User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Falsification again

Seems to be happening in Maleševo-Pirin dialect. BalkanFever 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the accusations of falsification I find VMORO's edits on this particular article pretty justified and NPOV. I already tried to explain that there are two (now one) dialect currently - one of Bulgarian language and one of Macedonian. I even think there should be two articles on it since for the past 60 years the people in the two regions have changed the way they talk as they were living in two different countries trying to promote their own standart language. That's what VMORO has written in the article - he has not removed any tags, nor the mention that the dialect is a dialect of Macedonian, so what seems to be the problem? Have you already checked the sources btw? --Laveol ^T 08:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

He tries to word it so that the fact that it is Macedonian looks like a fringe view, and he moves the refs away from Macedonian to Bulgarian to "prove" this. I really don't think Schmeiger actually said anything about Maleševo-Pirin (let alone how Bulgarian it apparently is) in "The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis". Tell me, what kind of bullshit is that? BalkanFever 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Better than the previous bullshit in which all dialects in the region of Macedonia were described as Macedonian - the dream of the irredentist, ey?! He at least leaves place for other languages to exist. --Laveol ^T 10:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said the dialects weren't transitional. Get a dictionary and maybe you'll understand. And no, the guy whose ass you're kissing doesn't "leave place for other languages to exist", he deliberately makes facts he doesn't like look like fringe views. BalkanFever 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you what the article said and not what you were saying. We're both not linguists and we're more or less insinuating here. And I'd appreciate it if you don't use words like "the guy whose ass you're kissin". I suggest we continue this on another talkpage (choose mine or yours)--Laveol ^T 10:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hello can you please take care of this speedy delete. Looks like a test page, you decide. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 08:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Knonis

Hi, this user now seems to be discussing constructively and I think the edit-warring situation is more or less resolved. Don't know if you noticed, but I had actually reported him and then retracted the report shortly before you blocked. A case for leniency? It also turns out the image contribution was okay after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dodona

Can anything be done about that guy? He keeps posting his nonsensical comments in article and talk space under Macedoni from Korca and various IPs 80.78.64.246, 80.91.122.11 etc. 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another: Arianitasi. Could you do anything about it or should I just ask another admin who will need an explanation going back to 2007? 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean War Crimes

Future.

I was the initial author of this topic. I used the reference that I gave at the bottom of the article from the original academic papers.

I know your statement not to be true. Dealing with such specific cases, it is impossible not to use the same language and using quotation where accredited is not WP:Copyvio.

If I am incorrect, please provide the 3 or 4 internet pages you refer to.

I cant comment on how it stood at the point your deleted it, as you have removed the history but there were 11 votes for and 2 against.

I am sorry but where policy states specific material only I have to challenge your action. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. It is "impossible not to use the same language"? Take an academic writing class at your friendly local university, quick. It is very much possible, and in fact crucial, to use your own language. Otherwise you are committing plagiarism. When I see texts like that in a student's paper they get a fail mark, if I see it from a wiki editor they get speedy deletion.

By the way, my deletion was entirely independent of the spectrum of opinions on the AfD, it was a Speedy deletion.

For the record, here's a few representative samples of how you plagiarised:

Source	Original text	Your text
[1]	When parts of South Korea were under North Korean control, political killings, reportedly into the tens of thousands, took place in the cities and villages. [...] South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, often with U.S. military knowledge and without trial, executed in turn tens of thousands of leftist inmates and alleged Communist sympathizers [...] Gregory Henderson, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time, put the total figure at 100,000, and the bodies of those killed were often dumped into mass graves.	Political killings, reportedly into the tens of thousands, took place in cities and villages. South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, executed tens of thousands of leftist and alleged communist sympathizers, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time putting the total figure at 100,000, the bodies of those killed were often dumped into mass graves.
[2]	Korean forces on both sides routinely rounded up and forcibly conscripted both males and females in their area of operations; thousands of them never returned home.	Korean forces on both sides routinely rounded up and forcibly conscripted both males and females in their area of operations; thousands of them never returned home.
[3]	After the withdrawal of Japanese forces, there were calls for committees to identify and expose those who were Japanese sympathizers and collaborators, thus beginning the process of reconciliation.	After the withdrawal of Japanese forces, there were calls for committees to identify and expose those who were Japanese sympathizers and collaborators, thus beginning the process of reconciliation.
[4]	But while South Korea was under military dictatorship the victims and their family members had to keep silent, fearing punishment if they spoke out.	While South Korea was under military dictatorship the victims and their family members had to keep silent, fearing punishment if they spoke out
[5]	A Korean government commission cleared 83 of 148 Koreans convicted by the Allies of war crimes during World War II. The commission ruled that the Koreans, who were categorized as Class B and Class C war criminals, were in fact victims of Japanese imperialism. Of the 148 Koreans convicted of war crimes, some 23 would eventually be executed. Excluded from redemption were high-ranking officers and MPs suspected of voluntarily collaborating with the Japanese; Some 86 names were looked at overall; a judgment on the other three will follow investigations by local government bodies. The commission ruled—now get this—that the Korean war criminals, who “unavoidably” became POW camp guards to avoid the Japanese draft (read: they volunteered as POW guards to avoid fighting at the front), were saddled by the Japanese with responsibility for the abuse of Allied POWs, and hence had to suffer the “double pain” of forced mobilization AND becoming a war criminal. It gets better—the head of the commission said analysis of military prosecutor records, recently obtained from British state archives, on 15 Korean POW camp guards “confirmed” that they were convicted of war crimes “without clear evidence.”	A Korean government commission cleared 83 of 148 Koreans convicted by the Allies of war crimes during World War II, some 23 of whom would eventually be executed. The commission ruled that the Koreans, who were categorized as Class B (conventional war crimes), and Class C (crimes against humanity) war criminals, were in fact "victims of Japanese imperialism". Excluded from redemption were high-ranking officers suspected of voluntarily collaborating with the Japanese. The commission ruled that the Korean war criminals “unavoidably” became POW camp guards to avoid the Japanese draft, that is they volunteered as POW guards to avoid fighting at the front, were made to carry the responsibility for the abuse of Allied POWs by the Japanese, and hence had to suffer a “double pain” of forced mobilization and becoming a war criminal. The head of the commission said that 15 Korean POW camp guards “confirmed” that they were convicted of war crimes “without clear evidence.”

And it goes on and on like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I add something on the user's conduct? Whenever this self-claim newbie refers to me, he writes like Appletrees (talk · contribs)/Caspian blue (talk · contribs) with insulting bashing, as if I was using a sock or doing something wrong. So I said to Ex-oneatf to refrain doing that and does not listen to this. Besides, he copy-pastes the same comment here and there (even a cooperatvie member of one of projects that I've engaged in as a promotion. The editor is clearly gaming the Wiki rule as claiming that sources are referenced. However the only inline citations I found are bogus and the article is copyvio. I cann't assume good faith.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The user did not add weblinks that he uses, I wonder why. That made editors unable to confirm the sources. The two of them above are not even reliable sites.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ArberBorici and ethnic "purity"

Hello FP,

User:ArberBorici has lately embarked on a campaign to remove any foreign names and pretty much anything foreign in Albanian geography articles on the sole grounds that "these languages are not official, therefore they should be removed". I keep telling him that Wikipedia is not about official policy, but he pretends he doesn't hear it and carries on regardless. Would you please be so kind as to weigh in on the discussion in Talk:Albania? Even more disturbing I find this edit here [6], which makes his agenda pretty clear. Not to mention this edit here [7], which is pure WP:POINT by even his own admission [8]. The discussion in Talk:Albania has degenerated into farce, with even our old friends Dodona chiming in. Thank you. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It never ceases to astonish me how easily people get their sense of appropriateness skewed by their national partisanship.

• "I want our name on their article! There's our minority that lives there!" — [Next day:] "You can't have your name on our article! Your minority sucks/is non-existent/lacks offical recognition/has no right to be there/no longer lives there because we drove them out and happily got rid of them!
• "If you can have your name on our article, I will force our name on your article!
• "If you remove our name from your article, I will remove your name from our article!
• "I just wanted to put our name on his article. But then he violated WP:POINT by putting his name on ours!"
• "I just wanted to remove their name from our article. But then he violated WP:POINT by removing our name from theirs!"

I keep hearing people shouting one or other of these all over the place, in all possible combinations, time and time again. I hope you can at least see that they are all five of them equally idiotic. He's just taken one of these positions, so he loses. And you have just taken another of them, so you lose too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which position I "took" because it is not clear to me. Did I remove the Albanian name from Ioannina? No. Did I remove the Slavic name from Florina? No. Did I remove the Turkish name from Komotini? No. Did I remove sourced material from an article because I didn't like it? No. In fact, I only remove names from the lead in extreme cases, such as the Turkish name from places such as Corinth and Tripoli. In any case, it is quite clear you are not interested in resolving this dispute, so thank you for your time and have a nice day. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the position you just exemplified was #4 in the list above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I didn't put any names in any articles. I merely added refs and re-instated sourced material that the other guy removed for no good reason. Did you even look at my contribs log before attempting to belittle me? And your #4 doesn't make sense to begin with, because WP:POINT is disruptive behavior, period. There is nothing wrong with calling someone on it, especially when I did not engage in such behavior myself. You're an admin. I shouldn't have to tell you this. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I always strive for an NPOV. This may sound naive to some, but that's a fact, and almost true, as facts tend to be. Now, the administrator has given five classes of what he calls idiotic, and what I prefer to call part of the idiocracy that is embarking on Wikipedia. In fact, I hardly see myself in any of those categorizations because every attempt of mine is to ameliorate the facts in articles related not only to Albania (my homeland). It takes, of course, a high degree of seriousness to comprehend that. No wonder Wikipedia becomes an object of criticism from time to time, which I always tend to counter-argument.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does this edit of yours [[9]] "ameliorate" the article in question? Care to explain? Not to mention your other POINTish edits on Ioannina Prefecture --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

someone being rude

Just to let you know that an anonymous editor has left an edit summary on cy: which appears to be a comment aimed against yourself. See: [10] — Alan^✉ 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Petar Stoychev

There are two articles about him: Petar Stoychev and Petar Stoichev. Maybe it will be better to merge them in one! Regards!Jingby (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Schmeiger

Do you have his book The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis? VMORO is using it as a source that Maleševo-Pirin is a dialect of Bulgarian, and to affirm that this "Blagoevgrad-Petrich" is Bulgarian. I have doubts, considering the book is about Macedonian, in Greece, not in RoM, and not about Bulgarian.

Also, he uses Trudgill to source that the dialect is Bulgarian but not Macedonian, even though Trudgill clearly states that in Bulgaria the language of its citizens is considered Bulgarian, and in Macedonia the language of its citizens is considered Macedonian, without (AFAICT) referring to Maleševo-Pirin (or Blagoevgrad-Petrich) at all.

Furthermore, he uses Roland Sussex and Paul Cubberley's The Slavic languages to source the Bulgarian-ness of Maleševo-Pirin, even though "Pirin" appears only once (p. 510), where it states it is transitional. The words Blagoevgrad and Petrich don't appear at all, yet it is used as a source for that too.

Please take a look, as this looks like a serious sourcing problem. BalkanFever 08:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't got access to the Schmieger text right now; I have only the quote that somebody put on the "...in Greece" page some time ago. I could probably find it somewhere if I found the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, it might be worth looking at Trudgill's Greece and European Turkey: From Religious to Linguistic Identity too (again, really doubt mentions of Bulgaria and RoM). The Sussex book (and the page cited, 510) is in the Google Book preview. Thanks. BalkanFever 09:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would you care to remind me how to upload a picture? I want to insert it in the Permet article. It shows an ancient tumulus during excavation and comes from: Zhaneta Andrea, "Archaeology in Albania, 1973-83", Archaeological Reports, No. 30, (1983 - 1984), p. 115. The site has now been reburried for conservation so there is no way to go there and take a snapshot. I want to use it as a visual illustration of the necropolis mentioned in the article. As I already explained it is not replacable since the excavation site is no longer accessible. BTW the article still reads more like a tourist leaflet. The editors seem more preoccupied with the constant bickering over the name... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried something, please have a look and tell me if it is OK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Burrial_Tumulus_at_Pliscova.JPG --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Shit... Just found out that the site was not reburried... how can I delete it?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, pity about your efforts, but thanks for being so careful about it. I'll delete it then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... thanks anyway. And sorry for the mess--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

One link per line

I do not know on which article you had this disagreement with 157etc., and I do not intend to comment on the edit-warring issue, but where is this "rule" "one link per line"? I know the MoS "recommendations" "avoid ovewikilinking" or "do not wikilink articles already wikilinked", but the aforementioned rule I have never heard of. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's specifically about dab pages, not normal articles. Dab pages should only have wikilinks to the actual target articles that are being disambiguated, not any other words used in the definitions. Somewhere at WP:MOSDAB. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok! Sorry and thanks for the info!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek

I am calling you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (knife) (2nd nomination) discussion. It will be nice to hear thinking of somebody who is not afraid of Balkan discussion and who is not from ex Yugoslavia--Rjecina (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bitola inscription

Why did you change the article about the Bitola inscription?Where is the view point?Explain please?

The image isn't just free but absolutely free because it was released by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences just like 90%+ the authentic documents which are used in the historical dispute between Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.The books published by BAS and dedicated to the Macedonian question had never had copyright, preventing them from being distributed.Exactly the opposite.The only restriction and condition is no one to use them to gain commercial benefits.Furthermore, the books are uploaded on several sites, maintained either by BAS itself, either by some of its members and everywhere it's written that the content is free for all kinds of purposes, excluding the commercial one.Consequently using the image I don't break any rule for the COPYRIGHT.

As for the content of the article, don't get offended but please do a little research the next time when you directly revert.On the preserved part of the stone inscription is clearly written "son of Aron".Everyone fluent in Cyrillic from Siberia to the Adriatic coast is able to read it.Therefore the hypothesis that Ivan Asen II was the author of the inscription is automatically refuted by its content.His father was Ivan Asen I, to whom he is named after, whereas Aron was brother of Samuil and father of Ivan Vladislav.There is no other Aron in the history of Bulgaria and Macedonia, thus it's impossible Ivan from the inscription to be Ivan Asen II.
Regarding the inscription of Ivan Asen II, yes, such a thing exists, however it has nothing to do with Bitola.It was found in Veliko Turnovo where was his capital and the content includes self-glorifying after series of military successes and territorial expansion.
Concerning the presumable viewpoint, the fact that it's offensive to the Macedonians doesn't lower the authenticity of the text.The two so called sources include analyses not of the content but of the specifics of the text and noone puts under question the authenticity of the stone inscription. --BulgarianPatriot (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First, about the image: It was falsely tagged as being public domain because of being over 100 years old, which is patent nonsense. If you say it's free for non-commercial use, first, you have brought no proof of that, second, it's not sufficient anyway. Free for non-commercial use only is not free enough for us.

Second, about the content. The article is citing academic discussions of the inscription that call its age into question (not its authenticity as medieval though). The opinion that it is younger than Ivan Vladislav exists among experts. For whatever reasons, I don't care. This was extensively documented in the talk page. You or I have no business arguing whether that is plausible or not. Your personal opinion, just like mine, is totally irrelevant here.

Third, I have not the foggiest clue why this inscription, let alone the details of its dating, would be a matter of Bulgarian-Macedonian ideological contention. I don't want to know. Our readers don't want to know either. If you are here editing this article with some such agenda in mind, I can only tell you: keep out. Go away. Hands off. This project is not for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I decided a mail in Bulgarian would explain things better. Both points are taken it (the image and the other). I almost guessed what your answer would be :)--Laveol ^T 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never denied the abovewritten but you replied only to a certain extent to my question and not to the gist.After the authenticity of the inscription isn't disputed and all scientists agree that it's Medieval then why we ignore the content of the text.From the clearly readable part whose content isn't disputed we have the following facts:

• The name of the King(Tsar) was Ivan
• He was Bulgarian
• He was son of Aaron
• Ivan from the inscription did something in 1014/1015 which isn't readable but we have the exact year

Let's now look at the facts: Ivan Vladislav ruled Bulgaria from 1015 to 1018 and he was from the house of Comeptopuli.From the same house there is Aaron who had a son called Ivan. Ivan Asen II from the house of Asen ruled Bulgaria from 1218 to 1241 and he was named after his father Ivan Asen I. So, the hypothesis the that the author was Ivan Asen II is automatically refuted by the text and I see no reason this to be excluded from the article.Furthermore, I didn't remove the sentence saying than some scientists think that the inscription might be by Ivan Asen II but just added that the text of the inscription proves exactly the opposite.

As for the image, I reuploaded it giving all the necessary information and sources.Check it please and say whether it's in accordance to the Wikipedia's rules. --BulgarianPatriot (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask the academics who have dated the text to the 13th century why they did so. There's no use us discussing that here. They were presumably not idiots, and I guess they also knew who Aaron was. As I said, your opinion is irrelevant, and so is any argument you bring forward on the basis of your own syllogism (see WP:NOR). – As for the image, I already re-deleted it. You told me it was free for non-commercial use only, that settles it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely they weren't idiots but in fact their opinion isn't the generally accepted one.It's just a hypothesis and remains such until it's scientifically proven.And exactly because the academic society isn't full with idiots such strange statements, at least on the basis of the text of the inscription, provoked my suspicion.Thus I decided to check what is the real text in the sources which are supposed to defend the position that the author was Ivan Asen.After copy/paste in Google the full text of the both references, there were not many results.The common thing was that all of them were either from the different editions of Wikipedia, either from sites which utterly copied the article from wikipedia, either from one ultra-nationalistic forum.Nowhere else there was anything about the references, given in the article.Well, certainly I can't make you remove these references and I've never asked for such a thing but it's only up to you whether you will allow the inclusion of facts, clearly readable, whose only opposition are two references with prime source an ultra-nationalistic forum.

--BulgarianPatriot (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You really, really need to make some effort wrapping your head around WP:NOR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eichikiyama

Can you take a look into the contribution history of Eichikiyama (talk · contribs)? The deletion campaign by the user reminds me so familiar cabal. His edit summaries do not match to his edits. He claims "there's no source" as deleting cited information, or "there is no such info" as there is such info in the sources. This kind of behaviors look very disruptive, so please examine his behaviors. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby

Broke his topic-ban here. BalkanFever 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How interestingly! Jingby (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban Jingiby, he is racist and pan-slavist, he is against real sources. look what he did in turkic peoples page.--195.174.21.135 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and thank you for the recognition, dear sockpuppet! Jingby (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Korean war crimes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Korean war crimes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As a rule I dont use websites unless you call Jstor etc websites.

Future,

The topic is exact title of at least one major academic work, obviously referenced in many. I think you are jumping to conclusions here.

• The vets page you link to I had not seen. Actually it uses the same declassified government document as I referenced, the Philip D. Chinnery report which is why it is the same.
• The Scofield quotation was referenced at the bottom of the page.
• The Gittings quotation was referenced at the bottom of the page.
• Ditto the blog, again it is quoting the same original reference as I quoted. That does not equate to me quoting it.

and it goes on ... just because some blog quotes the same quote, it does not mean I saw it. All the orignal references I used were listed at the bottom of the article.

I already accepted the need to place the quotation in inline citation as requested and had marked the article inuse. You would need to more specific about the narrative element you critize.

You are quite correct, the problem with addressing contentious issue if one interprets the data, one is then accused of "original research" and so I use short, referenced citations where there can be no accusation of synthesis etc.

I can re-work all the quotation into inline citation as requested but I would like the discussion and history restored please.

I have used the copies for raising a question as above and at Media copyright questions. I will knock out a barebones article to act as a holding page shortly. Thank you. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing to work on it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ex-oneatf/Korean_war_crimes2.

I would appreciate your comments. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not enough for the references to be provided. You must write your own text. Taking over the sentence structure, choice of words and/or progression of ideas from a source is and always will be plagiarism. The only alternative is to mark something as a direct quote, but of course you can't have an article that just consists of direct quotes from start to finish, as yours would have to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the article was re-created by the original author, and re-deleted by User:Richardcavell. More info at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16. --Amble (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Confused

What did I do? This evening I just came back from a short holiday, and I discover that I have been blocked, and that block had already expired. Since I am not aware of any of the accused action before my wikibreak, and your message was equivocal, I want an explanation.Xasha (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See here the explanation. --Olahus (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So I was sentenced in absentia? How nice of you telling everybody about it, except me.Xasha (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, aren't you glad you were blocked at a time you were away anyway? You're a lucky guy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The next time Olahus harrases me and accuses me behind my back, he'll point to my block log and say "Look! He's evil! A respectable admin blocked him!". So I'm not glad. Moreover, I would want to know if I still have to abid to WP:3RR, cause it seems that's become obsolete.Xasha (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that you both have gone immediately back to revert-warring in exactly the same way, I'd say: "Stop digging" would be pretty sound advice. Goes for both of you. No, just keeping below 3R is definitely not safe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy is following me everywhere and reverting me.[11] That's clearly harassment. Wtf I'm supposed to do?Xasha (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, edits like this are necessary. You seem to ignore WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I'm gonna cite you :"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." Xasha, I hope you understand what I mean. If you still, don't understand, let's discuss the issue in the talk page of the article. --Olahus (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process). If this isn't harassment, nothing is.Xasha (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Some Dr. Who Image

Per your request, I have expanded the rationale. WilyD 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, thanks for catching the infobox. I have no clew how I fucked that up. WilyD 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for informing me anyhow. If it gets overturned it'll be a first for me, but I'm sure it'll happen someday. WilyD 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued plagiarism by Ex-oneatf

User:Ex-oneatf earlier recreated the article Korean war crimes, with numerous instances of plagiarism remaining. It was deleted by User:Richardcavell, but Ex-oneatf is again keeping a copy in user space here, and has inserted portions of it into Comfort women. Most worrying, the editor appears to be trying to obscure the problem by rearranging words and phrases, which in fact makes the problem worse and worse. Please see his argument at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16 and Talk:Comfort women. I suspect an admin's voice is needed; there's not much I can usefully do here besides check for more affected articles. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The false map of the Slavic dialects in Greece

[...]

Incoherent ramblings removed, because there's no way I could respond to them and remain polite. Both Feristos Despoton and Politis, you are not welcome posting further on this topic unless you can answer me the question: Which isogloss, if any, runs between Serres and Drama? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Threats?

Accusations of 'insinuating' and 'crossing the line' sound like a threat to me; of course I may be wrong dear administrator and I especially do not wish to be misunderstood by you, therefore I ask you to please explain. The best way to silence is not by blocking but through reason, correct quotes and by listening. Thank you. Politis (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you still here? Off to the library, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bonny alert

Or whoever that is, it's hard to tell them apart. --Illythr (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Working Group Wiki Final Report

Hey, as a reminder, the Working Group is approaching our 6-month deadline for producing our final report. The draft is being built at [12]. Could you please stop in, and see if there is anything you'd like to add? Or if not, just signoff at the talkpage that you are okay on how things are going? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Olahus and Xasha

i'm not very familiar with the dispute between Olahus and Xasha but it seems the latter is indeed involved in disputes with many editors, and most of the time he's just brutally imposing his POV and disrupting articles with no intention whatsoever of reaching concensous . Don't you think the 2 weeks punishment for Olahus it's a little bit harsh for what he did ? Rezistenta (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotedumping

The Cat and the Owl has resorted to jamming all the "important quotes" in the references section of Macedonian naming dispute. They're not really references since they aren't cite-able and don't contain links. Theoretically, I could just make one up and chuck it there. BalkanFever 07:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, I was expecting something like that!... Anyway, you can always buy the books and see for yourself. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, dumping extensive literal quotes in footnotes is not something good encyclopedia writers normally do, can you please reconsider what function those quotes have, other than making you feel good for reiterating an opinion you agree with? Having literal quotes in footnotes is a bad habit that has recently been introduced in some quarters. It's not recommended anywhere in the MoS, it's not done in normal academic writing; where did you guys get the notion from that this was a good idea anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the best way to help readers follow references, nothing more than that. Of course I understand some people will disagree with some references but after all they are RS. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, he might be misquoting Danforth to "legitimise" Greek "concerns", but I'm not sure. BalkanFever 07:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which Danforth quote? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly "Whether a Macedonian nation existed at the time or not, it is perfectly clear that the communist party of Yugoslavia had important political reasons for declaring that one did exist and for fostering its development through a concerted process of nation building, employing all the means at the disposal of the Yugoslav state". I have to say it does sound like Danforth may have said it, but I'm just not sure. BalkanFever 07:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I vaguely remember (a while back) someone said that the US Senate resolution thing wasn't official/binding/holding any weight in any way, just something that two Greek MPs in the US came up with. BalkanFever 08:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

I can haz rollback? Köbra ^Könverse 11:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

T hank you for removing my block. I want you to know that I don't see myself as promoting any particular ideology or religion. I am an atheist by belief but I have good reasons to believe that western impearlism historians distorted the history and image of the occupied colonies. I am trying to change that in the interest of truth. Please let me know if there is anything wrong with that according to wikipedia policy. Sindhian (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What's up!

Thanks for the barnstar. I feel me and you have become friends, and it's cool that you can laugh at my misfortune. ;) Beam 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian adjectives

Hi Stifle, excuse me for butting in, I just happened to see this discussion here. I must agree with the user (User:Luby, I suppose?): we really do these kinds of grammar articles with detailed morphological paradigm tables. We have them for many languages, typically united under a single "X'ian grammar" article, though occasionally also factored out into subarticles. Luby has also created Serbian nouns and Serbian conjugation as subarticles of Serbian grammar. These are prima facie legitimate articles, given our precedents, and I really can't see how they fall under any of the CSD. Would you reconsider and undelete? I'd personally favour subsequent merging into Serbian grammar, possibly cutting down a little bit on the tables, I'd have to work that out with the author. (BTW, thanks for clarifying the other thing, about the DRV.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I could agree with that one. Articles on Fooian nouns and Fooian adjectives don't belong in Wikipedia, but I think Fooian grammar might. I've restored the page and redirected it to Serbian grammar. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

revert

You dont like the issue, so can you also revert/remove your last entry on my talk page? Politis (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you remove it yourself? It's your page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, I will.Politis (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What's this that has droped on my talk page? What does one do with it? A code, a reference, an explanation? 3AFeristos_despoton&diff=226970594&oldid=226768189 Politis (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks just like a misplaced fragment of a diff link? See here: [13]. It was just the last line of my posting that you forgot to delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I appreciate your effot to Liancourt Rock article.

But i found some Wrong edit in article. But i can't change article. Please can you help me this? how can i change this article?

1877 Daijō-kan order

In 1877, Japanese Daijō-kan issued an order stating that Ulleungdo and another island are not under Japanese rule [1][2]. Korea claims that this "another island" refers to Liancourt Rocks and considers this order as an evidence that Liancourt Rocks were under the control of Korea. Japan considers that this "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks.

Japan was NOT considers that this "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks.

Japan goverment never metioned that 1877 Daijō-kan order. Japan goverment still NOT answer about this docment. There is no official response to this document from mofa.go.jp(The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan). so, Japan never says "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks

and "antoher island" is currently Liancourt Rocks. This is very clear. This is not dispute at all. www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html

1905 Japanese Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40

[...] Japan claims the incorporation was valid on grounds that Liancourt Rocks was a "terra nullius" and that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published. [...]

This is Wrong. In 1905, Japn hide this fact.[14]

When we read the above article it’s immediately apparent there is no mention of Liancourt Rocks in Shimane’s “announcement”. In documents and maps both European and Japanese of this era Dokdo / Takeshima was almost exclusively referred to as “Liancourt Rocks”. The announcement is on the second page, without headlines, broken in half and little larger than a classified ad in the personals section. It’s not clear how many people actually read the San-in Shimbum in 1905. It’s highly unlikely the above ad was seen by many Japanese people, and was certainly not read by citizens of other concerned nations.

In 1906, Korean realized that Japan incorporate This island. and Ullengdo Goverment answer is "Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation" [15][16] Korean cleary prostested this. so, This sentence is Wrong.

Post World War II era

[...] Government reply on the issue of sovereignty between South Korea and Japan, and it states that Liancourt Rocks are territory of Japan. (However, the current U.S. government stands on a neutral position on this issue.)

This is Wrong. User omitted other US goverment answer.

Here is the other document. This document is a memo entitled "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" from the US Embassy, Tokyo to the US State Department, dated October 3, 1952.

"...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean State..." http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690801055/

"(a)Japan recognizing the independences of Korea, renounces all rights and title and to Korea, including the Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, and Liancourt Rock." 1951.7.13 US goverment" http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690794949/

According to 1953.12.9 US docuement,

"[The] US view re Takeshima [is] simply that of one of many signatories to [the] treaty."

" The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as [a] legitimate claim for US action under [the U.S.-Japan] security treaty

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690787983/

Please I want change sentence.

Masonfamily (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i found one wrong edit more[17]

South Korea has controlled them since July 1954.

this is wrong. Korea controlled this island since WW2.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690838397/

1951 Map (drawed by Japanese goverment 衆議院) -Dokdo was Officialy exclude in Territory of Japan.

---

before 1953, Japan goverment did not recognized that Dokdo belong to Japan. even Korea-Japan annexation period(1910~1945), Dokdo was classified as a part of Gangwondo, Korea. After 1945, Korea liberation from Japan, Korea shortly govered by USFK and WW2 allied force. even that period, Dokdo was classified as a Korean territory.

Even 1951 Map (drawed by Japanese goverment 衆議院)

Dokdo was Officialy exclude in Territory of Japan.

Oh! Please i want participate this edit. This article edited by Japanese user only. Masonfamily (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 71.17.71.70

Hi FutPerf,

I noticed certain edits by IP 71.17.71.70, especially at the following page: Laç. I am not reverting the changes, so you could compare the two most recent versions. Could you please confirm that this is a case of vandalism, or of irrelevant edits, and could you make sure that this doesn't happen again? Thanks, _{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 16:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that one was pretty obvious, wasn't it. In such cases, just revert; if they do it again, warn them on their talk page; if they don't stop, report them at WP:AIV. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the AIV page. --_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 16:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TABOO

Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

Talk

Could you semi-protect my talk page for a while? BalkanFever 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean war crimes

Where can we see this topic on Korean war crimes? I have had a look over the comfort women topic and some of the other editors works. A lot of editing warring looks very dubious.

Its only your word we have to go on. I will be willing to work on it. The policy is clear

"If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

Text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is also not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page.

If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored." --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the section a few headings further up, #Korean War Crimes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I see a copy of the complete article? Looking at the deletion log there were two versions. Your comments only refer to the first.

It really depends on how much else there was. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked you for a copy of the Korean war crimes topic, can I have one?

re comfort women ... what are you talking about? The quoted reference clearly mentions the Korean military's involvement. So what are you specifically asking for?

I also flag up that you are removing a whole load of perfectly referenced material unrelated to this ... what is your rationale for that? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

About the old article, no you can't, it was deleted as a copyvio, it remains deleted. About the other thing, let's keep it at the article talk page. All the answers are there already. Just read what I wrote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I got a copy ... and I discovered the original is still in Google cache. Its really not that bad and a damn sight better than many topics on the Wiki. Can I ask you a question ... what axe are your really grinding here? Honestly, do you have any personal involvement that this topics raises in a difficult manner? Email me if prefer not to put it in public.

I intend to start the topic off again with a basic stub. As far as I am concerned, the wikipedia is about collaboration. Topics are best given time, and a number of authors' involvement , to develop. It is ridiculous to expect perfection straight off.

Do you have any problems with that? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is still a legitimate use?

I'm wondering who that user might be. Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm concerned too. It's certainly toeing the line about "legitimate" alternative account use. On the other hand, the other account they are battling with is a lot worse, a typical nationalist tendentious editor. Not sure what to do at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sotiriou

We need more information than obvious sockpuppet. Please provide a better reason for blocking on the users talk page. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an obvious sock of a long series of single-purpose accounts all adding the same advertisement text to the same company article. The user has since been in e-mail contact with me; the matter is being taken care of. I'll unblock him as soon as he writes back to me to confirm he's understood why he can't use Wikipedia for his advertisement. I've been waiting for his response for 24h; has he been admin-shopping elsewhere instead of responding to me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He was on IRC in #wikipedia-en-unblock inquiring about it. Log below (times in EDT).

Extended content

[11:02:39] *ChanServ* [#wikipedia-en-unblock] Unblock conversation logs may be published [12:58:08] -->| sotiriou ... has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock [13:07:41] <Rjd0060> sotiriou: Can I help you with something? [13:07:53] <sotiriou> yes [13:08:47] <Rjd0060> and what might that be? [13:09:17] <sotiriou> i am trying to write in article intralot something and i have the follow message obvious sockpuppet. [13:10:03] <sotiriou> i am from this company and we try for a days to change the article [13:10:22] <sotiriou> and always block me [13:10:46] <sotiriou> can you help me about this [13:11:19] <Rjd0060> I left a note with the blocking administrator [13:11:25] <Rjd0060> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#User:Sotiriou [13:11:32] <Rjd0060> Just wait for that response. [13:11:47] <sotiriou> ok [13:11:53] <sotiriou> thanks a lot [13:11:57] <Rjd0060> No problem [13:12:15] <sotiriou> after that [13:12:30] <sotiriou> may i change the article without a problem [13:12:47] <Rjd0060> sotiriou: It depends on what the blocking admin says [13:12:52] <Rjd0060> I am not sure of the entire situation [13:13:00] <sotiriou> ok [13:13:04] <sotiriou> regards [13:33:28] <--| sotiriou has left #wikipedia-en-unblock

I'll let you continue to handle it, and won't involve myself. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Albanian history section

I revised the albanian history section in the article about the country but i have the usual problems with some bigots.Please check to see if my version is actually an improvement or not or if i made any wrong.It's pity most of the articles to be sentenced to meritocracy because of the attitudes of some people.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

An Yong-bok

FYI please see Talk:An Yong-bok -- a pre-emptive move :-( --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Greece

Hey!

I was under the impression that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) formed a generally agreed upon consensus that Republic of Macedonia is the preferred term to be used over Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM or any variation of those terms. Foreign relations of Greece seems to have had some edit warring over that issue and the country is currently referred to as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Should this be corrected or is it acceptable in this situation? Maybe I should just leave it up to people who know a little more about this subject than I do.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion about these cases at WP:MOSMAC. Greek editors insisted on having "Articles related to Greece" as a kind of island in its own POV reality, where "f.Y...." was to be used. I can see absolutely no objective justification in policy for that, but the guideline ended up spelling out "no consensus" for these situation. That means: if in doubt, leave as is. It's really no more than partial capitulation to the revert-warring force of the Greek POV team. If you want to take the matter up and enforce NPOV policy as it really ought to be, you'll have my support, but expect a lot of opposition. This will only ever be solved reasonably if the native Balkanian POV factions can be sidelined by an informed, independent consensus of international editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I was grossly mistaken to think that there was a generally agreed upon solution (even if it meant a fierce opposition from a vocal minority) and that it only needed to be enforced. I think I will leave this can of worms unopened for now and, if anything, I may try to influence this at policy level in some way, shape or form.

Thanks for the response.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation/abuse of your administrator privileges

I filed a request for mediation regarding the ongoing issues over sensitive Korean-Japanese topics.

It is primarily about Caspian blue's conduct, and between them and myself, but I made referenced to your threat on my user talk page and have asked for a second opinion.

I note your lack of discussion on the topic page and cannot see that I have anything to apologise to you about.

Frankly, if it is your intent to intimidate me, then I think it is an abuse of your administrator privileges. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks

• WP:ANI#Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks

Since you have involved in Comfort women, Korean war crimes and observed to Japan-Korea disputes and Lucy's conducts, your input would be appreciated. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Janos Kurko (talk · contribs), Erdeniss (talk · contribs), and Lordanubis007 (talk · contribs) all look like the same person. What do you think? Khoikhoi 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh? Accounts editing Cluj Napoca? Cluy Napoca is full of ducks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

Hello Future. I've reviewed your statements on AN/I and I'd like to mention a few things to you. This diff doesn't reflect any dark insinuations. It looks more like general concern. She does speculate, but it didn't appear out of bad faith (more like an attempt at grief counseling, but willing to keep it personal or in private). And this diff is basically asking you to add citations to the article. The closing rhetoric you note is actually in relation to the ips or SPAs who were more than likely turning the article into what she viewed to be off topic material, and not directed toward you specifically. Frankly, I don't see any of this being an attack on you as an editor and I've already noted this on AN/I. This certainly doesn't justify a final warning posted to her talk page. Regards. Synergy 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Grief counseling? Are you kidding, man? Grief counseling, good grief, indeed. Read her insinuations in the context of what she told the other guy, which was a variation on the same theme: "Do you find it personally challenging for some reason to accept Korean involvement in the Japanese comfort women system or that so many Korean women were forced to be victims of military prostitution for such a long time? Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity that you find difficult? Is it something that you would like to discuss privately, perhaps offline because it seems to be bordering on obsessive" – This person is insinuating that we (personally, C.b. and I) have some dark and secret "issues with our sexuality" that make it difficult for us to edit such a topic? Grief, in need of counseling? This person is basically saying I'm a sexual pervert with an obsession about mass rape and forced prostitution??? This is character assassination, pure and simple. I'm utterly amazed you can't see that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be implicit, but its not directly explicit or unequivocal character assassination. I'm sorry to disagree with you on this, as you seem to be a well reasoned admin. In my opinion, this does not appear to be grounds for a block. But you are more than welcome to disagree, I hold no sway over any of this. I merely want to bring it to your attention. Synergy 12:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when is implicit character assassination less bad than explicit character assassination? There are those of us who can read and those of us who can't. Those who can will understand the implicit message all right. Those who can't had perhaps better not comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see is your inference. You came to the conclusion that this was in bad faith and the user needed to be blocked. I disagree. I don't see this as an explicit act of ill will towards you. Synergy 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, intelligent people make inferences when reading things. That's what reading is about. Now stay out of here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for barging in like that, but this is just unbelievable. It is neither an explicit nor an implicit character assasination. It is utterly insulting, pure and simple. It doesn't take a genious to understand what was meant. I hate to think what would happen if everybody was allowed to go around making vulgar remarks like this one 'Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity" --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I' d most certainly like to meet the person who would welcome such insults ως βασιλικόν βρέφος σε μανδύα ιππότου.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is more than obvious the accuser has some gender issues, and abuses male editors from feministic stance. --Lantonov (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

Damn, you archive your talk page frequently. I was going to say that Bonny is from Cluj, but this is not the same person. I noticed that you put the first sock on editing restrictions, and you will now notice that Lordanubis007 is starting to mass-revert on several pages. Just a heads-up. I can't do anything about it because I reverted him. Khoikhoi 20:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV of an IfD

I'm advising all participants in the IfD discussion for the Image Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg that a subsequent DRV was filed here. Your participation is welcome. Dreadstar † 01:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Logitech95

theres this user whose reverting back to the plagiarized version of Comfort women. Perhaps he needs a warning? Good friend100 (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

umm.... no--Logitech95 (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Fuf.Perf warning is not effective to Logitech95 for this.[18] --Caspian blue (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Hellenic sock

Hi, Future Perfect. User:Dvaaeg, User:Aegeanhawk, User:Aee1980, User:Aeg2008, and now perhaps User:Zulu1212. What do you think? Aramgar (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Mywayyy (talk · contribs). Khoikhoi 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dimorsitanos

Made a personal attack here, I warned him, and he made another one. BalkanFever 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

C'mon BF, I think you can handle those comments. Beam 05:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I can handle them, don't worry. It's not about hurting my feelings (that would be quite hard), it's about making comments like that. I'm quite sure he'll just continue doing that, and he'll probably offend someone else. BalkanFever 05:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan

Please comment at User_talk:Moreschi#Miyokan_in_sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

An anon (24.56.137.185) has been reverting my sourced contributions on tabbouleh inappropriately, and now has taken to insulting my mother rather crudely in Arabic: "KUSS IMMAK IBN SHARMUTA". This seems to be the same person as (one of the users of) User:63.237.104.67. Your advice? --Macrakis (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

VMORO, again up to the same stuff

Ultra-POV editing on Maleševo-Pirin dialect (again) here BalkanFever 11:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalin, Russian chauvinism, WP:UNDUE, edit-warring

I think you might be interested in this issue which has been subject to edit-warring for quite some time. The point that Stalin was Geogian in some sense (which is a controversial issue by itself, as he identified himself as Russian, independent Georgia didn't exist when he was born etc.) is repeatedly given undue weight by Russian chauvinists all over Wikipedia (including the article on Russia itself). I think this statement is factually inaccurate (as "Georgia (country)" didn't exist as independent country in the late 19th century) and serves to promote a painfully familiar chauvinist POV (that foreigners are to blame for everything bad in Mother Russia). Colchicum (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If to look at this article edit history, one can see that User:Krawndawg and User:Miyokan (also known as User:Berkunt and User:Ilya1166) constantly revert edits of all others. Other users complained at various talk pages including NPOV noticeboard, but without any result. More examples of disruptive behavior by these users can be provided if needed.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:91.122.87.1 may also be of some interest. Colchicum (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you might be in trouble. This user may also label you "anti-Russian" like me (even though I am Russian), a "terrorist supporter" like this user (he said:"I can only feel regret that wikipedia is open to all, including terrorist supporters"), or worse.Biophys (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bwahaha. What troubles are you talking about? Not a big deal. He will soon be in trouble instead. Colchicum (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Really-really "Russian chauvinist" gang is at Encyclopedia Britannica [19]. Please. These two WP:POINTy users have already been proven wrong. First Colchicum (and Biophys, claiming it's "nationalist "nonsense"" and "Russian chauvanist "claims") claims that Stalin wasn't Georgian, then after he is shown the Encyclopedia Britannica source he changes his position to "WP:UNDUE". And it is certainly notable that the most notorious leader of Soviet Russia was not Russian.--Miyokan (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Threatening blocks in your edit summaries

Edit warring with edit summaries that include block threats is poor form, to say the least. You remove the FUR from the image, then remove it from the article, and threaten a block to anyone who dares challenge your interpretation of NFCC. Wow. S. Dean Jameson 16:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious Epirus editor

Future Perfect, you may remember the Epirote pot-stirrer I called your attention to earlier this month: he continues to revert to the same tendentious versions of Skanderbeg, Epirus (region), and Epirus (periphery). He discusses nothing on the talkpages and has not responded to several request to maintain a neutral point of view. Could you remind him again about the WP:NPOV? Thanks. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Opp2

Hi. Fut.Perf. Can you take a look at the talk page of Liancourt Rocks? I think Opp2 starts the same old habit after his return. I and others have suggested him to make his statement readable and his point clear as well as refraining himself from denouncing an academic source which he thinks of a falsification by his own definition. I think he is doing in a unconstructive way again, and starts edit wars without a compromise[20][21]: He should not change a description based on a Korean source by other editors unless a consensus is reached as such, and present his own source, but he did not to the article) He thinks his sources are only legitimate and others are not because one of his sources is written by a Korean, so his source is only valid -_-. His fondness of using "falsification" with his own interpretation is provocative.[22][23] Besides, I tried him not to use unhelpful language and attacks, but heard this.[24] I think he would better remind the ArbCom rule again, since several people's advices to him are not effective. Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

me

Is there something wrong with my account?? I cant make any edits on South Korea? Did someone topic-ban me? was I notified somewhere and then missed it? Good friend100 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no, not that I can see. Right now you are not restricted in any way. However, topic bans are certainly floating through the air these days, so I guess you'll do well being careful lest one of them accidentally hits you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Slavic dialects of Greece‎

Hi! We have different oppinions about the opening paragraph in this article. Maybe we have to discuss them in the discussion page. I hope the we'll find some solution. Regards,--AKeckarov (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits

"Hello. Your edits to Greek Civil War and related articles are very problematic. First, you are evidently driven by a strong political agenda. Editors who want to push their own opinions into articles are not welcome at Wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOV for our policies. Second, your English is too poor. Your additions are largely ungrammatical and often almost unreadable. Please be more careful before making large changes to articles.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)"

I take this message as an advise and not as a threat.

I know the rules quite well - despite my strong political agenda.

I edited a part that is evident made by POV and is not historically correct, according to numerus references. I left your later change untouched- currently- as I have no access to my library right now.

What is "inappropriate behaviour " according to your agenda? can you describe it?

I don't want to have a dead-end dispute over here. I am trying to point out some mistakes - in my opinion- done in the creation of the specific article.

Regarding my english ..performance, I will be more careful next time.

Thank you,

D.

PS: If you can point out any discussion made for the structure of this specific article - other than allegations between left and right wing fanatics, please do. If not, I would be more than happy to contribute my best. And I will do so.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkace (talk • contribs)

Source

The following exchage took place in April and is archived at 'User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise /Archive 11']; can you link me to the "fake" map and/or the relevant conversation? Thanks. Politis (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, MacedonianBoy lives in Macedonia and I live in Germany and I do not get it how can we be as one person. MacedonianBoy is a linguist and uses prooved sources and I am "just" economist that makes articles about geography and loves his own mother tongue. regards --Raso mk (talk)

I know they work together; I've had dealings with them before. So, what is the source of that map, can somebody please tell me now? It's evidently not the one you were discussing as a "fake" earlier elsewhere; it shows entirely different things than either version of that one. That fake issue seems to be a red herring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what happened was this.

• User:PMK1 was looking for maps of Macedonian speakers and came across this thing: [25], from [26]. He asked various people on wiki for advice on if and how he could upload it.
• Somebody then found that the original of that image was here: [27], and that it was significantly different in just the detail he would have been interested in. The version on the Macedonian website was apparently manipulated. I have no indication that PMK1 himself acted in anything but good faith here, by the way, he was just an innocent victim of that forgery.
• Some days later MacedonianBoy created the Dialects of the Macedonian language page with the first version of that dialect map. He was a bit slow in identifying the source for his graphics at first. So, Laveol, in a knee-jerk reaction, jumped to the conclusion that he must have based it on the fake demographic map. Which was nonsense, because that map and the dialect areas map had no similarity whatsoever, they were totally different maps with different topics and different scope. It was plain obvious that MacedonianBoy had worked from a different model. That model turned out to be the (legitimate) Koneski map I also used for my later versions.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense and I suspected as much since I was familiar with that forgery, but could not trace the development in Wikipedia. There are many forgeries - including documents - that have been coming out of Yugoslav Macedonia and then FYR Makedonija and they are now edging into the wider European mainstream. I consider your linguistic map to be a product of those irregularities (this is not an accusation, just an interesting though disappointing realisation). The map by Koneski, I am 99% certain, is a political decision part of the post-WWII irredentist policies in Skopje when they re-baptised everything they could 'Macedonia/n'. The map was then picked up by a handful of people (by the way, can you link me to it? I think I have it [28], but you never know). I also notice with interest that Greece lags way behind in locating, let alone making sense of the nation building/forging porcess in R.Makedonija. This means that, sadly, those acamdemics and historians in Skopje who have a sound appreciation of their country's and the region's history are not heard - because it differs from the all pervasive political hardline. If anyone else reads this posting and agrees or disagrees with it, I am open to discussion. Politis (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one am surprised that no sources from Western European academia (particularly from those great Balkan ethnographers, the Germans) exist on the distribution Slavic Macedonian in Greek Macedonia and that we have to rely on Koneski. Linguistics is not my field, and I certainly do not mean to offend anyone, but I did a search for him on both Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar and found nothing published in international scientific journals besides this "personal viewpoint" [29].

Google Scholar [30] revealed two books, "Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik" and "Istorija na makedonskiot jazik", both in Slavic Macedonian, but nothing in English. Are there no scholars that publish in international journals that have studied this question? Where are all the German ethnographers and Balkan experts? I know for a fact that linguists and ethnographers spend a lot of time studying far more obscure languages and ethnic groups, so I find this a bit surprising. Anyway, like I said, I don't mean to offend anyone or gainsay their scholarship, but just to give my perspective as an academic from a different field. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, there are very serious German academic sources on the ethnography of the region of Macedonia. The most important of these is the fundamental monograph of Prof. Gustav Weigand from Duisburg, who was a prominent scholar in linguistics at the University of Leipzig:

• ETHNOGRAPHIE VON MAKEDONIEN, Geschichtlich-nationaler, spraechlich-statistischer Teil von Prof. Dr. Gustav Weigand, Leipzig, Friedrich Brandstetter, 1924, ASIN: B0018H0Y82,LCCN: 25024383, LC: DR701.M4 W4, OCLC:6692519, Open Library [31]

As all German scientists, Prof. Weigand is precise and meticulous throughout. A must read. --Lantonov (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is another German book, somewhat more recent, and even more to the point:

• Die Slaven in Griechenland von Max Vasmer, Mit eine Karte, Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1941 (Zentral Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Leipzig 1970)

--Lantonov (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tsourkpk that was great. Do you have access to the article? There has been some work on the issue by a handful of Greek linguists and historians, on the Slavophones of Greece but in the Greek language. There is currently a more detailed linguistic work being written in Paris by a pertinent academic from the region. I will continue this discussion if appropriate, on your talk page so as not to burden someone else's talk page. Politis (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would be nice if there was more scholarship about the distribution of minority speakers. The main reason there isn't is probably the hugely difficult surroundings created by the decades-old political paranoia cultivated by the Greek society about that topic. (Just imagine you're a foreign researcher trying to get local cooperation partners and you tell them you are going to find out about Macedonian Slavic speakers in Greece...) But anyway, why are we racking our brains over this? We use the scholarship that exists.

And, I repeat, the actual number and quantitative distribution of speakers is pretty irrelevant for the present map, a fact that you both still don't seem to appreciate. Difficult as this may be for you to comprehend, but the map is really, really intended to be exclusively about where those stupid isoglosses run. Slavic speakers in Florina speak more or less like those in Bitola, while those in Kastoria speak slightly differently, and those in Edessa speak like those in Veria. That's what it says, not more and not less. Whether there are 50 or 5000 or 500000 of them plays no role. And whether they identify as Greeks or Macedonians or Bulgarians or whatever plays no role either.

On this purely linguistic level, I don't see any reason to doubt what Koneski and Friedman tell us. How these speakers related to nationalities or national languages or whatever is totally irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you flatter Greek scholarship. Sure political insecurity has something to do with it, but also the astonishing Greek lack of sholarly curiosity about the region, including the varieties of Greek culture and experiences. Have you seen anything recent on Corfiot or Chian or south Albanian Greek? Or even on the Helleno-Vlach and Sarakatsani Greek of FYR Makedonija and Bulgaria? The, presumably, Greek contributions we get here are from private researchers who are giving their 2 cents worth in a manner that reminds me of our great-grandfathers' solitary pursuite of regional history (obviously, I say this with affection). Politis (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I thought we were talking about the minority languages map in the Greece article. Never mind. But on a purely academic level, you don't see a reason to doubt an academic that has exactly 0 publications in the international literature? It's a question of credentials. Or is this a case of "he might be crappy, but he's the only one we got"? On a side note, I've been hearing plenty of Señor Gruevski's statements of late to understand where this "Greek political paranoia" comes from (not to mention all that United Macedonia crap all over their diaspora). --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Links that wow... 'Folk songs in Kilkis, Macedonia, Greece' [32]; 'Slavophone Greeks speak about themselves' [33] Politis (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I interfere in this discussion because the topic is of interest to me. I notice that both sides strive for objectivity, and therefore they gain my respect. The problem is that particularly in the Macedonian case, one cannot easily separate linguistic from political aspect. The position of Future Perfect that the question is only about where some isogloss runs is a position that must be adhered to in any general lingustic mapping. In this case, however, one must be careful about historical and political issues. Thus, the map doesn't specify the period for which it is applied, nor whether it takes into account spoken, or written language, the extent of use of the language, and many such details. It may turn out, for instance, than 20 years ago in Drama there were 50 people speaking the Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian language but today they either left the region or use exclusively Greek language. In such case, stating that today this language is spoken in Drama, is misleading. To this one must add the propensity of FYROM scholars to push the border marking into the neighbour's territory as far as possible. Because there is a scholarly literature with such (or similar) map, it must not be hidden from the public but it has to be specified that it is the view of scholars from FYROM, in the absence of Greek sources, so that it must be taken with a pinch of salt. --Lantonov (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of accuracy, I am under the impression that the author of the original map is not Blaže Koneski, but Božidar Vidoeski. The map (if I am not mistaken) was first published in Blaže Koneski, A Historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language With a survey of the Macedonian dialects and a map by Bozidar Vidoeski, Tr. Victor Friedman, (Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages, 12) Heidelberg Carl Winter, 1983. This publication was a revised edition and translation of Istorija na makedonskiot jazik (1965), which included neither the Map, nor the dialect survey. Unfortunately, I have not managed to trace the book here in Athens, but it would be nice if somebody could find it (Future Perfect?) and provide any additional information (particularly on the time span of the map and the sources used for its drafting). As for Blaže Koneski, I should add that his work in codifying the Macedonian Literary language in 1944 is considered a major turning point. Lunt, Friedman, Christina Cramer considered him a mentor and have relied heavily on his work. It goes without saying that he is seen as a controversial figure in Greece and Bulgaria --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

K. Koneski, not B. ;) I think the K is for Kiril, but not sure. BalkanFever 10:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But yes, Vidoeski apparently has a map in Polski-macedonski gramatyka konfrontatiwna with Z. Topolińska. I think all the info is in the image description BalkanFever 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about Kiril (sic) Koneski? I think that this whole discussion was about this Koneski here. The map is indeed based on Vidoeski, but it was attributed to Koneski in this discussion so I thought that it would be better to clarify things a bit. I think though that the map first appeared in the publication I cited and not in the one mentioned in the image description. Be that as it may, some more background on this whole map issue would be welcome. I for one would be quite interested to learn more about it. Unfortunately, there's not much here in Athens and Friedman's book on your language is extremely concise in certain aspects--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your assumption is not unreasonable, since the more famous Koneski is Blaže, but FP can clarify who he meant. What exactly would you like to know more about in regards to the map by the way? BalkanFever 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Well well well.... look what I've found. More fucking conspiring between BF and FuPe... WHEN WILL THIS END? You guys have threatened the integrity of the encyclopedia for TOO LONG, and i FOR ONE will NOT stand FOR this, AT ALL!!! 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, somebody is yanking their chains to earn themselves yet another Very Clever Dog Award, it seems. You know what a temptation it is to see the word "block", in nice blue, right next to you guys' user names in every line where they are listed in a page history? It says to me: BalkanFever - block! Beamathan - block! Giorgos Tzimas - block! Makes my mouse finger twitch each time I read it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was all him dammit! I'm innocent! BalkanFever 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, BalkanFever and FuPe have been conspiring against you and me for several years now. Seeing as I've found the balls to proclaim these factual factful facts, they will do anything to silence me. He even threatened my clever dog. Be weary from now on Giorgos. Be weary... Beam 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew it all along... But now on a more serious note: Yes, it would be very interesting to find the Vidoeski publication I mentioned earlier. It must be very informative judging from its title--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually seems to be a recent English translation, of what is very likely essentially the same work: [34]. Thanks for pointing out the difference between Koneski and Vidoeski. With all those -skis, I must have been mixing them up all the time. By the way, don't mind Beam, he's just raving mad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL... it's been in my order list since last week and I just realized what I ordered... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now all we need to do is find out which Koneski you were confusing with Vidoeski. ;) Blaže or Kiril? BalkanFever 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I found another map in a Macedonian (FYROM) web site [35]. It shows where "Macedonian" language is spoken, and looks quite different from the map discussed here. In the legend it writes: "A map of Macedonia published in 1980 in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups indicating the areas where the Macedonian language is spoken". The site is openly nationalistic, it starts with "Macedonia for the Macedonians", etc. but it would be interesting to look in this Harvard Encyclopedia if one can find it. --Lantonov (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That map is patently unuseable for our purposes. It could serve for the map in Minorities in Greece, perhaps (where we have an even more restricted area currently shown). It has a totally different scope from the dialect map. It obviously intends only to give a very rough overview of where most of the Macedonian speakers come from. It doesn't tell us anything about dialects. So, Lagadin, Veria and Nestram aren't included in it? Too bad. And yet, the dialectological literature does describe Slavic dialects of those places. Friedman not only claims that there are (or were) speakers there, he actually describes how they speak. Maybe there are only a dozen of them left, who knows? A demographic map won't show them. A dialect map has to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says "where Macedonian language is spoken", not "where most Macedonian speakers come from". That's why it would be interesting to find the original to see what is it about. It might have some data about number of speakers, time spans, etc. Too old though, 1980. --Lantonov (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I found it with Google search but unfortunately not the page with the map. On Macedonia, only p. 691 with some interesting materials there like:

There is no way to determine the exact number of Macedonian Americans. ... However, this figure (120-150,000) includes all Slavic speaking immigrants and their descendants from the historical region [Macedonia] and does not allow for the fact that the majority of immigrants from Macedonia and their descendants identify with the Bulgarian-American community while many from Greece identify with the Greek-American community. --Lantonov (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember to have seen an academic book with maps of Bulgarian dialects. Almost certainly it covers most of the territory of the "Macedonian" language and gives details about each dialect. I will go to the library to search it and will put the info. Probably your user page is not the right place for this discussion so I can move all of this to another page of your choice. --Lantonov (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I found two of the most important books in Bulgarian dialectology by Prof. Stoyko Stoykov both published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Bulgarian Dialectology (6 editions between 1964 and 2006), and Atlas of Bulgarian Dialects (in 4 volumes). The most important isogloss in Bulgarian language, the 'Yat border', divides the whole Bulgarian speaking territory in two large dialect regions: East Bulgarian dialects, and West Bulgarian dialects. Most of the territory of Aegean Macedonia speaks Eastern Bulgarian dialects, and the Yat border passes to the east of Thessaloniki. The Slavic dialects spoken around Drama, Seres, Gyumurdzhina, Kavala, Thessaloniki (Solun) belong to the Bulgarian Rupian dialects which are spoken in the Rhodopes (Thrace) and the plains north and south of these mountains and also in the Razlog valey (also Bansko, Gotse Delchev). Regionally, these dialects belong to the region of Thrace, rather than to the region of Macedonia. For a map of Yat border, see [36]--Lantonov (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Bulgarian features are more characteristic for the Eastern and South Eastern part of the region of Macedonia and infrequently are found in its western territory. East Bulgarian dialects in Macedonia have primarily Rupian character (Rhodopean and Thracian) because the dialects in the South Eastern Macedonia are a natural continuum of the Rupian dialects in Rhodopes and Thrace. In some cases Eastern Bulgarian isoglosses border the southmost part of the region of Macedonia, and then they turn to the northwest so that they become typical for some of the westernmost dialects (Ohrid, Debar, and others). I can go on and on translating from the above academic books. It would have results only in comparison of sources, individual dialects, and isoglosses. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time. --Lantonov (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

'To the south of the Bulgarian-Greek border between the lower Struma and Mesta rivers [these are Bulgarian toponyms, no offence intended to Greeks, translate to Greek toponyms if necessary --Lantonov (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)] and to the south of the Yat border is formed the southwestern part of the large Rupian dialect masiff. In it one can delineate more limited dialect formations:

Solun dialect: This dialect is of the greatest interest. It is spoken in the Solun neighborhood, best represented in the villages of Visoka and Suho, near Lagadin, to the north of Solun. In addition to these, similar dialect is spoken in the villages of Negovan, Gradobor, Ayvatovo, Novo selo, Balevits, Kirechkyoy, Kliseli. It is universaly accepted that the Solun dialect has preserved best the features of the Cyril-Methodius language. ... (follows a linguistic description of various features and isoglosses and 17 primary sources in linguistic books). Features:

1. Numerous traces of the old nasalism of the nasal vowels: гъ̀мба, дъмп, ръмп, скъмп, съ̀мбута; въ̀нзил, въ̀нжи, кàнду, кънт, мънч (мъж), мъ̀ндру, мъ̀нка, съ мъ̀нчиш, прънт, пръ̀нчка, ръ̀нка; грèнда, клèнтфа, пент’, пèнтук, èндру, жèнтфа, чèнду.

2. Vowel ê replaces Old Bulgarian ѣ instead of vowel a after hissing consonant and in some cases replacing Old Bulgarian ѧ, which is an archaic feature of the dialect, cf. бр’êк, в*êк, д’ềду, д’ềта, зв’ềзда, л’êп, л’ềту, с’ềнка, чув’ềк; чềша, чềйут (чаят), шềрка, шềйка; куч’ềнта (кучета), м’ềсу, съ ус’ềкнувам.

3. Substitute ъ < Old Bg ы: бъл (бил), въм’а (виме), къ̀тка, мъ̀шка (мишка), пъ̀тъм, плъ̀тку, сън (син).

4. Soft consonants at the end of words: сол’, ден’, кàмен’, зент’, пент’, пънт’, дèсит’ .

5. Diphtongs шт, жд < *tj, *dj: къ̀шта, плàштъм, нуштà, в’èжди, миждỳ, сàжди.

6. Double accent: цàрицàта, кòшницàта, лòбудàта, нèгувъ̀йут, глàсувèту, бàран’èту, брѝчин’èту, кàжувàха.

7. Definite article -о (-у) in Suho dialect and -от (-ут) in Visoka dialect: м’ềсницу, кръ̀сту, чардàку, кòн’у, канàп’у, казàн’у, капàйк’у, т’ут’ун’у, дин’ò, курин’ò; врахòт, вит’арòт, казан’ут, òгнут, самàp’ут, л’ềбут, каѝшут.

8. Definite article -ту for masc. pl.: бр’ềгувèту, бỳтувèт̂у, глàсувèту, д’èвир’èту, кòжувèту, кòкалèту, òблац’èту, пòйасèту, сфàтувèту.

9. Personal pronoun for 3d person: той, т’а, тузѝ, тус, т’е.

10. Questional pronouns: кутрѝ, кутрà, кутрò, кутрè (Suho); кутръ̀й (Visoka).

11. Particle за forms future tense: за кàжа, за стàни, за ти дам òште парѝ; за йàм и йàс л’ềп.

12. Suffix -м for 1st person singular present tense for verbs of 1st and 2nd conjugation: бàйам, кфàс’ам, п’èрам, п’èчам и п’èкам, хòд’ам, хрàн’ам, ц’ềп’ам и др.Also used suffix -а: гòст’а, дèр’а, къ̀лн’а, кòс’а, крòйа, м’èт’а, пр’èнд’а, с’èча, хòд’а.

Primary sources:

Г о л о м б, Зб. Два македонски говора (на Cуxo и Висока во Солунско). Jазична обработка. — Мак. jазик, 1960—1961, № 1—2, 113—182; 1962—1963, № 1—2, 173—276;

К о ч е в, Ив. Старобългарските диалектни явления и понятието солунски говор. — Бълг. ез., 1987, № 3, 167—178;

М и л е т и ч, Л. Една особено забележителна форма в македонските говори около Солун. — Мак. преглед, 1936, № 1 и 2, 1—8;

М и л е т и ч, Л. Към речника на говора в селата Сухо и Висока (Солунско). — Мак. преглед, 1936, № 3 и 4, 133—140;

М и н ч е в а, Анг. Диалектът на Кирил и Методий и балканизмите в старобългарския език. — Бълг. ез., 1987, № 1—2, 23—30;

М л а д е н о в, Ст. Българската реч в Солун и Солунско. — B: Сборник Солун. С., 1934, 44—63;

П о п с т о и л о в, А. Село Зарово, Солунско. Историко-фолклорно и езиковедско изследване. С., 1979, 152 с.;

Р о м а н с к и, Ст. Две приказки от Солунско из неиздадената сбирка на Ст. Веркович. — Мак. преглед, 1928, № 1, 139—148;

С т о и л о в, А. П. Остатъци от назализъм в солунските села Зарово и Висока.— ПСп., 1901, № 61, 703—712;

С т о и л о в, А. П. Изговор на ѣ в Заровско-висошкия говор (Лъгадинско). — СпБАН, 1914, № 8, 159—164;

Т е о д о р о в, А. Един принос към висошкия говор. — ПСп., 1885, № 15, 401—410;

I v a n o v, J. Un parler bulgare archaique. — Revue des études slaves, 2, 1922, 86—103;

M a ł e c k i, M. Drobjazgi z Macedonji. — Lud Słowiański. 2, 1933, 106—109;

M a ł e c k i, M. Oroznicowaniu gwar Bogdanskia w pd.-wschodnijej Macedonji. — Пак там, 5, 1936, № 1, 90—106;

M a ł e c k i, M. Dwie gwary macedońskie. Sucho i Wysoka w Solùnskiem. Częśé I: Texty. Krakow. 1934, 90 p.; Część II. Słownik. Kraków, 1936, 135 p.;

O b l ak, V. Macedonische Studien. Die slavischen Dialekte des südlicnen und nordwestlichen Macedoniens. Wien, 1896, 156 p.;

U r b a ń c z y k, St. Uwagi o słowntstwie Suchego i Wysokiej. (Na podstawie Słownika M. Małeckiego). — Studia linguistica Polono-Jugoslavica (Скопjе), 2, 1982, 87—94.

Drama-Ser dialect: To the north of the Solun dialect are the dialects of Drama, Valovishta and Ser which are a transition to the Gotse Delchev (Nevrokop) dialect. (follows a linguistic description of various features and isoglosses and 8 primary sources in linguistic books, including 1 publication of Vidoeski).

1. The most important feature that relates them to the Rupian group is the vowel ъ < Old Bg. ъ, ѫ: бъ̀чва, дъш, мъх, сън, гъ̀ба, гъ̀ска, къ̀шта, пръ̀чка.

2. Semivowel Yat pronounciation: р’àка, п’àсък, зв’àзда, м’àсто, с’àно, пл’àва; излèзе, слèзе, рекàта, песъклѝва. In some villages vowel ê is also found in front of soft syllable: бềше, врềме, мрềжа, срềштам.

3. Reduction: гул’àм, д’àду, дèнуви, зилèн, житвàр, ѝзвур, сèлу, пундèлник.

4. Soft consonants at end of words: зет’, пет’, път’, цар’, ден’, кàмен’, рèмен’, изѝк’, сол’ .

5. Diphtongs шт, жд < *tj, *dj: къ̀шта, плèшти, в’àжда, мèжда, грàждъне.

6. Article suffix -ъ (in some regions also -ът) for masculine: брегъ̀, градъ̀, синъ̀; брегъ̀т, градъ̀т, синъ̀т. After soft consonant -е, -ет: кòн’е, пъ̀т’е, кòн’ет, пъ̀т’ет.

7. Personal pronoun for 3rd person: той, т’а.

8. Short forms of personal pronoun dative case 3rd person: хми, хни, хим.

9. Verb suffix -а for 1st pers. sing. present tense 1st and 2nd conj.: бèра, сèд’а, мèта, пèра, нòс’а.

10. Repetitive verbs of the type испѝцам, насѝцам.

11. Repetitive verbs of the type купòвам, пладнòвам.

12. Reflective animalistic adjectives with suffix -шти: кỳчешти, кòзешти, йàгнешти.

Primary sources:

А н т о н о в а, Л. Някои поправки на данните за говора на с. Волак, Драмско. Според т. I на Български диалектен атлас. Български говори от Егейска Македония. — Бълг. ез., 1982, № 5, 436—439;

А н т о н о в а, Л. Форми за минало несвършено време в говора на с. Волак, Драмско — Бълг.ез., 1985, № 5, 485—490;

А н т о н о в а, Л. Форми за 1 лице сегашно време в говора на с. Волак, Драмско. — Бълг. ез., 1985, № 2, 110—114;

В и д о е с к и, Б. Фонолошки опис на говорот на селото Плевна (Серско). — Годишен зборник. Филолошки факултет на Универзитетот — Скопjе, 4, 1978, 37—46;

И в а н о в, Й. Н. Български диалектен атлас. Български говори от Егейска Македония. Т. 1. Сярско, Драмско, Валовишко и Зиляховско. С., 1972;

И в а н о в, Й. Н. Едно интересно явление в българския диалектен вокализъм. (Редукция на гласна е в ạ в говора на с. Лехоно, Димирхисарско). — Бълг. ез., 1969, № 2, 138—142;

И в а н о в, Й. Н. Български преселнически говори. Говорите от Драмско и Сярско. Част първа. Типологическа характеристика и описание на говорите. (Трудове по българска диалектология. Т. 9). С., 1977, 253 с.;

Ф р е н г о в, А. Речникови материали от с. Плевня, Драмско. — Ез. и лит., 1957, № 4, 297—298.

-------------------------------------------------------

In bringing all this here, I do not intend to say anything for the present demographic situation in these regions. As FutPerf says, today there may be none of these speakers in the said villages and towns. Historically, the carriers of the above two dialects are progeny of Rhodopean population that in the summer herded their livestock in the Rhodopa mountains, and in winter herded them back in the Aegean plains for the milder Mediterranean climate. Some of these people throughout the centuries became more or less settled there. During all time, however, the predominant population in these regions was Greek. Thessaloniki (Solun), for instance, has never been a Bulgarian town (always Greek, or Byzantine). After the Balkan wars, most of the Bulgarian population in the region was driven to Bulgaria as refugees.

--Lantonov (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ARBMAC warnings

Is it fine for me to warn users with a template or should I leave it to you admins? BalkanFever 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice and problems

In my thinking we are having POV problem in Croatia related articles and I want to put case before ARBMAC for decision so that this can be solved. Problem in question is use of citations in article (see article Miroslav Filipović). If we stand for NPOV policy in my thinking we can't accept that article about commander of Croatian extermination camp is having "book" or "witness" citations and articles about commanders of Nazi holocaust extermination camps are without citations (examples:Rudolf Höß and Franz Stangl ). Your thinking ?

My other problem are harass accounts but about that I will speak with Thatcher .--Rjecina (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Roman–Persian_Wars#Why_the_lead_needs_revision

The lead to this article seems just awful to me; in saying so, I offended Yannismarou, who shepherded it through FA (which it may deserve when the lead is cleaned up). Can you suggest a compromise text? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

FYROM

Wikipedia's convention is to be neutral. FYROM is a neutral name because it is the name by which UN recognises the government residing in the city of Skopje. Any other names, inclusing the state's constitutional name, are inherently not neutral and imply specific political sidings. If United Nations recognises the country by any other name, then that name should be used, but as long as UN does not formally change its name, let's stick to the current UN name. NerdyNSK (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Our general policy is at Wikipedia:Naming conflict, an attempt to spell it out for Macedonia is at WP:MOSMAC. Result is, we use "Republic of Macedonia", as the name used by most English-speaking sources and the entity itself, due account being taken of genuine disambiguation needs regarding the other Macedonia. Anybody else's POV preferences don't play into it, so there's no "neutrality" at issue here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Pabopa

Kowtow is a subject of Chinese culture, however it is pertaining to Japanese and Korean cases at this time. Yesterday, an open proxy user, 218.12.194.86 (talk · contribs) (now blocked)[37] appeared to edit the article as same as Pabopa's edit.[38] The article was protected for Pabopa and Manacpowers edit wars. Since the article deals with Japanese or Korean case, I think Pabopa breach his restriction as adding a Korean case over which the two dispute although I don't share any of both two editor's point of view. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also question, if some is topic-banned on certain range of articles, is the user allowed to participate in a discussion of those article as Pabopa did?[39][40] It does not looks appropriate types of discussion.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Pabopa is a sockpuppeter confirmed by checkuser as well as Northwest1202 (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa. They waste my time a lot. -_-;; --Caspian blue (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

As you have either missed my comment or you're ignoring it, I'll warn you here that I will not tolerate any personal attacks whatsoever, especially coming from an admin. I am not a "disruptive tendentious POV-pusher" and my contributions to this encyclopedia are enough for my opinion to be taken seriously. You are not in the position to decide whether I should be taken seriously or not. Also, you're relying on Macedonist sources and you're completely ignoring the sarcasm, racism accusations and personal attacks of a contributor whose POV you share, namely User:BalkanFever.

I can take someone belittling my contributions to the encyclopedia, I don't mind that, but you have called User:VMORO a "thoroughly disruptive, tendentious POV-pushing account that has never done anything but edit-warring on Macedonian-Bulgarian ideology topics" and a possible sockpuppeteer while he has contributed dozens of valuable articles directly related to Bulgaria.

So I'm kindly asking you to refrain from such personal qualifications in the future because they are in no way helpful to the discussion. The Macedonian topic needs a more neutral and calm treatment than insulting contributors and taking a side. All the best, Todor→Bozhinov 12:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FUR issues and admin actions

FutPerf...I've noticed you're heavily involved in the NFCC/FUR issues and ongoing are the Scouting-related images that have come up recently. You debating the issues is all fine and dandy, but this diff, where you threaten to block people over an issue you're quite involved in really concerns me. I suggest you not do that and seek neutral outside admins for such matters. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, with your vested interest in scouting-related articles, I actually am uninvolved and neutral about these articles, as uninvolved and neutral as can be. I do nothing in this issue but enforcing policy as is my task as an admin. Being involved as an admin doing admin tasks doesn't disqualify me from doing admin tasks now, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "involved" is tossed around a lot here. WP:ADMIN says "However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute." This caveat is often forgotten about. Chillum 20:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks for the quote. Enforcing NFCC is an admin task, hence, my being active in enforcing NFCC on these articles does not bar me from taking admin actions in that context if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

An admin can be "involved" in many ways. Your removal of the image (multiple times) would seem to disqualify you from blocking based upon your interpretation of NFCC in this case. I mentioned the inappropriate nature of the threat above, but that note was apparently overlooked, so I'm responding here. Rlevse is no more "involved" in this scenario than you are. S. Dean Jameson 20:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rlevse and S. Dean Jameson, you do appear to be involved in this issue beyond an administrative capacity. You've engaged in edit warring and have been a party to the dispute. I'd strongly recommend that you not block any of the other editors involved in this issue, and seek a completely uninvolved administrator instead. Dreadstar † 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to ask either you or Rlevse for advice on how to do my administrative duty when it comes to non-free images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You have the right to ask (or not ask) anyone you like about your admin actions, but I'm sure you know that if you make a block in an issue where you're clearly involved (as when you remove an image and threaten a block if anyone undoes your action), you'll most likely have the issue raised at ANI. S. Dean Jameson 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

BUt when you debate a specific issue and take sides, which you have, you are no longer involved. — Jojo • Talk • 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating things here, I'm teaching people about policy and doing cleanup to enforce that policy. Unfortunately, some people (including certain admins) think they can ignore policy, and have to be told a bit more often. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And other people (including some admins) think their interpretation of NFCC is the only one that matters. It's not. Again, you block in a case where you've been removing an image at your own risk. You won't be edit-warring with me, as I've removed the pertinent images/articles from my watchlist, but I'm just saying. S. Dean Jameson 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware there is a range of different legitimate interpretations of NFCC. However, there is no sane interpretation of NFCC that would allow an image in an article where its subject matter isn't even an object of explicit discussion. Anybody who claims otherwise is either clueless or does not endorse this projects's foundational principles and is trying to lawyer their way around them. In either case, taking admin action to enforce this very minimal standard is legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to enforce your view of image policy, in an article where you have removed the image multiple times, it's not. Image policy isn't cut-and-dried, as Rlevse points out below, but WP:BLOCK certainly is. Your edit summary was completely inappropriate. S. Dean Jameson 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. It's your page, block policy's not on your side, so you can choose to end it. Later, S. Dean Jameson 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image policy is not as black/white as some think. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "it's not as black and white as some think" is exactly the favourite lame excuse of just the people I was speaking of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on folks, non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. That image does no such thing, it is not inline with our criteria. And that by the way is coming from a completely uninvolved admin, so all this "involved" stuff is out the window. Chillum 00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Many people disagree with the perspective you espouse there, Chillum. And admins shouldn't threaten blocks in issues they're directly involved in, even if they really, really, really think they're right in their view. S. Dean Jameson 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read that quote from the admin policy I posted before? You are not "involved" in an issue just because you enforced policy in that area. While people may disagree with the idea that non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, this is non the less the existing policy. That image does not convey any significant understanding of the topic to the reader, the image is not free, we don't use it. The idea that you would jump to accusations of "involvement" speaks volumes. This is just simple policy. Chillum 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you've been involved in removing the image from the article, you don't block an editor (or threaten to block an editor) who dares reinsert it. With a nebulous policy like NFCC, one doesn't block based on their interpretation of that policy. S. Dean Jameson 01:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat this one more time, this is a direct quote from our admin policy: "an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute". The important part there is "enforce a policy", enforcing policy does not make you involved. That means that if you remove an image from an article, per policy as an admin, that it does not make you involved and you can take further action as an admin in the future. Admins are supposed to interpret policy and enforce it that is their job, if you disagree seek a wider consensus. Take it to IfD or DRV if you want. Chillum 02:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd refer you to the portion of your quote that states "minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias." Fut Per's actions with regards to images on scounting articles violate every one of those caveats. Threatening a block (and certainly enacting a block) was completely inappropriate. His edit was not minor or obvious, and his biases with regards to his opinions on NFCC are obvious. Admins should not go around blocking people in accordance with a disputed view of policy. S. Dean Jameson 02:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• For the record, I'm a big proponent of free images. Check my Commons contribs. I just don't approve of the ultra-strict application of NFCC by some. S. Dean Jameson 02:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you now please take this elsewhere? I said the debate is over. The yellow bar is getting annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying that he has something against scouts? Can you back that up with diffs? Yes, admins do most certainly block people when there is a disagreement about policy. Pretty much anyone you block disagrees about the policy they were blocked over. Do you think that simply disagreeing about policy with an admin prevents them from taking action? If an admin makes blocks that are not in line with policy people notice, but that is not what is happening here. Chillum 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Sunrise, you would like to comment here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Admins_and_policy_disputes. It is this topic which spilled onto my talk page, and then spilled over to WT:ADMIN. Chillum 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize for not informing you, as your actions are mentioned as part of the discussion. S. Dean Jameson 16:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Bulgarian calendar

Hi Future, here is an POV-article with such a name! I think it have to be merged into Bulgar calendar! Regards! Jingby (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Epirus, Scanderbeg

Hi. User:Omadae1 has reappeared as User:Ellas1921, making the same POV reverts. Aramgar (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Scouting issue

I've added some wording in the article that I feel make the image more appropriate there. As such, I've readded the FUR template to the image, and reinserted the image, with an explanatory edit summary. I just wante to let you know, and see if you felt it was more appropriate now. S. Dean Jameson 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New Bonny?

Could this be him? It surely sounds like him. diff.Xasha (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting references

Take a look hier, hier, hier and etc. Laveol's removing of the references is not acceptable for me. The refreneces are put there to explain the use of some letters or rules (not to explain the origin of certain language). The sources are from books, that are relevant for those topics. Laveol and his friends' behaviour is getting too much anoying. We (macedonians) cannot edit pages related to Macedonia, because Laveol does not want to accept it. Thanks --Raso mk (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hi! I have few comments for your friend Laveol. This is too much seriously. Each article on this, and only on this Wikipedia, that is related to Macedonia is f....ing Bulgarian. For example, Goce Delcev is Bulgarian, Nasinski language is Bulagrain and so on (onlu Branko Crvenkovski is not Bulgarian). Because you are German, imagine if each german article was made Polish and everything is Polish but not German- How would you feel? And, if you can some how made Laveol stop reverting each edit made by Macedonians, just because he doesnt like it. This is not Laveol Wikipedia, and please be honest and say if I am not right. Every time Raso is reverted, I am reverted, BalkanFever is reverted and many others- and we are all reverted by LAVEOL. I am really tired of this. Please react or the situation is getting worse and worse. This BG propaganda is getting bigger and bigger here- horrible!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're problem is and why you didn't actually look at my edits before accusing me of this and that (and seriously what was that stuff about Gotse Delchev and Branko Crvenkovski - did you actually read the articles?). For your information, although I really doubt you read this, I was fixing the mess of an article that was evidently created by you, when I saw those references. Sorry, but you cannot write stuff like "several book", "two book", "the surrounding villages of the both cities" and blame me for correcting them? --Laveol ^T 01:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what is your goal on this Wikipedia. Correcting spelling mistakes is something different then your bulgarization of the Macedonian articles. So please stop following my contributions on this Wiki and on the Macedonian Wiki and if it is possible stop talking with me. I dont want any conntact with you. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, actually it was you that obviously followed me to the article in question (or most probably it was Raso telling you to see it). And if you don't want to have any contact with me, don't use my username, my real name etc. cause I get generally interested when I see someone discussing me. --Laveol ^T 12:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I used your name just to tell Future some facts. I do not want and I do not need to use your green wiki name and your private name. Do not worry about it, I have better things to do. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And I saw it- Raso did not tell me! As I said I do not want to edit on this Wiki because of the BG and GR propagandas, I only put interwikis. I do not want to waste my time arguing with you whether someone is Macedonian or not and similar things... Take a look at your contributions and tell me what you see? Only reverts and discussions at talk pages related to Macedonia (trying to bulgarize all articles related to Macedonia).--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, what about my 6 months ban? Jingby (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what about it? Isn't it still on? I see you've been editing some Balkans-related articles, why? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Working Group Final Report

As a reminder, the Working Group's deadline to post a final report, occurs on August 7. A draft final report is now on EN, at Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Draft report. Could you please review it, and either edit it, post comments at the talkpage, and/or post your endorsement at the bottom of the report? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please temporarily undelete

Please undelete File:PaulKeatingAPEC.jpg for a while so I can find the source of this image and write a proper rationale so it can be added to the article. I do not agree with your rationale for deletion - you never give people a chance to explain things properly if they are not deletionists. That image was on three pages and should not have been deleted from the APEC page. JRG (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

About the source: the image is at [41].

According to [42], the recording agency was the "Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Central Office - Public Affairs Branch". This means it's probably under Crown Copyright. – If you want to rework a fair use rationale, I don't see why you'd need a temporary undeletion for doing so. If you can come up with a substantially different, better rationale than before, I suggest you have it reviewed at DRV. I'd advise you that this really only makes sense if the rationale is a substantially different one than the one that was reviewed at IfD. If it's just another version of "it's an interesting image", I don't see much of a chance. A lot of historical images are interesting, that doesn't mean we can plaster our articles with them. As howcheng rightly pointed out, our fair use exception for historical photographs is really only for cases where the image itself, as a creative work, rather than just the thing it illustrates, is so important that it becomes an object of encyclopedic discussion in its own right (rather than just a vehicle to illustrate the encyclopedic discussion of something else.) So, short answer is: sorry, I'm afraid no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarians

Hi Future. In this article is a strange editor with constant POV - pushing! Here [43] he reverted references from Encyclopedia Britannica, Cambridge University Press, University of Washington Press, Harvard University Press and Oxford University Press about the origin of the Bulgars. He changed them with some essaies, never published in international scietifical works, desctribing them as academican. Here [44] again he reverted describing Bulgars, as an ancient Arian nation!!! using as source again essaies! Here [45] he deleted as unsourced a sentence which is referenced in the text as follous here [46]. Here [47] he deleted sentence as repeted, but it is not, and so on! Pleace, this is against the Wikipedia:Verifiability ruls. The next and other references added from me were ignored, changed and neglected. Pleace, take a look at the article! Regards! Jingby (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

^ Образуване на българската държава. проф. Петър Петров (Издателство Наука и изкуство, София, 1981)

^ Образуване на българската народност.проф. Димитър Ангелов (Издателство Наука и изкуство, “Векове”, София, 1971)

^ A history of the First Bulgarian Empire.Prof. Steven Runciman (G. Bell & Sons, London 1930)

^ История на българската държава през средните векове Васил Н. Златарски (I изд. София 1918; II изд., Наука и изкуство, София 1970, под ред. на проф. Петър Хр. Петров)

^ История на българите с поправки и добавки от самия автор акад. Константин Иречек (Издателство Наука и изкуство, 1978) проф. Петър Хр. Петров

^ Rashev, Rasho. 1992. On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians. p. 23-33 in: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. In honour of Prof. V. Beshevliev, Veliko Tarnovo

^ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online - Bolgar Turkic

^ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online - Bulgars

^ Sedlar, Jean W. East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. University of Washington Press, 1994. page 6

^ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online - Bulgar

^ Bowersock, G. W. & Grabar, Oleg. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World. Harvard University Press, 1998. page 354

^ Chadwick, Henry. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church : from Apostolic Times. Oxford University Press, 2003. page 109

^ Reuter, Timothy. The New Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge University Press, 2000. page 492

^ Heinz Siegert: Osteuropa – Vom Ursprung bis Moskaus Aufstieg, Panorama der Weltgeschichte, Bd. II, hg. von Dr. Heinrich Pleticha, Gütersloh 1985, p. 46

^ P. B. Golden An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. - Wisbaden, 1992. - p.92-104

^ [René Grousset: Die Steppenvölker, München 1970, p. 249]

^ Harald Haarmann: Protobulgaren in: Lexikon der untergegangenen Völker, München 2005, p.225

^ Большая советская энциклопедия Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgarians"

How about Bulgarians! The editor continued reverting the chapter without reliable explanation! Only bullshits about ancient Arian nation and so on! Please, help! Jingby (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Again reverted with the old song about ancient Arian nation! No reliable explananation. Also kept cunning and pushing bullshits! Jingby (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarians

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. I would sincerely appreciate it if you look into my edit history and everything that I have stated before you conclude that my behaviour may be "problematic". I always keep academic sources in articles regardless of what perspective, theory, hypothesis etc ,..., they may or may not adhere to. I also respect the rules set out by Wikipedia and do my utmost to develop articles according to academic guidelines. It may not be important to various people from Wikipedia, but I am educated in history (PhD) at the University of Sofia and I mostly edit articles related to Bulgarian history simply because this is my area of expertise. The user with whom you are having discussions that include me, Jingiby, has just used inappropriate language (swearing) in the 'history, edit summary' area and is constantly calling the ancient Bulgars a nomadic tribe. He has also misrepresented what he calls the "official position" of the Bulgarian Government. He told me go the official website of the Government of Bulgaria where he claimed it was stated that the Bulgars are Turkic. I went to this official website and it clearly states no such thing. Misrepresentation, especially on a national level cannot be allowed. I thereby provided the link and text from this website and Wikipedians can see for themselves whether or not Jingiby's behaviour is acceptable. He has also misrepresented my edits on your discussion page. This user has also shown inappropriate behaviour before and has been blocked. I will be presenting the entire case to you and other administrators. Based on such conversations, it has come to my attention that Jingiby may get blocked from the Bulgarian sections as well.

Please also keep in mind that leading Bulgarian historians, including my former Professor, have been conducting studies, which show that the Bulgars were not nomads, because they were so-called prolific state builders throughout Eurasia (Balkhar, Volga Bulgaria, Balkharia, Great Bulgaria, Danubian Bulgaria, etc). They also had a complex and indeed centralized administrative system that functioned according to Balkhar Law, a written language, official monotheistic religion and complex societal structure. There are also various linguistic and anthropological studies that show the Bulgars are not necessarily Turkic in origin. A post 1989 and indeed widely accepted theory amongst Bulgarian scientists is called the Balkhar Aryan Theory. Please do not conceptualize the word Aryan as denoting something negative, as user Jinigiby would have you believe, nor should you associate it with the nationalistic and in fact racist theories of extreme-right-wing factions. Jingiby keeps talking about this, even though Aryan in itself simply denotes the Indo-Aryan lands of the Hindu-Kush, greater Afghanistan and Iran. Aryan in fact is the same word as Iran. Linguistically they are one and the same. Iran, as a country, carries this name due to the fact that Persians are descendents of ancient Aryan peoples. Likewise, the Balkhar Aryan Theory simply places the Bulgar origin in the ancient Aryan kingdom of Balkhar (Bulgar), which existed within the widely accepted and so-called Aryan territories. According to the likes of Dr. Dobrev, this is one reason the suffix of modern Bulgaria and other Bulgar kingdoms is/was 'Aria/Arya'. (Ie: Balkh-Aria, Bulg-Aria) That is the simplified story of a linguistic analysis conducted at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. There are many books and peer reviewed articles from Bulgarian Professors on this subject. If you are interested I will send them to you. I humbly ask that you read them if you are going to be involved in this discussion.

These studies were suppressed for nearly 50 years during Communism, due to a Soviet sponsored regime that was focused on disregarding Bulgar history while emphasizing the Slav ancestry of modern Bulgarians. This was part of the greater Pan-Slavic movement that was meant to create cohesion between the Warsaw Pact countries. The consequence of this is that older theories claiming the ancient Bulgars to have been nomads, barbarians, etc ,..., were disseminated, whilst the Slav ancestors were presented as the civilized seed of modern Bulgaria. I consider myself a Slav, but as a historian I cannot disregard the studies and subsequent logic which show that Bulgars were adavnced state builders for their time. Not nomadic barbarians.

Since 1989 many Bulgarian scientists have had more freedom in conducting new studies on the ancient Bulgars, and some prominent members of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences have come to conclusions that are very different from the formerly BCP (Bulgarian Communist Party) supported Bulgar/Turkic/Nomad/Barbarian Theory. Such studies must be shown and it is shameful for part of Bulgaria's ancestors to be presented in such an inappropriate fashion. It pains me when I see people insulting the ancient Bulgars. I hope you understand why I am passionate about this topic and why I believe Bulgaria's academics be allowed to write about Bulgarian history. Thank you for your time.--Monshuai (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things

• If you haven't seen it already, please take a look at User talk:Yannismarou#Proposition. What do you think?
• VMORO is using sockpuppets. I filed an RFCU, but it may be obvious enough for an admin to take action straight away.

Cheers, BalkanFever 12:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you make a note of the VMORO case also at the relevant section at WP:AE please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Added a link to the case. I can't believe I didn't notice the thread :O. Stupid, stupid me. BalkanFever 13:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

crosstheTs is back

Futper, as promised, I've been working on a precise report on your editing habits (and have assembled a long record of diffs that seem to show you almost without fail push FYROM positions (highly improbable if you had a NPOV on the issue) I have also been reading up on Wikipedia's Administrator_Code_of_Conduct.

"Admins are entrusted with additional abilities, but do not have special rights beyond those of regular editors. Like everybody else, admins are expected to behave in a civil manner.

Admins should also be aware that warning a user of a block, especially when the user has no prior history of problems, can be perceived as a threat. When dealing with otherwise good contributors, it may be advisable to make suggestions to their behavior without mentioning a block.

Reflecting on the above... I don't believe some of your initial words to me (which included ad hominem attacks and threats to block me) remotely match those standards.

"Every sane person with normal adult intelligence can see that your allegations against B.F. are nonsensical. If you can't see that yourself, it's probably no use me trying to explain it to you. I will simply block you if you continue with this topic, for being either a malicious troll or too clueless for rational discussion"

I also don't believe it was appropriate (after I had made the initial anon complaint about you) for you to block me. If you felt it was necessary it should have been left in the hands of another admin. The Wikipedia admin code of conduct clearly states this about admin conflicts of interests.

"An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest"

The reason why I'm asking is because I realize we both have strong POVs on FYROM issues and that we got off on the wrong foot because of it. While I am preparing to push forward with a precisely itemized complaint against you (which I believe clearly shows inappropriate behavior towards me), I really don't want to go about this the long nasty way (which was why as a newb my complaint was anon until Beam started to unilaterally campaign to block me thus reveal details)

I would much prefer to save both our time by letting the matter drop but that would require your participation and assurance you will never again try to leverage your admin status as a tool to personally threaten me again. (surely others admins can handle it if it seems necessarily to them)

So what I really am asking here is are you willing to press the polite reset button and just stick to arguing points? Crossthets (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ignorance

I have written you several times but still there is no answer from you. I want to know if there will be any answers or i will be forced to report you to the burocrats. :-( --Raso mk (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WG

Heya, we're planning on making the report final tomorrow (August 7, the 6-month mark). If you get a chance, could you please review and/or endorse? Thanks, --Elonka 14:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

Thanks I appreciate your input. Also, your archive box does not have any text for archive 13. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pausch Google

Although I do still believe the image should be kept, your reasoning isn't flawed. I appreciate the time you are taking to do things the correct way. Thanks. Jheiv (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, it's appreciated. If only all image uploaders reacted in such a calm and thoughtful way when their images are challenged! Many get terribly upset in such a situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Images

I was thinking along those lines, to be honest. I uploaded another screenshot because I had a good idea about what commentary I was going to write, but had a brain fart and forgot what I was going to write. Do you reckon I could make a crtical statement about the planets image? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, at least not on the basis of what's already there in the "critical reception" and "production" sections, as far as I can see. The best way is always if you can hook it to something a critic has said, otherwise you risk the "analysis" being OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just had a whack at the planets caption, where I talk about the scene incorporating two major story arcs (which is mentioned in the writing part of the article). It's rather wordy, but I think it's compliant now. What do you think? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, one could argue that the analysis doesn't really point to something that the image provides concrete visual support to. The image really doesn't show what that police force is, or how the planets are missing or configuring or whatever. Whereas, in the solution I tried to sketch, the image does give concrete visual support about how the scene is a moment of stereotypical "high romance" or "intense emotionality" or something like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, the police force (the Judoon, the masked people in black in the background) aren't identified, though we could say they investigate at instead of with. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Also, I'm not really quite so sure what's so central about that particular scene. In terms of dramatic structure, it seems to be an element of the exposition; the only interest is in these intertextual clues about continuity with earlier episodes? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just uploaded another version; how does it look? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. Works for me. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Neologisms

I'm not here to point out a typo, but would suggest you consider entering your neologism to the Washington Post's annual neologism contest. "Curtesy" adv. - polite but brief. ;-) _Gb^T/c 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!

We need a greek speaking admin at ANI! 8-) Thanks for the offer. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User Corfiot: Translation request

Hi Future. That was fast! I just finished talking to Toddst1‎ about you! Can you please render an opinion as to what user Corfiot left on my talk page, if it constitutes a threat or not? I would greatly appreciate it. Many thanks. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Okay, I guess I'll try to speak with the guy first, if that's okay with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do your, as always, competent and thorough job Future. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note. Elpizo na min ta'kana poly salata me ta ellinika. (Ta'grapsa se greeklish, giati otan grafo ellinika, panta ma panta kano kati lathi me ta "oi" kai "y" kai "h"...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it. Nicely and professionally done. I couldn't have written it better myself (maybe not in the greekglish version though :D). It's nice to know I can depend on people like you. Thank you Future for taking this up so quickly, I really appreciate it to the point of being greatly indebted. Dr.K. (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and by the bye, I did get the drift he thought that because the site was "governmental/official" there was some "right" for it to be included as a link, very helpful of you to set him straight on that. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Greek

Shout! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hello FP, I just noticed that you closed this RM as no consensus. So far so good, but please allow me to rant about the comments you left there which in my view were really unnecessary. It's totally okay that you find lame that dispute and that it shouldn't matter which name should we use for that article. But, given all the people and arguments engaging in that move discussion for so long, don't you think that lecturing your own personal opinion as you close the discussion is rather tasteless and shows poor consideration for the intervenients? Coz, well, I was one of them and I felt like you couldn't care less for what we were doing. And I felt the urge to tell you this because for quite a long time I've been noticing a growingly patronizing attitude of yours towards other users. I'm sure it's not intentional, but that is my impression and these were my thoughts. Best regards, Húsönd 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt offended by my attempt at giving the closure a somewhat lighter touch, but then again, I find that sometimes a hint with the "Lame" link is quite useful. Because, with all respect for your well-meant efforts (on both sides), in the end it really is a very minor dispute, and given the huge amounts of time and energy that get spent on it, and the predictability of it all, and the fact that we have all known for ages that there is no consensus either way, don't you think you really could have been doing something more useful instead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel offended, I just felt like your comments were rather undue and didn't sit too well. You see, that might have been a minor dispute indeed (and hey, I don't even like tennis so I don't really care much about the player), but this minor dispute is part of a much bigger dispute, which has to do with accuracy on Wikipedia. And when users value accuracy as much as I do, then we can't see this as a small thing that should be dismissed with levity. Furthermore, the outcome of this move wasn't that predictable (it started with a majority of supporters until the tables were suddenly but not unexpectedly turned). But yes, I could be doing something more useful. Although helping prevent (or trying to help prevent) damage to Wikipedia should be quite a useful thing to do, too. And that was the case. Regards, Húsönd 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Cbsite talk page

Your band of rogue admins took it upon themselves to blank and protect my talk page, but I want it deleted. I'm exercising my Right to vanish, and will not be returning to Wikipedia.

WP:RTV can be witheld if an editor is not in good standing. This said, after some time goes by and you truly haven't come back, it is very likely that if you ask politely someone will be willing to delete the talk page for you. Now please begone, thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This had nothing to do with you; this is in regard to a communication I had with Future Perfect at Sunrise on another page. When your opinion or intervention is desired, I will tell you.

Tose Proeski/Elena Risteska

Hello Future! I was wondering what I did wrong in labeling the pictures. I based it off of Katarina Ivanovskas picture, and the sourcing was identical to it, I am a bit confused as to why Katarina is acceptable but Tose was deleted... is there something I was missing? Thanks for the help, Mactruth (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, I wanted a picture of Tose Proeski because if any Macedonian desires a picture on WP its him. He is one of the key people who united not only Macedonia, but the Former Yugoslavia IN A TIME OF WAR. Mactruth (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When you use Flickr images, you need to take care because they don't all come with the same license conditions. You need to watch for a small copyright symbol at the right margin of the page. In your case, it said "all rights reserved", so it's non-free. In the Tose Proeski case, there was the additional complication that it was a photograph of a photograph. Even if the Flickr image had been released freely, we still didn't know the copyright on the original image displayed on that screen.

I can understand why you guys are so desperate for an image of the guy, believe me, I noticed what happened back in October. Your best bet is to go back to Flickr, look out for those few images that are genuine amateur photographs of Tose in concert, uploaded before October (the later ones are all copyvios in themselves), and try to contact the owners and ask them to release one. Failing that, we might argue for a non-free image under "fair use". I'm not a big fan of invoking "fair use" in this way, I find it dodgy, but you'd probably find many admins agreeing with such an upload. But it would have to be a publicity image made available by Tose himself or his company or heirs, not a news media image, because any commercially owned photograph of him would have significant commercial value today and we would infringe on that by using it (see WP:NFC). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was very detailed, thanks I'll keep that in mind. I'd like to get your feedback on this. Mactruth (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You got a point there, but just don't blame all the Greek contributors alike. Most of the poor-quality additions were from one new and rather tendentious Greek editor, Dimorsitanos, a short while ago. I didn't watch it very closely but it turns out there was a bit of damage done. Our old regulars weren't very active recently; I don't think that Niko, for instance, would have fallen for the Panama story that easily, he's more conscientious than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was that "Kamikazi" guy as well. BalkanFever 15:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't treat them all the same, that's along the same lines as racism. I am simply stating that many sources are Greek and the articles seem to be from the view point of the Greek side because of it, so we have to use caution in wording and use of sources. Mactruth (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Thanks so much for your common courtesy in notifying me that you're deleting an image I uploladed -- and let's be clear, deleting an image from an article, and then immediately marking the image as being orphaned because it's no longer used in an article is tantamount to deleting it. I'm sure this has absolutely nothing to do with our recent disagreement about how NFCC policy should be enforced. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do occasionally look at people's upload logs once I've seen them doing questionable uploads on some occasion or defending such. Experience shows it's very often not an isolated occurrence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certain that's it. I'll edit more comfortably now, knowing that you're looking over my shoulder, my wikiguardian angel. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Two threads

See Biruitorul and Moldopodo threads on my talk page, posted decision on Moldopodo's page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A question

Your deletion of this image seems to simply substitute your own view of NFCC policy for the well-articulated views of NFCC policy of the two users who commented at the IfD. This seems to directly contradict instructions given to administrators assessing IfDs both here and here. There doesn't seem to be any justification for your deletion in this case, and I ask you to reconsider. ^S._D.Jameson 04:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg

I have asked for a deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this image, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the image, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ^S._D.Jameson 05:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion close of Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg

Hello, in closing this IfD, did you properly consider the replaceability argument made towards the end of the discussion by Calliopejen? It turned out there are several free images available of exactly the same Boy Scout group in the same camp and the same year, e.g. Image:GranadaBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif. This argument wasn't addressed by any keep voter. If you feel this does not constitute replaceability, could you please explain why? (I've re-tagged the image as {{rfud}}, but the easiest way procedurally speaking would be if you just reconsidered your closure.) Please keep in mind that NFCC#1 is mandatory and cannot be overridden by local (non-)consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fut.Perf., I did consider the replacability of this in line with NFCC#1. Unfortunately I can't verify any of thinks given at the end of the article as, from here, I cannot open any of them. Given the detail of the debate I can't see any other conclusion than keep. While it may be hyperbole Rlevse did call it "unique", an no contributor to the debate indicated a replacement image (that I was able to view). If there was another image, freely licensed, that I could see that could be used in the article then NFCC#1 would come into play. Much more problematically I find, for Wikipedia in general, is the wide range of opinions on NFCC#8. I've stayed out of the debate as I have a very hard time understanding how the images in say, this article, significantly increase understanding of an audio recording. - Peripitus (Talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work at Granada War Relocation Center

I left a message at Talk:Granada War Relocation Center expressing my support for the new free image with which you replaced the non-free one. ^S._D.Jameson 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?

You consider simply removing my concerns as "cleaning"? ^S._D.Jameson 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious

I'm curious about the motivation behind your crusade to remove and delete images that fail WP's rules in some tiny way. Are you perhaps under the impression that you're protecting WP from a circling horde of vicious copyright lawyers who will shut down the whole project if they find some article that uses two non-free images instead of one? Presumably you think you're performing some kind of service to WP; how would you characterize the nature and value of that service? Or does enforcing rules, however minor, just appeal to your sense of neatness?

I don't mean to sound argumentative; I just see a behavior I don't understand and I'm honestly curious. RedSpruce (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you need to know, I like intellectual honesty. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to know; I was just inquiring. Your refusal to give a meaningful answer, and your odd deletion of my question and your response both strike me as the dead opposite of anything like "intellectual honesty." So thanks; I consider myself well enlightened about your motivations now. RedSpruce (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

IFD discussion concern

Dear Fut.Perf.,

Please consider retracting or modifying your comment directed to Ipoellet at the IFD for CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png

As far as I can tell, he is an established editor and an accusation of bad faith for his articulating a viewpoint that differs from yours is uncalled-for and hurtful, IMO. JGHowes ^talk - 02:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fut Per and I were discussing this earlier. He then removed the discussion with an edit summary of "cleaning" for some reason. I don't think he's really very open to counsel on this. ^S._D.Jameson 02:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OPP2

Please can you see this. In the event that Opp2 does not reverse themselves would you support a topic ban? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Karren brady.JPG speedily deleted

You speedily deleted Image:Karren brady.JPG under BLP policy. Could I request that you consider restoring it, and perhaps take it to IFD or DRV for further discussion?

I haven't seen this person in the flesh, but her nose also looks large in these pictures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558490/Birmingham-City-bosses-Karren-Brady-David-Sullivan-deny-wrongdoing-arrested-corruption-probe.html

(Though newspapers have been known to doctor photos, I don't have any reason to suspect those ones are distorted.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is most certainly distorted, in the sense of being horizontally stretched. Even if it weren't, and if it were "only" an extremely disadvantageous and technically deficient shot, I consider it simply a matter of human decency that we shouldn't be forcing such an ugly image on a person. No BLP subject should have a personal image on Wikipedia that they have a good reason to feel uncomfortable with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the image any more to respond to the technical comments. Could the stretch be repaired? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried a bit; with horizontal compression to about 85% the face began to look roughly human, but then I had the feeling the proportions of the rest of the head were wrong. And it's very poor quality in a number of other ways too. There's a google cache version still around. [48] Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Google cache has expired.) I appreciate you trying the repair. Consider the matter closed. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image removals

Why are you removing images simply because they are "nonfree" with no discussion at all, orphaning them? Two exmples: [49] and [50], which only had discussion start afterwards? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am boldly improving the encyclopedia by cleaning it up. Every step was clearly documented and argued for. These are all extremely obvious, open-and-shut cases. In the Micronesia one the case was so obvious I am certain every interested editor understands exactly what's happening by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's a patch about the organization, it's not so obvious nor open and shut. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I'm terribly sorry, my bad. I only now realise I removed the wrong one. I meant the other one. The logo seems okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. That one you ifd'd. no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear: you are boldly removing valid and useful material from Wikipedia for no good reason, using obscure and pointless rules as your justification to be destructive and commit vandalism. RedSpruce (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody now please block this abusive editor for their persistent pattern of personal attacks and campaigning against the project's core principles? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As is perfectly obvious, I am not "crusading" against anything. I am expressing an opinion about your activities. It's not a complementary opinion, but it's one that has been stated by others and deserves to be restated. RedSpruce (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please have at least the marginal remnant of decency to spare me the yellow bar, and keep off my page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tag team

Hiya, just wanted to let you know about this page, which is an outgrowth of our discussions at the Working Group wiki. Since you were involved with the development of the definitions there, I wanted to invite you to the new page here on EN, in case you'd like to participate with its development. --Elonka 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An image question

A truce (at least momentarily) on our Dunstan Dispute. What do you think of this image?

It seems to me to be unnecessary to the article, doesn't depict anything of significance to the topic, and could very easily be deleted. It seems a purely decorative image to me, and I would support deletion of it, pending an IfD nomination, but I've never nominated an image for deletion (though I have recommended deletion at several IfDs), so I wanted to leave it to a more experienced nominator, if you wouldn't mind. ^S._D.Jameson 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmhhh, a TV series episode screenshot lacking analytical commentary and specificity to the episode. Yummy. My favourite.

You're totally correct, of course. There's plenty of precedent for deleting that sort. But cleanup has tended to concentrate on some series and hasn't yet reached certain others very systematically. If you want to nominate I'll let you do the honours, otherwise I'll probably do it tomorrow.

Thanks for bringing it up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave it to you, my friend, as I have an inclusionist reputation (however unearned) to uphold... ;) ^S._D.Jameson 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War Montage

There is nothing wrong with the use of that image, a fair use rationale has been provided for it. Furthermore, I took advice before including it, there is a fair use rationale, there is no equivalent non-free image. I find it quite disturbing that you're threatening to go after it for deletion simply because of a dispute on an another image. Justin talk 08:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Really, well as I said I took advice before creating it and putting it up. The advice I received was that it was within the policy guidelines. For information I've placed a note on the Falkland War Talk Page indicating your intention. Justin talk 08:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I really do think you have an overly rigid and narrow interpretation on NFCC#8. By the way in passing, you keep mentioning rules. Well Wikipedia does not have rules, it has policies and guidelines. In fact once of its policies is that policies and guidelines should not be interpreted as rules, individual cases should be treated on merit and that agreement is achieved through consensus. You seem to have forgotten that. I must admit it had never occurred to me before but there are several iconic images from the Falklands War that really could do with their own articles. I guess that my list of things to do just got larger. Justin talk 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I politely asked that a none involved admin should look at this, your nomination of that image for speedy deletion has all the hallmarks of retaliation, not that I especially believe that is your reason but it does certainly give that impression. You really should have recused yourself and asked someone not involved to look at it. Justin talk 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(a) I already told you why I did it; if you don't "especially believe" I'm lying (thanks) then why are you going on about it? (b) I already tagged it so that others will see it and can step in. On reflection, however, and with due consideration given to your polite request, I do not promise I won't process it myself. I just can't allow for editors to just shut me out from their favourite turf like this at their will. If, every time I was in a dispute with some editor over an image, I subsequently had to withdraw from all admin action regarding that editor's other stuff, I'd soon be left with nothing to do. It would immobilise me in my dealings as an admin. Sorry, can't accept these terms. Speedy deletion criteria are meant to be processed by a single admin without need of consultation; that's why they are speedies. I'm totally capable of fulfilling this job with respect to the present case, so I'm not recusing from it.

By the way, in the interest of minimising disruption on the article, I'd recommend you already start looking for a replacement. Deletion can wait until you've uploaded one, no problem about that. And, on a totally different note, if you make one I'd recommend finding some other solution for that map of the Falklands you included. I personally found it quite confusing, it took me more than three or four looks until I realised what it was - I first thought it was some strangly photographed bushes or thicket. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for an uninvolved admin, as you've clearly mind your mind up and nothing I could do or say would change it. I happen to think you're wrong based upon my reading of the policy. If it is as clear cut as you seem to think then asking another uninvolved admins opinion is not going to make any difference. It would avoid the appearance that you have simply done this in retaliation for my disputing your actions. It is not an attempt to shut you out of my "favourite turf" and I do resent the implication that is what I was trying to do.

And if you're trying to find another none free image in that montage there isn't one, and you could have saved yourself the trouble as I listed the source of all the images when I uploaded it. Justin talk 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GK1973

Please see the TalkPage on "Ancient Macedonians" and see why this GK1973 doesan't answer me, just keeps on deleting my posts?

THX 212.120.7.4 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Master of the world.jpg

Hi, good job on finding that image and on making that stub. I searched online for the book cover but couldn't find it. I never thought about searching for just a book illustration which works just as well if not better. Garion96 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyvio

At the top of the 14 August IfD page is a clear copyvio. Would you mind speedying it? ^S._D.Jameson 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lexico's edit

He is doing such a huge edit without consensus. [51] And, he neglect rebuttal by Japanese scholer[52] after Mr. Yu's report(I already presented)　and pushed only Mr. Yu's logic.[53] And he cuted and pasted some sources and maked original logic.[54] I recommend revert to old simply version.[55]--Opp2 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nova1 in Flight.jpg

Last time this was proposed for deletion (result was keep), I had considered uploading an image of the balloon just after launch; thus the image would actually be showing Nova 1 in flight - such as this - but it seems that only the image to be speedily deleted was released as a promotional image, so I'm not sure whether we could claim fair use for the launch image (if not, it may be possible to have the launch image released under GDFL - I know one of the people on the Nova team). --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you could get them to release anything free, that would obviously be the best solution all round. But my point here is, you already have that image of the earth's surface, the one that won the prize. This one isn't doing anything that the other can't do, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, just that the one that won the prize is an achievement by CU Spaceflight, whereas the launch image would give an image specifically for that mission. But like you said it won't serve much of a purpose, so I guess we might as well leave it out. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Skopje

Please see this. It is the official website of Skopje, where albanian version exists, and the city is called Shkupi, exept of its macedonian and english form. What do you think?balkanian (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Attiki odos map

I have already answered at the corresponding page of Wikipedia Commons a few days ago. It is true I didn't design the map by my self--I wish I could after all!-- but there was no clarification about the copyright. User:Dimboukas

I really appreciated that when you received my answer you didn't start preaching like others would do! Anyway, thank you for your comprehension!Dimboukas (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bouboulina

Congratulations! Your ability of destroying and your democratic way of thinking are perfect for one more time! - Sthenel (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty good at destroying things, it's my long practice in the service of the Cabal that makes me so skilled in being evil. Now, are you denying the text was plagiarised? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the text is not plagiarised or copy-edited. Btw why User:Arditbido changes the leading paragraphs in Mirela Manjani and Savva Lika from the formal and stable style? - Sthenel (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My new Project

Where in policy does it say I can't have the images whilst I'm creating an article in my user space. It doesn't mention user space at all in the article you've linked to. Justin talk 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Vlorë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concencus reached. Can you unprotect the page.balkanian (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Northern Epirus

Nice start. I think we should create a new page for the Greek minority, and to add just a summary in Norther Epirus page. Also, if you agree I would like to create a Southern ALbania article, in order to remove the confusion. What do you think?balkanian (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png

Hi Fut.Perf, I will respond to your comments in the next day when time permits me to compose a well-thought out response. I do note that none of the NFCC requirements are ever significantly debated over except #1 and #8 (the latter of which was just changed). Over these two requirements there seems to be unending debate and acrimony; there seems to be a minor battle going on in Wikipedia:Non-free content. The headline comment on the talk page ("Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate") is both true and terribly unfortunate. We have a constant struggle between sides who verge towards the strict German Wikipedia rules (no fair use) and the old oft de-facto rule here (any rationale is a good one) - Peripitus (Talk) 07:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue here, as with most disputed deletions of images that I've seen go to the wire, is that NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 are only unequivocal in meaning to those with strongly set opinions.

I guess the first thing to address is the closure which, on reflection, I still feel is correct, though am happy to be proved wrong at say DrV. The issue in the debate was entirely whether it was significant enough to pass the NFCC#8 requirements—a qualitative decision. Ignoring C.S. with his "stick it to the deletionists" comment, there were strong arguments that I cannot discount given on both sides. If the image was not mentioned in the article I would have had no issues in deleting it but in this case; the mention in the article (a simple paragraph though it is) and the majority argument in the debate that this and the images properties meant that it was significant →leads to the conclusion that the debate's consensus is that it passes NFCC#8 and should be kept. The assessment of whether the mention in the article is a significant or trivial is one was considered by those participating and, if I had a contrary opinion to the consensus that I wished to have effect, then the correct approach is for me to participate in the debate rather than use it in closing.

As to my opinions on whether it passes the requirements particularly in light of your comment about WP:NFC#Unacceptable use point 4: The prime difference here is that while it is a photo of some girl scouts in an article on the same (if this were the only match my finger would be on the delete button now), it is also of a particular scenario that is mentioned (albeit in an unsourced way) in the article. If I were to participate in the debate at the moment I would be just on the delete side of the debate, but only just. Note this is based on my interpretation of the NFCC criteria not my personal preference. Personally I've read thousands of books, and some encyclopaedias, that are have no images at all, but are completely comprehensible. Many rationale's and arguments to keep seem to be from those who have not and feel lost without images.

As for the legal stance, this is really something that I cannot comment extensively on as I lack both the in-depth knowledge and the enthusiasm to gain the same. As with all legal positions, what is legal is what courts allow and what is illegal is what they forbid or punish. While there are many opinions on legality, copyright, freedom of panorama etc. here (some by lawyers with appropriate background), definitive rules come only from legal judgements. Given that, if a case is launched against Wikixxxx, the offending material would be promptly removed and perhaps the case rendered moot, we are unlikely to ever get this certainty. I think we have to leave it to Wikimedia's legal council to pay attention to local communities NFCC criteria and intervene if they are passing out of their comfort zone.

I do agree that the debate has drifted though it has not all been unidirectional. In 2006 (when you and I started editing here) simple templates were seen as good enough - a situation that changed for the better last year. If you look through the many many debates here it is clear that NFCC8 is vague in that experienced wikipedians can quite convincingly argue both sides using the same rules and information. I see this as a natural outcome of the way we make policy here→a number of strongly opinioned editors write the policy based either on what they think we do or what they think we should do. As Kurt Weber has inelegantly pointed out numerous times this often means that policy is a set of de-facto outcomes rather than de-jure rules.

My personal feelings on how I should operate as an admin mean that I must subsume my opinion on a debate sometimes to close it per consensus—being the lifeblood of this place and something that should only be ignored after great thought. Were I the one setting the rules, and the site structured such that this was possible, there would possibly be very very few fair-use images, articles on individual Simpson's characters and some other things left (I'm channelling a German editor here). My opinions on fair-use clearly do not gel with the consensus position on Wikipedia. For example I cannot see what the claimed fair-images in this article, this FA and many others add to the readers understanding; the same goes for almost all album covers, book covers and so on.

As to what we do from here ? I see reversing my decision is not a clear reflection of the consensus and that rerunning IfD (given the limited audience) is perhaps a step that would lead to an acrimonious null result. I'm happy to punt this up at DRV; where I would not put money on the outcome, given some of the bizarre debates I've seen there—I'll create the DRV entry if you think it's a worthwhile step. Perhaps something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes for images would help in guiding debates ? - Peripitus (Talk) 13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment on the legal side of things, probably because I was not clear. As with all things legal, there is no hard line between good and bad; were it otherwise judges could no judge. We certainly push fair use beyond what I think is reasonable and "fair" though less far than many here would like. "Shall we wait to hear more from them, and then decide how to proceed further?" - yes. If the source says take the image down then we can't disagree...if it's agreed to freely release it then the problem is no more - Peripitus (Talk) 21:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg

Kindly restore this image, which you deleted without notifying me, the uploader. Did you first delete the FUR for this image? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The image tag claimed this was a "unique historic image" used to illustrate an historic "event or historically notable person(s)". Moreover, the FUR claimed it was "a historically significant photograph", used for "identification and critical commentary", and again, "depicts a non-reproducible historic event".

All of these claims are quite patently false.

According to WP:CSD I7(a), images wth a clearly invalid fair-use tag can be deleted at any time, without notification of the uploader.

I can undelete it if you give me some description of how you are going to fix it. But I don't think it will work. According to WP:NFC, we don't use old photographs simply to illustrate a typical situation. We use them only where the image itself is so notable that it becomes itself an object of encyclopedic discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to fix it, when I don't even have a link to the original photo!

WP:CSD I7(a) reads: "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {Non-free logo} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time."

This clearly doesn't apply to a good-faith situation such as this.Please restore the image, and I'll work on the FUR.

In the future, please observe common courtesy in your proposed deletions. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted. But, as I said, I remain skeptical if it can work. The article doesn't even mention what the image shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some information to the FUR, and revised the caption accordingly.

You clearly don't like use of this template, but it's grossly inappropriate to delete work on the basis of your personal opinions -- and even less appropriate to do so without notifying the uploader. Please don't confuse your personal opinions with Wikipedia policy. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Himarë

Could you keep an eye on the article, now and then? It certainly needs some serious sourcing but the kind of defacement that went on during the last 3 days we don't need. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wah. This is the Diff from Hell. Diffs are called diffs because sometimes it's so darn diff-icult to diff-erentiate which of the two versions is worse... Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Please review your edit comment on the Patricia Racette image description page. You said: "reinstate replaceability tag misleadingly removed by uploader himself". How is the assumption of good faith? At that time, there was an enormous backlog of images that had not been reviewed, because the replaceable fair use image template and policy was brand new. No admins were patrolling those backlogs. After consultation with an administrator, I was given the go-ahead to help clear that backlog. This did include closing several of my own images. The concern at that time was that some images, like this one, lacked a fair use assertion statement in the image description page and in the article source code. I added same for both prior to closing any of them. Your comment send a different message than a good faith effort by a non-administrator (at that time) helping to clear a new backlog; it implies "this guy is a bad boy and lied and deceived us by removing the tag". Please work on improving your AGF and communication skills with other editors. I have had this same problem with you in the past, and had hoped it was put behind us. I am now concerned that you may be starting back your old bad habits, something that must not happen. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

East Aegean Islands????

Can you take a look into this at Aegean Islands and it's related articles. It seems User:PKo and a bunch of Ip Users keep changing it. Now I've never heard of the East Aegean Islands at all until now. Is this for real, because I'd be very surprised if English Wiki was behind the curve, cause the user apparently got it from here: Nordägäische Inseln, Thrakische Inseln (North Aegean Islands, Thracian Islands) and Ostägäische Inseln (East Aegean Islands) (see my talk page), so I don't know how factual those are. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So should it just be left as is? I mean a whole new article (East Aegean islands) would need to be created if left as is. Plus as you show Samothrace and Thasos are considered North, while Lemnos and all the others are considered East. However to the user's recollection, it's different. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New user vandalising

There is a new user who is vandalising pages in a Greek POV. please see this and this. The user is User:Stavros hellas.balkanian (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

These sorts of insulting comments of yours really need to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. I will call crap crap whenever I feel like it. It's bad enough I have to wade through it. I feel insulted by that fact alone. Crap. Crap. Crap. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, whose sensitive soul did I hurt here that they had to run to daddy to complain about me behind my back? Or are you watching my edits? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Gian Maria Volontè

You do realise that Mr. Volonte died back in 1994 don't you. If the commons image was taken in January 2008 do you think it is reasonable to say that there may be something wrong with the details? The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not really him? The flickr image is from this set: [56]; those may well be old pre-digital photographs from the early 90s; the date displayed in the metadata would just be the date of scanning. In any case, if you really doubt the legitimacy of the image, that's a case to be solved at commons; the item here on en-wiki will have to be deleted independently anyway, because it duplicates another screenshot that fulfills the same purpose (WP:NFCC #3). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He changed a bit by his old age but it is him. There should have been something to indicate when it was taken. How do we know the image isn't copywrighted and the uploaded at flickr uploaded it under a wrong license? . About deelting the existing image. Not neccesarily. Two image in the same article is not permitted no it will have to be rmeoved from that one, but if I add an adquate rationale it can be used in the main body of his article to represent his work as an actor. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at IfD, shall we? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why bother? The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... because that's where it's going to be decided and others can see it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising again

User:Stavros hellas is keeping vandalising every albanian page, where is a consencus reached. see his edits in Vlora, Saranda, Finiq, Northern Epirus, Korca, Berat, Gjirokaster, etc, etc. Please do something, as an editor.balkanian (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanksbalkanian (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alltimelow.jpg

Would you take a look at this image, to see if it is genuinely free or possibly a CV? It is watermarked www.Dmetschke.com which appears to be a professional photographer's copyrighted website, although I can't tell for sure (I'm at my summer home with a very slow, dial-up connection and an old W95 PC, and can't fully access it)

Laquena (talk · contribs) has uploaded several images from that website. Thx, JGHowes ^talk - 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They imply they are themselves the owner, which seems plausible. I've asked them to send OTRS confirmation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Epirus map

Regarding this, Iannina? And since when is Corfu part of the periphery of Epirus or the Ambracian Gulf a lake? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was in a hurry. As I said, factual corrections welcome. I'm also not at all certain I got the boundaries of N.E. right, I was cobbling them together from different source maps that didn't quite seem to match. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why in a hurry? To preëmpt User:Arditbido's attempt to delete the article? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Hi. Is there people talking about me on IRC? May I access the logs? --Damiens.rf 15:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, MBisanz mentioned you. I explained the thing about NFCC#2 to him, and that was basically it. Nothing much beyond what was also said on the IfD page. Sorry I can't publish the logs, it's supposed to be a closed channel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. As long as it's not gossip... --Damiens.rf 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want more detail, you'll need to activate your e-mail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Damiens.rf 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Laskarina Bouboulina

I'm strongly opposed to copying and plagiarism, but I also try to assume good faith. I think that the user on that page is making good faith efforts and just needs some patience. Would you mind giving him some slack while he tries to re-write that material? Feel free to engage in the discussion on the talk page. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He can't really expect me to be particularly patient with him after the wild accusations he hurled against my character here (see #Bouboulina above), so forgive me if I'm a bit curt with him. I actually don't doubt his good faith, but it makes no difference. Repeatedly introducing plagiarism without bad faith but simply because of deficient writing skills is still grounds for a protective block. If he wants advice on how to avoid plagiarism the next time he can politely ask me and I'll gladly give it. Well, actually, I've given him some quite for free just now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Finnish copywright

Yes I think you may be right. However it is difficult to pin down when the copywright holder died. The Bald One ^{White cat} 08:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, at many events there is more than one photographer there. Even so if you are right, there are many other images of her which exist as an alternative. AN image of her on her 114th birthday I think is quite suitable and is encyclopedic. What I fail to understand is that yes intitially such news agencies make their money selling the photos as the event happens as with other media. But several years later I doubt they still try to profit from old photographs if they have received wide commerical useage. Given that the image has been used for nearly a year, if the Allied Press was outraged about it I'm sure they would have sealed a complaint about it. The Bald One ^{White cat} 08:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well whatever I state or whatever effort I make to try to provide a rationale the news agency fee issue will always arise. Perhaps it would be a good idea to contact Allied Press or other news agencies and see how they would feel about wikipedia using their images. The question is would a news agency as huge as that try to profit off a not for profit site with educational benefit such as wikipedia? The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of Dimboukas

Hi. I would like to comment on this block that you made. I find it very disturbing that you should block someone to "get user's attention", as you put it. This matter, while important, was clearly not so urgent as to require this kind of out-of-process action: blocks should be the last resort to deal with problematic editors.

I recognise that you had good intentions in doing this, that the editor concerned was not overly upset, and that this is now a good few days ago, but I feel it would be entirely proper for me to register my belief that blocking users in this way should not happen and to request that you refrain from making such blocks in the future.

Thank you.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank your for your message. Your opinion is duly noted. However, I will register my disagreement: this was a proper if uncommon action, in my view. First, a block that is made with the express provision that it will be lifted immediately after a user's next login, on condition of just literally saying three words, does not improperly hurt a user. The time that he was actually prevented from editing was a matter of a few minutes. There also is no serious stain in his block log or anything, because the block message was entirely non-accusatory and the unblock message very clear. Second, I maintain this was, in effect, a rule-conforming disruption block. A user who creates copyright violations has an obligation to actively help with the necessary cleanup work he has caused. Failing to do so, when asked politely and repeatedly, is in itself a disruptive act. His silence was causing concrete harm, in the sense of causing people on commons (including myself) unnecessary work.

By the way, he wasn't just "not overly upset" with the block, he was actually grateful I treated him so well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image permission

I have the email and tagged as they asked. Is there more to do with this? I'll save the email. They're sending me hard copy too. Diff here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good to hear. I guess when they talk about the attribution line they'd mean they want that on the article itself, wouldn't they? About the e-mail, perhaps it would be good to also forward it to OTRS. By the way, can you do me a favour and also modify the FUR for that image a bit? You know I'm still not really happy with the image, but at least let's have a rationale that somehow makes sense and is a decent model. The "replaceable" entry really is quite meaningless; that wording makes sense for fiction-related stuff where we are discussing the copyrighted work as an object of art; in this case here, the question is not about replaceability with a derivative version of the same image, but about replaceability with some different image or with no image at all. And the "purpose of use" really ought to say something concrete about what this particular image is supposed to be doing in this particular article; that's the whole point about having FURs. Too many people treat FURs as meaningless boilerplate templates, that's a trend that really perverts the whole idea behind it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at the FUR, but you can probably think of something better. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I probably wouldn't be able to help, sorry. Because, as I said, I personally still don't believe it does meet NFCC. I couldn't truthfully write a FUR I don't believe in, even if I wanted to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Burusho

Hi Katze, this people are very special. They began again. Take a look. They do not recognize any compromise for long time and make permanent attempts to do only Kitsch and Kitsch and so weiter ... Jingby (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Map kozani.jpg

User:Makedonas continues to add a copyrighted image that has been deleted, claiming it as PD. See here: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_June_29#Image:Kozanimap.jpg. Can you please do something about this? _{El Greco}^(talk) 18:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, can you please help me with an image. I am a bit confused what will be the copyright tag for Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Will Template:Non-free magazine cover be more appropriate? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Magazine cover" should be fine; can't see any reason why not. Seems more directly applicable than the "historic image" one it had earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the copyright tag. But there is another problem with the Image:German anti-smoking ad.jpeg. The editor raised concern that it is not unique historic image since there are similar ads, so what will be appropriate copyright tag for this image. I cannot find any proper copyright tag for this image among which are listed in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to {{Non-free 2D art}}, that seems the most applicable. Provided of course your article does in fact engage in some sort of analytic discussion of this type of caricature – like, what style of propagandistic techniques they typically used in them, that sort of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am facing another problem with finding the copyright holder. Is it necessary to mention the name of the copyright holder? British Medical Journal does not clarify anything on this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, now it's getting tricky :-) But I think we needn't worry too much about it. Since it's from the "Reine Luft" paper, the copyright would probably have been either with its publishers, the "Deutscher Bund zur Bekämpfung der Tabakgefahren e.V." [57] (or its heirs, whoever that might be), or the artist, whose name seems to be "Lehnert". I guess we don't need to exaggerate here though, just put in that it's from that magazine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it is annoying job to be so nit picky with images. But I have to do this due to the NFC police in the FA nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

File:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg

Hey, I noticed you deleted this while discussion was still ongoing at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 21. Please restore it until a consensus is apparent. Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a speedy deletion for an obvious violation of the rules cited, done 48h after notification according to the rules. There is no need for further discussion. The rules are crystal clear, and consensus cannot overrule them in such a case. It is quite common for IfD cases to be closed early where speedy deletion criteria are met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as do the majority of those who commented. Would you prefer to take it to AN/I or a deletion review, I'll let you choose. --John (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are out of order deleting this and other images while discussion was still in progress after a couple of days, particularly as you had participated in debating and !voting on other images on the same page where the same issue had arisen. That is an abusive use of admin tools. You should leave it to an uninvolved admin to make the decision. Kindly restore the deleted images so the discussions can continue. Ty 00:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed your deletion log, I am inclined to agree with Tyrenius. Whatever your views on fair use, it is inappropriate for you to speedy delete images in whose IFDs you have participated. For the same reason I have held back from undeleting them. Here is the policy your deletion is in breach of: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. However "crystal clear" this issue may seem to you, you are certainly not permitted to act in this fashion, and your action shows scant respect to the many who disagree with you. Please reconsider, as I would far rather resolve this amicably than take it to AN/I. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it wherever you like; probably DRV is the most correct process. I have nothing much to say over and above what I already said. These were 100% copyvios, they get deleted, period. The rules about commercial images have been in place for ages, and there are dozens of precedents of such IfDs and DRVs. In every such case, you get up to a half dozen editors who will vociferously argue that the rule doesn't exist, or who will fail to grasp the difference between a necessary and a sufficient criterion, or will just try to hand-wave it away. Their ignorance does nothing to change the fact that the rule in fact does exist, that it in fact is crystal clear, and that it in fact does get enforced. And, unless I made some unintentional mistake, I didn't close any I voted in. The fact that I educated some editors about the policy in the context of similar debates doesn't make me "involved" in any meaningful sense, or else no administrator who had ever warned a user of vandalism could ever again make an anti-vandal block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your reply, and see you on AN/I; as this is a matter of your conduct now, I think it better to raise it there. I couldn't care less if the fair use image I uploaded to illustrate the Chinook article got deleted, but I'm not willingly working with an admin with an attitude like yours, sorry. I take it all the stuff I quoted about your abuse of admin privilege went right over your head; that's a shame if so. Maybe it is you who needs to be educated. Have a great day, and see you around. --John (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Koavf and bilateral relation moves, again

Hi. Please refer to this note. Thanks. Regards, El_C 08:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What's he been moving now? I can't that quickly find it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I know, there's a lot of moves to wade through. At around August 13. Basically, doing what he was cautioned against last year. El_C 08:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, got it. Ugh. There was a recent discussion at "Categories for discussion" that led to a renaming of the related categories according to the noun-noun style. I would have opposed that had I been aware of it, but as long as it's just the categories, it doesn't do much harm. But the articles shouldn't be forced in this way. By the way, was it intentional that you moved them to a title with en-dash (or em-dash even?) instead of the normal hyphen? That, too, strikes me as suboptimal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I did that on purpose, because a lot of his moves were to just move to the dash (he is citing "wp:dash"). Myself, I prefer a normal dash, but I didn't want to have those articles moved a second time for the dashes (which may yet happen, as I think I accidentally added m- instead of n-dash as originally intended). Incidentally, I didn't revert all his moves, there's still many I missed (so many of these noun-over-scholarly renames are mixed with the "wp:dash"). It's really difficult to keep up with Koavf page moves, but I said that last year, so nothing new under or at the imperfect sun. El_C 09:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite WP:HYPHEN back at him. I don't think cases like "French-German relations" fall under the classes mentioned at WP:DASH. I've never seen those spelled with an en-dash. Just checked google books and google news, and they seem to be spelled with simply hyphens throughout. Perhaps one might want an en dash for the more syntactically complex, noun-phrasey cases, like "United States–Iran" or whatever. But I don't see why you wouldn't use a simple hyphen in Adjective-Adjective compounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the MoS, excepting a few prominent areas, is labyrinthine and self-contradictory. Usually, only those principles which are well grounded outside of it, beyond Wikipedia users' own (often somewhat arbitrary) preferences, to those usages which enjoy consensus outside of Wikipedia, in this case, in international relations and diplomacy, are ones which should be followed. I am unsure as to what model Koavf follows. El_C 09:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments First off, thanks to El C for inviting me to discuss. I will say this much initially:

1. As the articles were named, there was no consistency in the slightest. Virtually any combination of adjectivals, nouns, and types of dashes/hyphens were used with some in a form that wasn't even internally consistent (e.g. Cyprus-Ukrainian relations.) Since there was no standard of any kind in place, I figured that it would be of no consequence if I renamed them to something consistent, especially one that apparently met the standards of a naming convention. What is so bad about some consistently-named articles in this arbitrary hodge-podge?
2. I honestly have no idea what "noun-over-scholarly-rename" means. If you are convinced that there is some scholarly consensus to use the type (e.g.) "Franco-German relations" that remains to be seen by me. If so, then please use it consistently.
3. As was pointed out above, there was a consensus to use the form "<Noun>–<Noun> relations" for categories. I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Naming of bilateral relations articles and categories pretty late into the CfD; as best as I can tell, no one at that project responded. As far as I'm aware, the only discussion on achieving a consensus on this matter (other than the CfD) is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 1#How many articles should we have on bilateral relations.3F and there is hardly any consensus there, let alone one as open to the community as WP:CfD is. Considering the fact that there is a consensus for "<Noun>–<Noun> relations" form for categories, I really can't think of any compelling reason to have articles not obey that same standard. Can you?
4. I would like to reiterate my rational for that nascent standard: 1. My understanding of WP:DASH, 2. alphabetical order for names of states for neutrality and consistency, and 3. Use of noun forms rather than adjectivals. I propose that this is preferable because of instances where there are two states with the same adjectival form (eg. "Dominican" and "Congolese"), one state with two adjectival forms (e.g. "British" and "Anglo-" for the United Kingdom, itself a bit dodgy since the latter implies English rather than British), and instances where both are the case (e.g. "Chinese" and "Sino-" for the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China.) Altogether, I think they make a strong case for a consistent and unambiguous standard that is about as arbitrary as the collation of the alphabet.

In sum, considering how there was no application of any kind of standard before and how there is some consensus of the sort to do as I have done, I don't see what the problem is and I would recommend that others assist me in enforcing some kind of rationality to these names. If you think that should be some other standard, I would be fine with that as long as there is an actual consensus to use it and it's actually applied.

I will not be watching your talk page unless you request I do so please post on my talk if that is necessary. Again, thank you for notifying me to explain myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You ask: "I really can't think of any compelling reason to have articles not obey that same standard. Can you?" Yes, I can. WP:USEENGLISH. That's the overriding policy here. Consistency is all fine and dandy, but Wikipedia naming should not and cannot attempt to be more consistent than the English language itself. It is a fact that country names in English are not a grammatically consistent class. What works syntactically with "United States–Venezuela relations" does not work with "German-Polish relations". People just don't say "Germany–Poland relations". It's simply wrong.

So, my opinion is still the same as a year ago: you got your sense of priorities wrong. Wikipedia naming policy favours whatever is most natural and common for each individual article. Naturalness is more important than consistency. Please respect the decisions local editors have taken about what they find sounds best and reflects actual usage in the relevant literature about their particular countries. Some careful changes to details such as consistency in capitalisation is okay, but please don't force your unitary scheme on article where people have made well-considered different choices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Use English While you are correct that common names are preferred, if there is not a common name and instead it is a construct, style guides prevail; there is not a "wrong" approach other than one that is nonsense. Your post assumes that local editors have been at all considerate about making these articles and that is clearly not the case in a significant portion of them - e.g. the name of the article listed above or the wildly disparate names of Greek relations articles, or the preponderance of malformed bilateral relations stubs. Many of these were made with abandon. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct English It is one thing to say that a construct is not common and another to say that it is ungrammatical. While the phrase "Germany–Japan relations" is certainly more rare than "German–Japanese relations" or "Japanese–German relations," there is nothing syntactically incorrect about it (I am speaking as a native speaker of American English.) If you want to use the most common names of these bilateral relations, certainly all the "Sino–X relations" would be changed, as "Chinese" is infinitely more common. What you and El C are suggesting are directly contradictory as one of you is proposing most common names (e.g. "Chinese" not "Sino") and the other scholarly names ("Sino"); again, the only consensus on this matter was the one I mentioned above and I think it was useful for some users because it ignores these same kind of issues: which name is more common? Which name is used in scholarly literature? Which has more Google hits? If these constructions were actually ungrammatical or confounding, then I think your argument(s) would be stronger, but as it is, anyone would understand what "Germany–Japan relations" means even if he would not be inclined to say it in casual speech or formal writing. ("Sino–Japanese relations" would be confusing to at least some speakers; of course, I do not have polling data for what percentage.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Contention I do understand what you are saying: your preference is to jettison a particular rule in favor of what is conventional in English, whereas I am in favor of uniformity at the expense of what might be more common. We are both agreed that there are some constructions which are simply too monstrous to make and those should be avoided. I suspect we are also in agreement that there are some conventional and slang terminology that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia, my bias is to defer to what is a standardized and systematized rather than the vernacular because that is what I would expect out of professional writing. Since these forms are not unintelligible or so bizarre as to warrant confusion (i.e. who would be confused at the meaning of "Germany–Poland relations?"), I am still in favor of them being applied in some kind of uniform manner. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No sense? When you talk about how language is spoken, you are talking about the vernacular; you are the one who brought up the notion, not me. I am not mistaking my own made-up standards (I have no idea what a non-made-up standard in language would even be...), rather, I am saying that in the abstract that is my preference. Regardless of what the standard is, I am generally in favor of enforcing it as a naming convention. You also make the bold and simply untrue claim that "the only true standard that exists in language [is] that which speakers actually do." Are you not familiar with the arbitrary standards of manuals of style or of language regulators? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Vergina Sun

I'm not sure if you have visited the Macedonian (ethnic group) template talk page, but I responded to your comments:

The Vergina Sun is claimed by Greeks to be a Greek symbol, I on the other hand believe it is a regional symbol just like the double headed eagle. Why? Thracians also have been shown to use, not only the Greek alphabet, but also the Vergina Sun. Also, Czar Samuel of Bulgaria has also been shown to either use the Vergina Sun or treasure the symbol due to its finding in his Ohrid castle. So, if it were Greek, then Thracians and Czar Samuel are Greek also according to Greek logic.

I agree Greeks used the symbol, but so did non-Greeks thus it is a regional symbol. That is why I cannot understand why Greek Macedonians get to self-determinate with the symbol, but ethnic Macedonians are not allowed to on WP. The Vergina Sun is not officially used in Greek Macedonia, yet the flag of the Vergina Sun on a blue background is still used in the article Macedonia (Greece). In my opinion, either both should be able to use it, or none should use it on Wikipedia because when only one group is allowed to use it a double standard occurs, and its use becomes exclusive even though outside of Wikipedia it is not. Mactruth (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian archaeologist Bajana Mojsov told The World Today the symbolic weight attached to the Vergina Star was archaeologically absurd - but politically inevitable. "The star of vergina applies to the 3rd Century BC northern Greece - a very different situation, not related to the 21st Century AD."I think it's modern politics, and we're witnessing the use of an archaeological symbol for history that it's really not related to."-- From [58] --Lantonov (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I believe Greek Macedonians use the symbol as political reasons, considering it was not used until Republic of Macedonia adopted it in 1991. The flag for ethnic Macedonians is not an ancient symbol, I agree. But I believe it represents the Macedonians well, the red background representing Macedonian blood has been around since Krusevo Republic, and the "Sun of Liberty" (as stated in the Macedonian anthem) was depicted using the Vergina Sun. And being forced to change the flag only causes the Macedonians to rebel against it and use it more.

I have always agreed Greek Macedonians and ethnic Macedonians should not use it do to views that it has been historically used throughout time. Both haven't used it til it was found in the 1970s and the symbol was well known by then, even being used in movies. Mactruth (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"It developed because nation states needed it for prestige and history and authenticity," stated Neal Ascherson, editor of Public Archaeology magazine. "One recurring theme is 'we are going to show you that we have always been here' - or alternatively that 'we have been here before you came'."Basically, it was hugely useful to nervous people unsure of their own authenticity wanting to prove it with the spade."Some archaeologists argue that throughout history data has been unscrupulously misused.Adolf Hitler was so fond of archaeology that he gave the SS secret service special archaeological units, so that they could dig to prove a Nazi ideological bond of soil and nationhood.Meanwhile, both Nazi and Soviet archaeologists interpreted the same evidence to prove that Poland was Germanic or Slav.Similar abuses occurred during the Balkans conflicts following Yugoslavia's break-up - not just in Macedonia, but throughout the region, argued Stasa Babic of Belgrade University.--[Some more from the above paper]. --Lantonov (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, that is why its important for both Greek-Macedonians and ethnic-Macedonians to recognize the truth behind the matter: it was a new symbol for both peoples. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New for Republic of Macedonia, and very old (ancient) for Greece. --Lantonov (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is where the confusion lies. You speak of states, I speak of the people. Ethnic Macedonians use of the Vergina Sun was new, but Greek Macedonians use of the Vergina Sun was introduced in the 1980s also. This is well known, and if you'd like to prove me wrong then show the sources for it. During the Greek struggle for Macedonia, there was no flag with the Vergina Sun on it. Most of the Macedonians fighters were Cretan volunteers, and even Pavlos Melas, the leader of the struggle and today viewed as a Greek-Macedonian, originates from Epirus.

Greek Macedonian is a new phenomenon which is comprised of Pontic Greeks, Christian Turks, assimilated ethnic Macedonians/Bulgarians/Vlach and also some Hellenic Greeks just like Ethnic Macedonian is an ethnicity comprised of Vlach/Bulgars/Serbs and some natives of Macedonia who only called themselves Macedonian. In any case, my argument is that the use of the Vergina Sun in moderns times cannot be associated with the use of the Vergina Sun in the ancient times because the Macedonia history is complex, and the use of the Vergina Sun was abandoned a long time ago before it was introduced again in the 1980s. And in my opinion, the use of it in Greek Macedonia is to develop the Greek-Macedonian identity and further assimilate the natives. Mactruth (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I get your point. In both cases it shouldn't be on modern flags. I agree with this. However, in other aspects I can't agree. Your arguments are self-defeating. You speak of Vergina Star ("Sun") as purely Macedonian (excluding Greek) symbol that shouldn't be used by Greeks at all. On the other hand you say that it is not only Macedonian (used by Thracians, among others). Thracians, as well as ancient Macedonians were in the Greek cultural sphere of influence. So the symbol is all-Greek (Greek in the wide regional sense) before being Macedonian, in the narrower regional sense. Krushevo Republic and so on don't get into this discussion at all, first because they didn't use Vergina Sun at all (on all the flags the symbol was the Bulgarian Lion, including the flag of VMORO -- red and black 50:50), and second, because these are relatively recent events. --Lantonov (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mixed my statements, I'll try to clear it up

• I never stated the Vergina Sun is a purely Macedonian symbol, and I never stated it shouldn't be used by the Greeks. I stated that the symbol is regional since ancient Macedonians, Thracians, Bulgarians and Greeks were shown to use it and because of that I don't believe Greece should claim exclusivity on the symbol.
• You are correct, it is not only Macedonian, it is regional. It may be possible the Greeks invented the symbol, then non-Greeks used it thus making it non-exclusive. Imagine if Italy stating only they could use the double-headed eagle since it originated from Rome.
• Krusevo never used the Vergina Sun. I stated the Krusevo republic was a red flag, and the red flag is now the background of the Republic of Macedonia's flag Mactruth (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I have misunderstood. I didn't know that Thracians or Bulgarians used Vergina Sun. Anything reliable (academic) on this? --Lantonov (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Czar Samuel used drinking cups and there were coins with the Vergina Sun found on it in Samuel's castle in Ohrid. Here's an example of the Vergina Sun on Thracian Coins. Research if you wanna find out more, I don't have the time but I'll try later on.

I don't have the faintest idea whether the so called vergina "sun" symbol has been used by Thracians or Bulgarians (although it doesn't seem improbable) but just for the sake of accuracy the coin you just linked to, is from Panticapaeum, a full blown greek ionian colony, so you'd better come up with something else. On a side note, since you seem to be interested in the identities of the dead interred in Tomb II at Vergina, I advise you to have a look at the most recent paper on the subject. It actually supports the Philippos Arrhidaios - Adea Euridice identification http://www.atypon-link.com/ASCS/doi/abs/10.2972/hesp.77.2.335. Cheers--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW -if it means anything- this whole star-sun blah blah thing would be utterly stupid if it weren't for the utterly non sensical (but highly suspicious) political connotations it aquired. It is actually a most common decorative motif, although from a point on, it may have been linked to the Ancient Macedonian ruling family. So "to much ado about nothing" ...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Vergina Sun is found in a Thracian tomb -- Thracians used Greek or Greek-related symbols, utensils, etc. all over the place. I would be more surprised if Bulgars (Proto-Bulgarians) used this symbol because they had another world-view, culture, religion. For Samuil (Bulgarians), Vergina Sun is possible, but not very probable. The coins in question, however, are from a purely Greek colony, which had nothing in common with Thracians. Such Greek colonies existed over the whole shore of the Black Sea (ancient name Hellespont - Greek Sea) including in present-day Bulgaria. Many towns on our sea-side have its native population Greeks (speaking Greek and with Greek names), mostly fishermen, until the present day. They come from the old Greek colonies on the shore. The sea towns themselves have Greek names even today - Sozopol, Achtopol, Nesebar, river Ropotamo, etc. Many of the native population left for Greece in the wars. I agree that the whole story of raising an ancient symbol from the dead and putting it on a flag of a country, such as that of the Republic of Macedonia is a dumb thing if there were not the political connotations. With politics in, it becomes racism, much like the swastica in Nazi Germany which was raised from the tombs and temples of ancient Indians (from India). --Lantonov (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

Please see the last edits of User:Tsourkpk, who reverted my edits and violated Wikipedia:NCGN. balkanian (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Also he broke WP:3RR in Vlora and Himara. This is an edit war by him.balkanian (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Himara article

FPS, could you please revert 12.176.25.26 and lock for sometime the Himara article? It seems that the edit war has not stopped.Thanks Knonis1 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When quality control volunteers ignore the wikipedia's civility policies

I mentioned a comment you made on User talk:Damiens.rf in my own comment. I think I disagree with you. If he can't conduct his volunteer quality control efforts in a manner that complies with WP:BITE and the wikipedia's other civility policies then it doesn't matter if other insiders agree that some of his nominations hold merit.

All the wikipedia's policies are important -- not just those that concern copyright. And volunteers who ignore the civility policies in their vandal and cruft fighting efforts are costly to the project. If their quality control efforts are too rude, and too incivil, their efforts can be just as damaging as the worst, most malicious vandal.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's well said. I am a deletionist myself, and often enforce copyright. But civility and abiding by our norms on reaching consensus are paramount. If you can indicate that you understand this and undertake to do things differently in future, I will regard the matter as resolved. I think you will agree that there is significant concern at the AN/I thread about your actions; please don't delete images yourself that you have been involved in discussing, and please remember that while we all have our particular hobby-horses here, there is no deadline for making these improvements. If you can do this maybe we can all get on with more productive activities. What do you say? --John (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria are meant to be applied exactly as I applied them: to shorten debates that are predictable and futile. That's why we have them. Every so often, somebody thinks (in perfectly good faith) it's a good idea to write an article about their non-notable band. Every so often, such a user thinks (in perfectly good faith) that "Oh, but they are way cool, and they have published a song on myspace!" is a valid argument to keep such an article, and will defend it strenuously. We have criterion A7 so that we don't need to waste time debating such cases. Every so often, somebody thinks it's a good idea to rip off somebody's commercial news images just because it would be way nice to have them. Every so often, such a user thinks that "Oh, but I want it so badly, it's irreplaceable!" is a good argument to keep such an image. We have criterion I7 exactly so that we don't need to waste time debating such cases. Because the project has decided, once and for all, that we just don't do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So basically you are standing by your actions in spite of the AN/I discussion going against you? That doesn't bode well for your future here, in my opinion, but that is your choice. Would you consider a voluntary recall of your adminship? I ask because I believe you have lost the confidence of a significant proportion of the community. You have certainly lost my confidence. Are you really unable to examine your own actions honestly, and answer properly the question I asked? And please don't make any more patronizing analogies with non-notable bands. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my actions in light of the fact that I am now seeing the sixth deletion review heading to towards confirming these kinds of deletions by me. I do not accept recall. If you want my head, you'll need to go to Arbcom. And the analogy with the A7 speedies still stands, even if you don't like to hear it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A deletion review does not determine whether "these kinds of deletions by [you]" are right or proper, it determines whether the deleted matter should be recreated. As many people have pointed out, by deleting images while there is a discussion under way on whether to delete, you shift the goalposts, as there now needs to be a consensus to undelete. This is cheating. It shows no respect for Wikipedia's policies, traditions or community. I do not "want [your] head", I want you to start acting like a responsible admin and member of the community, even if you don't like to hear it. Given your previous replies, your frivolous comments at the AN/I thread and your numerous assumptions of bad faith and rudeness I see the more I dig into your contributions, I really wonder if you need a break from editing, or certainly a break from taking contentious admin actions. If you don't voluntarily take one, the decision is likely to be taken out of your hands fairly soon I would say. The choice is yours of course but I counsel you to choose wisely. Bis nächsten Mal, --John (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in, as I have this watchlisted from another comment, that is 180 degrees out of whack for the purpose of DRV. DRV is not there to determine the merit of the subject in question. It is there solely to determine if the deletion (or retention) was done properly. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you, I didn't know that. --John (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I gather that's sarcasm. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I very seldom use sarcasm and this was totally sincere. --John (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not here to endorse Fut Perf's methods or demeanor. And I also agree that DRV does change the starting point (making a status quo bias support deletion of the article). but I also notice something. I used to work on a submarine. We had 6 hour shifts on an 18 hour day, so people at all hours, often with someone else deep asleep a few feet away. As such, alarm clocks were a no-no. Instead, a guy (usually low ranking) walked around and woke people up for their watch. If he came to your bed, it meant you had to get up and go back to work. Naturally, the responses he got were usually less than pleasant. No one was really nasty to him, but no one was happy to see him. One particular wake-up-guy (as we will call them) complained about this to a more senior person. The person responded, "Look man, you're the wakeup guy. You tell people when it is time to stop sleeping and go to work. No one is going to thank you for this or pat you on the back." Guys like Fut Perf are the wakeup guys. What he does is delete things some people (by definition, since they are added) would rather not have deleted. In order to do this properly he has to do it a lot, so lots of people will be upset with him. He will have deleted something a thousand times but the person whose picture he deleted may have never experienced the process. As such, that person may want to go through the whole rigmarole of explaining each action in detail. In a perfect world, people like fut perf would sit down and use that as a teaching moment, calmly explaining why something doesn't fit guidelines and doesn't merit inclusion. Often, he does that. Often he doesn't do that. But even when he does that, that doesn't change the fact that for 99% of the people he deals with, he's the bad guy. He's always going to be the bad guy. So I cut a lot of slack to the wake-up guy. If he woke me up brusquely, I don't take that moment as a reason to rip his head off. Partly because enough people will do so groundlessly anyway and partly because he doesn't need it. So he's not in the right, necessarily, but that is why I jumped in and mentioned something. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I hear what you're saying, Protonk. To follow your analogy though, if the "wake-up guy" intentionally broke the rules, he would still be subject to discipline, no? If he then made it clear he was not interested in the rules and would still continue to break them, there would be a consequence for the "wake-up guy", no? All admins get flak from time to time, but this is away beyond that. I am not arguing with FPS's deletionist views; to a degree I share them, although I think we differ in our interpretation of certain aspects of our mission. What I object to, and the community clearly objects to (see here) is the way FPS is behaving. Taking admin action on an image where you have been involved in the discussion is unacceptable. Treating the considered opinions of other experienced editors in good standing with contempt is unacceptable. Someone who doesn't get this is not well-suited to adminship. --John (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We are probably closer in agreement than it might seem. I don't mean to say that people who feel he's the "bad guy" do so generally because of his wikistance, but the first interaction he has with most users is almost always negative, and that isn't his fault. That element of it will cause many interpersonal problems to crop up where they might not have otherwise. As I said, I don't mean to defend his demeanor or methods. IfD is a different animal than AfD, so I'm not used to closes with 1-2 comments and I'm certainly not used to the practice of speedying the subject during a discussion. The actual practice of doing so may be improper, I don't know. But it is accurate to say that DRV's largely don't overturn his speedy's and that the images may or may not meet the CSD criteria while at IfD. But that's getting in to particulars. I just wanted to stick to the point that the crux of conflict here at least partially stems from FPS being 'the bad guy', not unilaterally support his actions. Also, as an aside, given how much of a political minefield recall and RfA are, I don't blame him if he doesn't want to relinquish the mop. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the analogy with the unpleasant task of a submarine's "wake-up guy"... yes, people with tasks like his can get unpleasant feedback -- and there are a limited number of parallels with an administrator's tasks here. If the USN assigned a senior NCO to the wake-up task this abuse problem probably wouldn't exist.