. It's never good for anyone. Take a step back and have a glass of tea or watch your favourite team win an important football match. Second: what's that obsession with showing Turkey's position exclusively in relation to Europe and not to Asia? Why is its being in Asia or Europe important to you? Does Turkey magically become a better country if it's part of Europe than if it's part of Asia? Fut.Perf.☼15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Unfortunately, we're operating in a very strange mode here. I hate that second sentence, but am not allowed to change it. Maybe if you continue to object, I'll get to change it to something that makes sense. Rhmccullough (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I did change it to something which makes sense to me. I expect some flack for that tomorrow. Is my edit good for you? If not, do you have some suggestions for improvements? Rhmccullough (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Image deleted despite IfD consensus to keep
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The image 'Image:FotD 007x.jpg' was deleted despite a 2:1 consensus to keep. I am looking at a list of Nv8200p (talk·contribs) recent deletions, and he seems a bit too happy with the delete option. Maybe you could step in, reinstate the image and talk to the fellow admin? - Arcayne(cast a spell)04:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, first of all, IfD is not a vote, numerical majority is not what counts, closing admins have quite a bit of freedom in weighting arguments according to their understanding of policy. Incidentally, it wasn't 2:1 either, it was 2:2. Fasach Nua and me against you and Sceptre, with Sceptre essentially providing no argument at all, giving a "speedy keep" vote that was blatantly out of policy and with no justification whatsoever other than the vague assertion that Fasach's nomination was "disruptive", leaving you as basically the only voice against deletion. You can of course take it to WP:DRV, but I don't really see much of a case. (And of course, I was for deletion anyway.) Fut.Perf.☼10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Check this out
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I have one comment and one suggestion. This picture is typicall irredentism, nationalism and propaganda. I suggest this picture should be deleted. They who support this picture claim something that is irrelevant such as EU membership (lol) but in fact they use this picture for something different, spreading away the idea of San Stefano Bulgaria and some kind of non natural, non historical and non cultural or linguistical unification. Please chek it and if there is possibility delete that picture. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, you could ask the users to change the context in which they use the picture. I don't see a reason why it should be deleted besides the fact that you obviously don't like it. How they use the picture is pretty much irrelevant to the picture itself. --LaveolT19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Or we could just allow them to keep it so that I can throw WP:AGF out the window. Judging by this "patriot"'s edits, and the fact that he is a member of VMRO-BND, I'm just going to discard anything he says. I don't think you ever denied my identity, Laveol, so don't try defend him, please. BalkanFever00:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you understood me wrong - the picture was created by User:TodorBozhinov and created in good faith, believe me. The fact that other editors use the picture in another context is not a problem of the uploader. --LaveolT07:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it was something about the European integration of RoM, but I have to say I'm guessing more or less since Todor has not made a lot of edits for a year or more now. --LaveolT13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
So, wait, if I understand this right, a self-proclaimed "fighter (keyboard warrior?) for United Macedonia" is accusing people of irredentism? Riiiiiiich. (talk about ahistorical as well) 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Estonia article
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Majority of the text has been already removed. See the changes at Estonia - restored and improved (copy-violation issue removal) article (permission to do so was given by the user talk who has been observing the process) At the moment I am afraid there is some Copyright paranoia going on. There is one section - transportation which needs still a little clean up from the issued text. This i will do in few hours. Karabinier (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't really speak about the article, I haven't looked at that situation at all. What brought me to your page was the images. They definitely need a lot of cleanup. Fut.Perf.☼15:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Username
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Please check the edit history of the editor who has taken an interest in this article, in fact, any article, seemingly that I have written or edited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC).
Sorry, but which other editor? – Incidentally, as I was clicking on your edit history, I came across your most recent edits regarding the images on Linda Finch. I'm afraid you can't use those two, they are obviously replaceable. Fut.Perf.☼03:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have searched for other images of Linda Finch and cannot find any. If you locate some I would think that would bolster your argument. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC).
Read the rules: non-free images can't be used if a free image exists or could be created. It is not necessary that one is already easily available. With living people, the default assumption is that you could always go and create one. Those cases get deleted as a matter of routine. HTH, -- Fut.Perf.☼18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you removes this Yot across wikis, please don't sacrifice other letters. Because of this, please don't revert, but please only delete relevant Yot entries from text. Otherwise good part of mixed edits of this users consisted from approved letters plus disapproved Yot vanishes. This is not good to sacrifice many for little. 58.211.93.132 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You are banned, stay away. And your other additions about stigma, heta, sho and all the rest are so full of errors and inaccuracies much of it has to be removed anyway. At least stop meddling with languages that you can't understand. Your articles about "heta" on the other wikis, which you all created by blindly copying text from the respective "eta" articles and just exchanging the letter names, are total nonsense. Give it up, or you'll soon be banned on ever wiki of this project. And stop using those silly open proxies, who do you think you're kidding? Fut.Perf.☼10:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We have an emerging problem with this anonymous editor:[[65]], ex, comment titled FACK YOU GREEK. I am not sure about you, but his/her language seems quite unacceptable. Politis (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The Balkans
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I hope you are doing fine.Long time we do not talk.Can you please check this guy out Gkmx (talk). His edits have been very disruptive lately. Starting with [66] naming Albania in Macedonian language, WP:POINT violation,3RR violation,ofending and not respected Wikipedia policies. I tried to find consensus with him, but it did not work.
So,I am reporting him to you.Please help, and thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to ban any editor when he or she is trying to reach a compromise. I have been edit this page for more that a year. I do respect all the policies in Wiki. All I asked was that a consensus to be reached before we edit or revert anything. I am Albanian and I know the history of my country. Besides Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, which have left their cultural mark in Albania, no Serb have left neither cultural mark nor any ruins. They did not build anything in Albania.
Greeks, Romans, Byzantines (Bulgarians=???, Serbians=???) It’s a bogus sentence.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I encountered problems with Caspian blue(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) along the lines of the usual Japanese-Korean psychoses. I want to state clearly that I am not Asian myself and was merely attempting a clean up of contentious topics that divide the two nations. I would say that I encourage fairly fierce gaming to deincentivize me from editing from the individual and others with similarly good grounds for prejudice and similarly poor discussion skills ... or at least unwilling to discuss rather than edit war.
Casually browsing the Wiki, I discovered that Caspian blue was previously Appletrees(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) and that similar J-K issues has arisen under their previous account. Looking at the account, the history has been removed making this harder to gauge.
I noticed that you had been dragged into before. I am wondering about the ethics of erasing histories in this manner, why did it happened and was it right? Are they accessible somewhere else I do not know about? The two accounts appear to have been used simultaneously but I am new to this so I am not sure.
File:718missysmiley2.svgPu-hahahahahaWell, I've assumed that Furf. already figured out my renaming per the latest discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks. I believe that Rleves already figured out on me. There is no "two accounts" of me as you alleged. I changed my name via Wikipedia:Changing username per Wiki policy unlike your block evasion as insisting to use the blocked account of User:Documentingabuse. So this sockpuppeter with Japanese ISP who was indefinitely blocked by admin Rleves for his/her sockpuppeting/edit warring (5RR, 13RR), block evasions, bad-faith SSP filing while his block sanction. tries to again false accusation on me? You're not still banned , this malicious behaviors can't be tolerable.
Japanese-Korean psychoses?? You are still making personal attacks on me. How mature you're. For Furf, who does not know what the anon are saying, I summarize his argument.
has been indefinitely blocked and has the deep grudge against me?
You removed chunks of information without pre-discussion or any consensus over several Comfort women-related articles. Several editors called your edit as "white-brushed removals for pro-Japanese purpose". Therefore many other editors including several administrators reverted your edit to the original.
I once reverted your edit and gave several warnings to your edits
Then you poured out personal attacks against me at my talk page.
I removed your craps, then you reverted my talk pages 4 times with increased personal attacks.
I gave you 3RR warnings and WP:NPA warnings, and reported you at AIV for your personal attacks and vandalising my talk page.
Then, you falsely reported me to WP:ANI because I would eventually report you at WP:AN3 which is gaming the rule by the anon's definition.
Instead, the anon who violated 3RR were blocked for your violation filed by another editor who viewed the fake report.
One day later, the anon appeared to do the same thing as even violated more than 8RR at the time I witnessed the absurd edit warring with User:Blueshirts
More absurdly, the anon reported the other's 3RR violation as if the anon did not violated 8RR which were more exceeding Blueshirt's reverts.
So I reported the anon's 8RR violation, however meanwhile, the anon kept reverting and falsely accused me and the other did violated 3RR (I did not even edit the article and the other 5 people reverted one or two times)
The anon even violated 11RR and blocked along with Blueshirts.
Now the anon even evaded his block sanction, then still did not stop his revert campaign, so blocked by Rleves.
Then the anon appeared another anon, and then even created sock account Documentingabuse
The sock account filed fake SSP files on my name as alleged that I and the other 5 people are all meatpuppets because he is righteous and the others are all pro-Korean, pro-Taiwanese, Chinese, or whatever.
Rleves took the case, and closed it quickly "bad-faith file by sockpuppeter" but confused the anon with some Canadian sockpuppeter. Then he indefinitely blocked the account.
I also filed RFCU file on him, then Thatcher confirmed the anon's block evasion.
The sockpuppeter still keeps appears as dynamic anons, and then blames me mostly, because I'm a Korean, so might be pro-Korean unlike him being non-Asian, so that he/she is neural (holy cow!)
The anon calls Rleves's mistake and called him a liar and demands to lift his blocked account several times.
However, like his/her saying, even if the anon is no related to Canadian sockpuppeter, his block evasions, fake SSP filing, breaches on 3RR violations do not go away.
I think the indefinite block is proper decision. Due to the anon, the page has been semi-protected.
Well, Furf. you're indeed bothered to deal with the childish anon's false complaint. I'm sorry for your trouble, but I think the anon should keep blocked. If you need related links, just let me know. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. However, the anon is very persistent, so Rlevse and Thatcher have his/her periodical visit ever since he/she was blocked. -_-;; Rleves is considering unblocking him due to his persistent request and regard to a second chance. That is FYI.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Contradiction in source
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"No Bactrian abecedary has been found to date. Greek letters have numeric values based on their alphabetical orders. It is conceivable that SHO could be identified with the archaic Greek letter SAN, which has a value of 900; but no Bactrian text with that number has been yet discovered. SAN has not been separately encoded in the UCS, although its descendant, SAMPI, has been. (SAN looks rather different from SAMPI, and it is possible that it should be encoded as well for purposes of representing archaic Greek text, in the same way that ARCHAIC KOPPA and KOPPA have been disunified.) If SHO were identified with SAN, it should be ordered – alphabetically – after PI (80) and before KOPPA (90)."
This source had minor error of assigning 900 to San - marked by underline in citation - which San because of placing it between Pi and Qoppa, must have correct value 90. 161.200.255.162 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I saw the following in my watch list:
deleted "Image:Location Nagorno-Karabakh en.png" (content was: '{{ifd|log=2008 July 2}}' and the only contributor was Gulmammad)
Here it says the only contributor was Gulmammad but this shows there was another contributor as well who didn't sign his comment or possible his sign has been removed. And also, as it was stated in {{ifd|log=2008 July 2}} the image is useless. I thought the right place would there but you recommend to be discussed in commons. Please would you help me with indicating the link or something like that as I couldn't find it. Thank you. GülməmmədTalk00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the enquiry. Sorry the automatic edit summary was a bit confusing. I didn't delete the image, which I can't technically do, as it is on commons. I only deleted the local description page, which consisted only of your IfD tag (that's where you were the "only contributor"). Since the image is on commons, there's no use tagging or discussing it here on en-wiki. You need to go to commons:Image:Location Nagorno-Karabakh en.png. If you want to propose it for deletion there, you need to use "{{delete|your reason}}" and then follow the instructions to create a discussion page similar to our IfD. Fut.Perf.☼06:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Fasach
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I said "SK2, especially iii". Feelings about NFCC aside, you can't deny that Fasach Nua has a horrible record for getting Doctor Who images deleted (and half of the ones that do get deleted get overturned at DRV). After seven months, I feel he is creating a chilling effect and flogging a dead horse more than he is helping. I also stand by my view of him being disruptive - if you drew a Venn Diagram of "images Fasach Nua has nominated for deletion" and "Doctor Who images listed for deletion", there would be a lot of images in the middle - seriously.
And seriously, you have a lot of gall to call me disruptive, even when the only thing I've done wrong is not agree with him and you. You can get away with saying that to a relatively new user, but not to me. Sceptre(talk)12:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what's wrong with Fasach. He has no interest in helping the DW project other than nominating images for deletion. Also, about 90-95% of the images he nominates for deletion are Doctor Who images - not Battlestar Galactica, Scrubs, Lost, et cetera. And I probably would've voted weak delete for the image had he not voted for it, but I cannot hypothesize what I would've done when the image is deleted. Although, given Tony/Anticipation/Jenny's vote, I would've swung to "weak keep" instead. Sceptre(talk)13:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
And it's not NFCC8 which is the problem, it's his interpretation. NFCC8 is a horribly worded clause in any case. Sceptre(talk)13:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither do you need to be a fan to copyedit articles, to clean up, or to wikilink. Hell, you don't even need to be a big fan to write articles. But Scrubs is a bad example because about 75% of those articles were merged. Still, the Family Guy and Simpsons projects are much, much worse, and I haven't seen him helping out there. If he wanted to establish precedent, he should've gone for a cult show such as The Wire, not record-holding series such as The Simpsons and Doctor Who or series with large fanbases like Lost or Family Guy. He shows no interest in balancing his image nominations with textual cleanup. In short, it's hard to think of him not as a SPA (or even a DPA; until recently, he only edited Northern Irish football articles and DW images) when his activities suggests the contrary. Sceptre(talk)13:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Either way, you need to ease up on the accusations. I know you well enough to know that you end to get uncivil when you are getting emotionally involved in a debate. Calling people liars and accusing them of wikilawyering - which you have done with me - is wrong no matter how you look at it. Either you are wrong and look the blockable clown, or you are making a WP:SPADE argument. You need to step back and regain some composure before returning to the discussion. There is no need for the incivility, as it not only fails to convince folk of your point of view, but tends to cement opposition. As an admin, I am sure you have seen that time and again. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I could consider userfication, but only under a clear understanding that it's really going to be temporary, not as a dumping ground to keep deleted content around. And it only makes sense if there's a realistic expectation the concerns of the AfD will actually be addressed. So, my offer would be, userfy now but re-delete without further ado in about, let's say, a month's time unless there are substantial improvements with respect to notability sourcing by then. Acceptable? Fut.Perf.☼05:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds OK. I will refer the two interested users, Manhattan Samurai & Smith Jones, here. These users appear to be genuine good faith newcomers who have been confused by our somewhat opaque requirements of "notability", which we define differently to the real world usage. I think that all they need is a couple of reliable (not a blog, not a letter to the editor, etc) secondary sources that cover the subject (Alan Cabal, journalist). I note that Manhattan Samurai was going to look in a library. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It gets turned into a user subpage, not the main user page. It's a conventional way of getting material stored somewhere where it's not officially part of the article namespace but users can continue working on improving it. Often done with borderline deletion cases where there's an AfD mandate to delete but still some hope of improvement. Fut.Perf.☼09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Furf, I did not know that you're active right now. I'm wondering why the edit in question is not blocked for his disregard to Arbicom rules such as naming lameness, slow it down, edit summary. Besides, he/she introduced original research to Mike Honda (I checked out sources), minimizing death toll as distorting sourceJapanese war crimes, bad faith edit on Namdaemun, and revenge edits on Kimera (singer), Yaksik because I gave him warnings as to his blanking information, adding POV contents without discussion, source (at first), insulting edit summaries. But he just got a warning. Why? Anyhow, I have to clean up his absurd revenge edits on Korean cuisine and artist article first.--Caspian blue (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Curious
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am curious. You feel that Sceptre's behaviour ammounts to personal attacks, and is worth a block (here). With that in mind, would you (at the time) have felt that this behaviour and this behaviour (pay close attention to the posts that he was removing - to the point, but civil, especially the second) would also have constituted personal attacks, and would have been block-worthy? If an unfounded accusation of 'disruptive behaviour' is a personal attack, then I feel that an unfounded acusation of trolling is even more so. Obviously I'm not asking you to act on these incidents at all - they were in the past - I'm just curious as to what your personal opinion is :). TalkIslander17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Nationalist alert
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can you recomend a relevant administrator who responds to querries and takes his/her position seriously? I think we have a case of an editor inventing articles. Politis (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Which case? The one with Macedonian Cross? Shouldn't be much of a problem, probably can be dealt with without much admin action. Just propose it for deletion if it isn't sourced within a reasonable time. I'll have a good hard look at the image though, it looks dodgy. Fut.Perf.☼18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Undeletion request
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to know why you blanked and redirected my Wile E. Coyote cartoon summaries. Being "original research" did not cause a problem with the other 13 cartoons I made before this tag was attached to any of them. Andrewb1 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As other people have probably told you by now, there's a pretty long-standing consensus that we shouldn't have articles that consist solely of plot renarration. If there's no sourced outside information besides the plot to be reported about an item, the item is supposed to be non-notable. Plus, your plot renarrations weren't really very good, I'm afraid. They are much too long and poorly structured. A plot summary means you have to summarise things, like, work out the structure, the main lines of plot development. Not sure if there's much to be done in that way about a work like this, but anyway, just following the scenes moment by moment ("then he does this, then he does that...") is not the way to do it.
The only reason I did these two and not the others is I didn't have the time to do the others. If they are of the same kind, they should obviously be redirected in the same way. Fut.Perf.☼18:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[75] AIV reporting only after one edit and without any warning.
[76] Blatant POV pushing and addition of OR. While this user remove well-sourced information from other pages, added OR in this page.
This users behavior is clear trolling and edits are vandalism, if not disruptive. Is it possible to take some permanent action if this behaviors recurs? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, he's definitely disruptive. However, as I said in my block notice on his talk page, I'm okay with a reduction of the block since the threat has been withdrawn. Feel free to do so - I won't be back here regularly for a few more days. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Raso (again)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Future. How are yow? Here are two, but I suppose one and the same unregistred, annonimous POV pusher and vandal, who writes from two different IP-s :85.103.254.227 and 195.174.21.72. He repetidly deletes chapters from Turkish people and texts from Turkic peoples and denies to talk with other editors anywhere - on his talkpage or on the talkpage from the articles, or to explain his strange behaviour. Only blind reverts, even against Britannica. Please help! Regards! Jingby (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Future! I have just seen the conversation between you and Raso and between Raso and thet BG guy. First of all, your block is not supported in any way. Ra[o did not atacked the BG guy at all, but Raso has been commenting the actual behaviour of the BG guy (and it is true, Laveol is just working to offend and manipulate the Macedonian articles). I think thet he is accused of something thet is not real, Laveol was not atacked at all (he was not called TATAR or TSIGAN or whatever)Laveols behavior is really anoying because he is reverting every article about Macedonia and make them as he wants. This is not fair at all, so I think Raso should be unblocked and laveol should finally stop with his propaganda. Reagrds --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
PS:If you did not understand or read the Macedonian version of Raso, we will translate it!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I want to inform you of some personal offendings adressed to me by the User:3rdAlcove. This word FYROMite is very offending and it is not civilized. He desirves to be blocked, because he is offending me, my ethnicity and my identity. His irredentism and nationalism are too much. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've left a message on his talk page. Please let me know if he continues to be incivil (and please don't attempt to provoke him). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, you see we are currently in a transfer period and many unregistered users keep on adding players that have not been officially announced by the team. I have tried to tell them to refrain from adding them back to the team roster by explaining in the edit summary but they just insist. I also tried to settle the issue on the article's talk page but no one will bother discussing. You can see the edit wars and all the reverts not only by me but by other established users on the article's history. For the above reason i would like to ask you to semi protect the page for a short period. Thanks. Sergiogr (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Complicated legal threat situation: blocking
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear and very learned: Future Perfect at Sunrise , I'd herewith kindly request the unblocking of my well refined colleague dr.user:Guido den Broeder MS, who here apparently at present is innocent blocked up by you, though already by the same mistake in the Netherlands too. His tiny protest against this unfortunate execution is by some of your colleagues alas expressed with rather exaggeration. Hoping to revision of your verdict still being possible, I'll remain sincerely Yrs: D.A.Borgdorff - PEng E.E. = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Epirote pot-stirring
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Fut. Perfect, please be aware of the new editor User:Omadae1 engaging in some POV editing on Epiros-related articles. I have reverted him several times but would appreciate a second opinion. Thanks, Aramgar (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I'm tempted to ban this chap from all Balkans articles for a good while. Even without this, his recent editing has been very shoddy. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What Skype has to do with Wikipedia? You cannot control what I am doing outside Wikipedia. If I said something like that on Wikipedia than it is ok, but now?! This is becoming too rediculous. And have you ever see the destruptive edits of the Greek guys or the BG guys? Where is the neutrality? You in EU know what is equality. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Off-wiki harassment is certainly blockable, if there's a persistent pattern, which seems to be the case here. Laveol, was this an unsolicited contact by M.B. over Skype, and did it start right off with that insult? Fut.Perf.☼19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it, it seems to have been initiated by MB but only picked up by Laveol some four hours later. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Mhm, I turned on my skype and saw a message a**hole. I answered it and he answered back. Only later I saw it was from 4 hours back. No previous messages from him or any other wiki user on Skype. But now I see where they got my name and home city from. I guess there aren't tons of Laveols out there. --LaveolT22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Some help, when you get the time
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Fut.Perf! I initially asked Moreschi about this, but he bounced me over to you because you have more experience in the trenches with the Japan-Korea nonsense. This discussion provides a bit of background - basically, one of our few good article writers on the martial arts articles is at his wit's end trying to handle a protracted conflict on Taekwondo, and isn't getting help anywhere. My initial read is that the Japanese side needs to be smacked on the wrists and the Korean side stomped on pretty good, but don't have the time to investigate myself - can you kindly throw me a favor here? east.718at 03:17, July 14, 2008
Hmm, I haven't got much time either, but your initial interpretation seems to make sense. You know, the First Rule of Admindokwan is relevant here: Block Wisely, Block Quickly, Block First, Ask Questions Later.
I just note the article seems to have been relatively quiet for the last few days. Is there an issue somewhere else that requires immediate intervention now? Fut.Perf.☼05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears that I've gone and made a fool of myself now. I've been meaning to ask you about this for a week, but have been slacking for various reasons (and didn't notice that one party is MIA). I don't think there's any immediate intervention required, so thanks for looking into this. east.718at 17:19, July 14, 2008
Hey
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
How are you? Would you mind filling me in on the last two weeks when you have time? The place may (or may not) have gone to hell.....BalkanFever11:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots of extremely tendentious wording there. Of course the linguistic information as such is okay and should be merged with the previous version. But the historical background section is blatant coatracking (this is supposed to be about the dialect, not the history of Greek Macedonia), and the discussion of the various scholarly positions in the lead is blatantly tendentious OR. Needs a lot of cleanup. Fut.Perf.☼12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to say, but I may have been a bit uncivil in my wording. Anyway he told Laveol he bases it mostly on Friedman and some guy Stoykov, and therefore he's 100% neutral (!?) I'm going to do a bit of work on the intro. BalkanFever13:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
G'day - I'm dropping this note in to you because earlier today I responded to a request to file a request for arbitration. My examination of events led me to believe that there may be some use in the arbcom examining this matter, and perchance resolving an issue or two, and you have been named as an 'Involved Party'. As such, your thoughts would be most welcome at the Request page.
Yours rather nervously to be wearing a clerk-ish hat for the first time,
Hi FPaS - I thought I'd also drop you a note as the current blocking admin to point you to GdB's request to be unblocked solely to participate in the arbcom request / process - I think that could be a good idea? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you must, no problem. I don't really see why there's a need for an arbcom case though, the case still seems open-and-shut to me. He made not just a legal threat, he actually went through with it and started litigation, apparently. For some reason I don't quite follow, he seems to think that makes his position here better rather than even worse. – By the way, "clerkish hat"? You seem to be very clearly a party to the case now, you can't clerk it. Fut.Perf.☼05:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Luckily I'm neither an arbcom clerk nor an admin, FP! - I was just a bit nervous to be leaving messages about an arb case to so many people, and on the unblocking front just thought it was a sensible idea - I'll leave it to your discretion. In terms of the merits of a possible case, I think there might be some benefit to arbcom taking a look at the broader issues.. time will tell though, I guess... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
ps - would your answer to "Should a user taking legal action against another Wikimedia user be blocked here on the english wikipedia whilst the action is ongoing?" probably be 'yes' too? just wondering, because the arb.s seem to be saying 'no' at the mo.... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure what part of the Arbs' response you are referring to. To me, the answer seems indeed very clear. In the case of a user taking legal action on the basis of a conflict on en-wiki, that's simply the policy as it's always been; in the case of a conflict imported from another part of Wikimedia the common-sense qualification would seem to be: yes, if the users in question have been interacting on en-wiki in the same roles and identities and under the same set of parameters as on the wiki where the conflict originated. Let me phrase it in terms of "wearing hats", since you brought up hats: If the two users in question had shown that they can work with each other differently when wearing their en-wiki hats than when wearing their nl-wiki hats, it'd be different. But they don't seem to be distinguishing their hats in this way. Fut.Perf.☼06:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Alexander the Great (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
FutPerf, because I didn't know where to write the following complaint, I decided to add it to your talk page, given that you are an admin (?).
I have been reviewing every Albania-related article in the English Wikipedia, and I found several articles containing disinformation and lack of NPOV sources. One in particular, which I would like to discuss specifically, is the article related to a village situated in Albania, namely the Kato Lesinitsa village. First off, the name of the village is in Greek language. Now, because Greek is not an official language in the Republic of Albania, I don't see why it's not written with its official Albanian name - Leshnica. Second, the village is situated within the borders of Albania. Because it is very close to the Greek border, certain Greek Wikipedians have edited the article in such a way that an ignorant Wikipedia reader would think the village is in Greece, which is not the case. Based on these arguments, I decided to modify the article to pertain to the NPOV, and I also added a new point on the talk page briefly explaining my intention. Having placed that page on my watchlist, I noticed that user User:The Cat and the Owl had undone my revision, even though I did explain my reasons on the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his edits.
This is a very specific example of disinformation, but I notice it's common on most of the articles related to cities, villages, issues, etc. of Southern Albania, which borders Greece. While I am aware of the historical facts of both sides, I strongly believe that a biased set of references from either side does not contribute to the Wikipedia NPOV.
If there is a specific Wikipedia page where I can place certain discussions, please let me know.
Ethnic and cultural conflicts
![[44]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Brave_mel.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g206/Zetaman1/Illyria%2520Forums/image002.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.network54.com/Forum/63400/thread/1152174894/last-1163309551/Hellenism%2Bof%2Bsouth%2BIllyria-%2BOn%2Belements%2Bof%2Bpolitical%2Borganization%2Bof%2Billyrian%2Bcommunities&h=914&w=743&sz=152&hl=en&start=13&sig2=1B9y8hvf0fNs5DMMuA5EZA&tbnid=dJuTDP5CUM5IGM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=119&ei=s0BVSJPpHYfi1waN4ZGSAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dillyria%2Bmap%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG){kind=link}
![[54]](http://www.pollitecon.com/html/macedonian_spark/index%20orig3_files/macedonian_spark_lg.gif){kind=link}
![[55]](http://www.makbiz.com.au/user_media/logo/images/41.gif){kind=link}
![[56]](http://www.prestonlions.com/plfc/logo_amw_001.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](http://www.sportscentreoz.com/qmdg/Communitycentrelogo.gif){kind=link}
![[58]](http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5643/carteethnographiquedelaga4.jpg){kind=link}
picture is typicall irredentism, nationalism and propaganda. I suggest this picture should be deleted. They who support this picture claim something that is irrelevant such as EU membership (lol) but in fact they use this picture for something different, spreading away the idea of San Stefano Bulgaria and some kind of non natural, non historical and non cultural or linguistical unification. Please chek it and if there is possibility delete that picture. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
