I sterbinski

Welcome!

Hello, I sterbinski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 01:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Spamming User Pages

I've noticed you've posted about 14 copies of the same boilerplate text on several user pages. Might I advise you to stop doing it, as you're going to irritate their owners? I can see you have a point to put across, which is of course welcome, so perhaps it should be posted on a central forum? Try Wikipedia:Village Pump to get this sorted out. Rob Church 01:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I also received this exact same text by email. My reply is copied below:

Your best course of action is to post this on the talk pages of the articles concerned (e.g. Talk:Macedonia for the Macedonia bit and Talk:Mexico for the Mexico bit), citing the sources you say you can provide.

You shoudl do this not in the accusational Wikipedia is full of bullshit style you have done here, as this will guarantee people will not listen to you. You need to do it in a neutral satement of facts way, e.g. "the article currently says xxxx but I think it should say uuuu becuase yyyy. See source1 and source2".

If after doing this your points are still not being listened to then you should file an RfC about an article content dispute.

I know nothing about Macedonia or Mexico, and as far as I can remember have never edited either article and I do not have the time to be involved in every dispute every user brings to my attention. Unfortunately therefore I am not in a position to help you further. Thryduulf 02:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey you're not supposed to spam your message around everywhere, you know. You got lucky though, you managed to reach the right people, so you can stop spamming now :-) . They'll look into it in the morning I'm sure. I've already fixed one of your points myself, but I'm very tired and need to get to bed. G'night! Kim Bruning 03:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop spamming. We get the point. Morwen - Talk 13:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that spamming is not condoned on Wikipedia and could result in your being blocked from editing. Thryduulf 14:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I didn't want to spam anyone. I am new to Wikipedia and sending e-mails to the administrators personaly seemed to me the only way how to get their attention. Anyway, this issue is too sensitive for me and anyone who feels Macedonian. I don't beleive that you expect me to keep my hands crossed while someone is denying and stealing my nation, history and culture. Can you imagine beeing in a situation like this? Do not worry, I am not planning to keep sending messages. But I think it is much worse what Wikipedia is doing to me, than me doing to Wikipedia.

I sterbinski 15:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Forsure. Have people been looking in on it yet? Kim Bruning 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Many of the neutral administrators were interested. But there are many Greek and Bulgarian administrators on Wikipedia. I am sure that I am not the first person reacting on this, but Bulgarians and Greeks will always outnumber us. It is best for them to deal and 'share' our history between them. I found couple of examples when a Greek and Bulgarian administrator discuss how to do this. I will just give you an example of what happened yesterday. I wrote that is not fair Wikipedia to say that Republic of Macedonia calls itself that way 'contraversialy'. One administrator changed this into 'desputed by Greece'. This morning, it was taken back to 'contraversialy'. With this is clearly that Wikipedia is heavily influenced by the Bulgarian/Greek propaganda, so I am not even sure is it worth to bother. At least for now, the regular internet users will use Google, which will help them find the informations they need concerning Macedonia. That is better than reading Wikipedia's lies. From the first 40 pages listed by Google, only Wikipedia, Pan-Macedonian network (financed by the Greek diaspora), another site supported by the Bulgarian diaspora and 2-3 sites that use Wikipedia's information support the Greek/Bulgarian propaganda. All other 30-35 sites show the truth of Macedonia. I sterbinski 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi (Zdravo)

Hi, I'm glad to see a Macedonian active on the English Wikipedia. I am one of the administrators of the Macedonian Wikipedia, and of course, you are invited to contribute there.

The developments on the English Wikipedia, as you have noticed, are unfortunate for us, Macedonians. Some of the articles are explicitely Greek and Bulgarian POV (Point of View). I have already reacted on some articles in the past (Goce Delchev, Kilkis, "Macedonian Slavs", Debar) where it was obvious that the Macedonian POV was not even mentioned. I suggest that you have a closer look on the Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), and always stick to it. Unfortunately, your fears of ethnic majorization on Wikipedia are justified - the most explicit case is the very naming "Macedonian Slavs". I have suggested that to be changed into Macedonians (people), Macedonians (ethnic group) or similar namings to avoid confusion with the Ancient Macedonians and the other peoples inhabiting the wider region of Macedonia. This has led the admin Zocky to a wrong solution o f that problem - he started a poll which is available at the archive section of Talk:Macedonian Slavs. As it was obvious that the voting is going on ethnic lines, ChrisO trigerred an initiative to resolve such naming conflicts which is available here - Wikipedia:Naming conflict, while I consulted an admin of the Serbian Wikipedia (Millosh) who send notes to the Serbian, Bosnian, Slovenian, Croatian, and Russian Wiki communities to help us on the poll - and the thing ended up as a draw. Of course, I could have consulted the Turkish Wikipedia to help us too, but that would break with my principles - for my sole intention was to delegitimize the poll as a means to end the naming conflict.

Unfortunately, the derogatory "Macedonian Slav" designation remains, and, at the moment, I don't have the time to get involved in endless debates (I spent about 5-6 hours a day in replying comments in the heat of the poll), so I'm waiting the neutral admins to rename that article. I am a bit dissapointed of their general apathy about this problem, but I am more dissapointed in the poor involvement of Macedonians on Wikipedia. I guess we have to be more and more active here, in order someone to notice our views. I'm still not giving up the fight for neutrality on Wikipedia. Please, contact me on my talk page on the English Wikipedia or on my talk page on the Macedonian Wikipedia and let me know what do you think about this. --FlavrSavr 14:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi Sterbinski, another editor has complained about your unexplained deletions and I see you've also been leaving threatening edit summaries. You've therefore been temporarily blocked from editing for disruption. Please learn to cooperate with your fellow editors on the talk pages of the articles concerned, and note that threats and personal attacks are not allowed. If I can help you in any way, feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page. You're very welcome to continue contributing within our policies when the block expires. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sterbinski, I disagree on your methods, if you are worried about Greeks and Bulgarians vandalizing pages concerning Macedonia you shouldn't have started vandalizing yourself, and thus get to their level. I admit, after the "Macedonian Slavs" case, I must be a fool to still believe in Wikipedia NPOV policy, but I still think the matter will be resolved. --FlavrSavr 15:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, again. I understand your concerns, but I would reccomend you to stop using CAPS LOCKED STATEMENTS and exclamation marks (!), because they are commonly understood as yelling in a discussion (and therefore, immediately regarded as false, no matter how well is your reasoning). If you want to stress something you could use the bold and italic text buttons above, they look way better than giant letters. Also, it would be a good idea to put some small info on your user page. Best regards. --FlavrSavr 15:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

To make a text bold or italic, first select it, and then use the formatting buttons in the editing window B (for bold) and I (for italic). There is also a small help page on the Macedonian Wikipedia here. --FlavrSavr 18:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

About your comment

Hi, I'm sorry it has taken me a while to respond to your lengthy comment on my talk page. However, I will read it and see if it contains any useful points we should use. I see that you have gotten warnings from others, and that makes me a little concerned, but I will read it and get back to you (if there is anything there that should be acted upon). Thanks. Inter\^Echo 13:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing others' posts

Hi, I've seen that you've had this kind of problem. Unfortunately there is a MediaWiki bug which sometimes causes users to unwittingly undo a recent edit of someone else. To prove that you are acting in good faith, I suggest that you always immediately check the page history when you edit something, view the diff of your own edit, and if you see anything removed, put it back in at once yourself. I always do the same thing. Regards, KissL 15:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Your "Commission"

I'd just like to point out that while your little group was conducting it's procedures, it broke several policies and accepted traditions, meaning that it may well have inflamed a number of users. Your survey could have been nowhere near representative of the Wikipedia as a whole, as you did not interact with every user; did not examine histories and talk pages of every article; did not conduct this examination across different language Wikipedias. Some could consider a group hiding behind one username as a form of sockpuppetry. Incidentally, while it's good that someone took an objective view to examining the practises of the Wikipedia, you should be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation is not, on the whole, accountable for the actions of it's users, or for the content held on any of it's servers. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I could not figure out your position or conclusion from reading your report. I wish you had communicated directly with me, or raised issues in the customary way on article talk pages. As the co-chair of the Mediation Committee, I am disappointed that you investigated someone's charge that "his basic human rights were broken by Wikipedia" without calling attention to this, in a way that any of us could help you.

Actually, I'm even wondering if you are disrupting our web site to make a point. Many people have strong feelings about Macedonia, and I have helped mediate some of the articles relating to the region, the people, and so on. If you are pushing a particular point of view in a sneaky way, you will be opposing Wikipedia's goals. Wikipedia does not take sides in controversies, but reports fairly on what that controversy is all about.

But if you seek a fair account of one (or more) sides in a particular controversy, please contact me. Uncle Ed 01:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't spam your message to everyone. Andre (talk) 01:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Because of the spamming, I have blocked you for two days. Upon your return, do not do it again or you will face another long block. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What?

I don't get it. AngryParsley 03:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

*lol* Igor, why go to such lengths of deception? Just say that you don't like Wikipedia and be done; I cannot help but notice that your "team's" English, and its reasoning, is astonishingly similar to your own. Enough said :) a glance at human rights would be useful too. Deciding the content of encyclopedias strangely is not numbered among them. dab (ᛏ) 07:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Credibility

Should you decide to describe "research" again, here or elsewhere, your story will be more convincing if you use credible statistics. I particularly enjoyed "we were informed by our expert team that 83.2% of the sources they consultet support Mr. Arnaiz-Villena's work", which leaves me with fascinating questions: is this 104 out of 125? 832 out of 1000? It has to be more than 100 sources to merit the decimal place. I hope that your "expert team" know better than to present results in this way (unless their expertise is in promotional writing—in which case why cite their views on genetics?) and that the many entertaining structures in this piece are the creations of the immediate authors. Irrespective of the truth of your claims, I admire the energy and effort that was devoted to this article, be it a work of fact or fiction. I only regret that you should have so misunderstood or misrepresented the spirit of wikipedia. —Theo (Talk) 10:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

???

I'd like why a Human Rights Survey should be necessary to be performed in Wikipedia. I'd like to know why have I received a message from you when I never had any contact with you earlier. If it was because you saw my membership in the AMA, I tell you we aren't Human Rights advocates nor we're interested in become such thing. In the other hand, if you spammed a whole of user talk pages, it could be performed a process against you for spamming and, as I saw, you have an RfC. I'd like some answers from you. --Neigel von Teighen 23:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There should be bannings for this sort of stupid joke

The report is bogus, the decimals in the % alone give it away as a poor tast joke. The haplotype refference in the report is laughable at best. What report would ever be posted this way, without even a proof reading? Fadix 04:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the report is a hoax, but for what it's worth they claim in the "final" post to be using bad English to sound like the original Mr. Sterbinski. However, assuming the organization is real(which is uncertain at best), I also would note that it's useless to conduct secret investigations and write up formal reports of complaint about Wikipedia. Our NPOV policy is clear, and it is also clear that we realize the implementation of that policy is far from perfect. Rather than complain repeatedly about POV on Wikipedia, it would be better for their collection of experts to contribute to topics they are knowledgable about. While they apparently believe the conclusion of their organization is very important to us, it is really irrelevant. It will not change any Wikipedia policy, and they can do nothing to sanction Wikipedia if they do not approve. It may serve as a reminder that our history pages are not all NPOV, but I think we were already well aware of that. The only thing that can change that is a significant amount of work from real, dedicated editors who want to improve Wikipedia rather than write a study about it. Superm401 | Talk 14:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am sure it is fake. To get a % to the decimal digit, in a scientific research, there should be 3 digit precision. Do you think that a human right group that is still refusing to identify itself uses bunch of scientists that will study hundreds of reports and produce just a % that is only used as a citation? And why would they try to achieve a decimal precision after knowing that above 70%, with two digit precision will be way enough for its purposes? There is no scientist I know of, that will waste precious hours to continue to obtain a more precise figure to be used as a simple citation.

Beside, what is this BS about basic human right abuses by Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not an organization that endorse everything its members do, it is build on confidence that the large majority of its members will behave. This is so obvious that a conclusion with such a judgment exposes the farce this report is. I haven't pied attention to the Macedonian entries, but I know that there is national feelings there because the topic is hut. So I suppose that someone got hurt in the discussion and felt that his freedom of speech or rights were not respected, so he decided to write a story over all this. If you pay attention to the said report, it tries to justify its own possible critics. It excuses the poor English, by claiming it on purposes. This might first explain the lack of proof reading, but thinking a little bit more, it doesn't make much sense. It is a report, it is said that members have faked, why would it not be written correctly and proof read, when it already say that it is trying to imitate ones writing, the “admission” in itself render useless the uses of such an English.

Coming to the Haplotype BS, and genetic, the report jump from one thing to the other. I have not read the threads in question, but I suppose that possibly discussions of Macedonians genes and origins not being Greeks has been raised. Why would a human right group ask scientists to research stuff attached to haplotypes etc. about a subject surrounding Macedonia, when they could have used much less resource without having to use this HLA mambo jumbo thing?

There are various other inconsistencies in this “report.” It's a stupid joke, and a member is trying to threaten Wikipedia to achieve something that is related to Macedonia. Fadix 15:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The English thing is extremely bogus, as are the percentages. However, despite all the flaws, the author(s) might think they are a human rights group. Undoubtedly, if they are they are greatly exaggerating their importance. However, I agree that the most likely scenario is one person doing the whole thing as a hoax. Superm401 | Talk 19:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

other reports

Perhaps you'd like to check out WP:AN/I archive 41, the [[current incident regarding that user, or Talk:Macedonia. MATIA 15:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Role account

Multiple users using one account suggests to me a role account. Anyone opposed to a permanent ban? Kim Bruning 15:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It says this is its last post, so I say only block if it comes back and disrupts again. ~~ N (t/c) 15:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Poland

Did Poland recognized "Republic of Macedonia" name? I haven't found any mentions about that. BTW it seems this user used various ways to overcome blocking. There should be more effective technique to block such users. IMHO user didn't concluded discusions fist of all, didn't tried to understand other points of view. Practically all post is repetition of the same doubfull facts and irrelevant info. I'm sorry that I cound't join debate before. I doubt that could be any time "comission" or what ever organizaion, it's simply not the way its done in such cases. No one would write any long conclusion page before writing finall report, and no commision would so clearly propagate it's opinion over specific issue in it's finall post. If bias of wikipedia was to be tested, what that final predictions of Poland goverment decision are for, sort of conclusive propaganda was for. I sugest users to not take this seriously. Only bold scientific research should be used for forming an opinion is such comlex issues as Macedonia rather than political decission of or another organizations or goverment of the state.

Armancho

Yes, same as other 110 nations. Truth is slow, but it will come out. As the Macedonian people say: "The lie has short legs!!!".

Apologies accepted

I accept your apologies. --Neigel von Teighen 22:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavic Macedonians

I laughed at you claim to refer to Slavomacedonians or Macedonian Slavs as exclusively Macedonians. First of all the name Republic of Macedonia is controversial and is yet to be accepted by either the UN or the EU who both still refer to the nation as FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Secondly how can your people claim exclusively rights\ to the name. What makes them any more Macedonian then the Macedonians of Greece or Bulgaria. Its is a fact that Macedonian Slav are not decendents to the ancient Macedonians and most historians claim the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. So what claim do Macedonian Slavs have to the exclusive name Macedonian other then being born and living in the land. Greek Macedonians also are born and live in Macedonia. If anything, Greece has more right to the exclusive right to name the name because of the majority of the Macedonian population and Macedonian land lie in Greek borders as well as most historians believing Ancient Macedonians were Greek. The Macedonian Slav identity has only been around for 100 years, before then there was no Macedonian ethnicity. You were either Greek, Serb or Bulgarian. In the 1940’s Tito pushed the Macedonian ethnicity theory to break the Macedonian Slavs ties with Bulgaria. Tito pushed the use of the Macedonian language, opening schools to teach the language which previously was just Bulgarian dialect with a few Serbian and Greek words. He also began changing sir names for the traditional Bulgarian ending names (ev, ov) to the traditional Serbian ending names (ski), therefore the names of Macedonia Slav became evski, and ovski. Tito’s aim was to take all of Macedonia under Yugoslavia but when the Greek communists sided with the Soviets he was left with what is today known as FYROM.

By the way Attaturk was born in Salonika not Bitola.

"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians." Quote from FYROM'S President Mr. Kiro Gligorov

We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD)." Quote from FYROM'S President Mr. Kiro Gligorov.

Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM'S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian."

Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language."

I have never seen so many wrong informatons concerning the Macedonia issue. The top of all this bullshit was the part saying the Serbian surnames end with "ski". What a non-sence. Too bad that only book you ever read was your primary school history book.

One more thing... you can fuck yourself, asshole. Spreading propaganda won't change the truth. Read Kiro Gligorov's memoars, he has a very nice explanation about your claims for his own words. All of that is pure imagination and wish of your nationalistic empty Greek head.

Arbitration for User:Theathenae

A petition for Arbitration has been brought against User:Theathenae because of his behavior in the Talk:Arvanites dispute. You can add evidence if you wish here. REX 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Observations from an outside party

Good god people, concern about your ethnic identity is all to the good, but don't you have other important things to do? If this subject is any indication, I can see why WWI got started.

I really, really am starting to hate people who are like this

This civil rights orginization is completely missing the point of Wikipedia.

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FLAWLESS, GLITTERING SHEENY PEER-REVIEWED ELETIST PERFECT ENCYCLOPEDIA. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A SELF-CORRECTING COLLABORATIVE PROJECT. IF THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ARTICLES YOU HAVE REVIEWED, CHANGE THEM YOURSELF. CLICK ON THE EDIT BUTTON AND REMOVE WHAT IS IN VIOLATION. IF FOR SOME REASON YOU CAN'T GRASP THIS, GO AWAY FOR A FEW DAYS AND COME BACK - YOU CAN BET THAT IT WILL BE CHANGED.

This is not Britannica. It is not an elitist paper encyclopedia. It cannot control everything that is put into it. If parts of it are racist, there is nothing we can do but wait until someone who can edit it properly comes along and fixes it, or fix it ourselves. If you want something with no risk of bias, racism, vandalism, and want a perfect shiny encyclopedia, GO AND BUY A COPY OF BRITANNICA AND NEVER COME HERE AGAIN.

I'm really starting to hate people who are like this. They just don't seem to comprehend what we are trying to do here. It's just like the stupid lawyers who seem to think that this is just another encyclopedia that is responsible for what is put into it and try to sue us for introducing misinformation or defamation of character. If there is racism in an article, it is not Wikipedia's fault. IT IS THE FAULT OF WHOEVER PUT THAT RACISM INTO THE ARTICLE.

*inhale* *exhale* Haaaaaah... I am calm. Sorry about that... I needed to get that out. Please excuse me for my agressive statements above, even though I do stand by the core message. I know that they'll never see this, but I wanted to make my statement... -Jetman123 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Start****

 For starters: I am not Greek or Slavic or even 

from Europe and have nothing to gain from this little detante

Having said thus: any serious researcher of histroy 

will recognize this Macedonian issue has created victims

of the peoples of the geographic area of what is called 

FYROM. This unfortunatley was the result of the power balkan power politics and various infighting between COMINTERNS trying to re-write history in their typically Orwellian style. For better

or for worse the Greeks have claim ( ALOT earlier than
6th century AD)to  
the Macedonian title as it is one of their provinces. 

This ridiculas farce in the Balkans is sad and doulble-think at its worst, and politically dubious at best.

The truth is the truth regardless of how ugly or 

wonderfull it can be. So please so called "Macedonian nationalists" stop spreading proganda and agit-prop. Alexander and Phillip were Greeks and allways considered themselves such. Stop being the victims of balkan communist ( long dead or maybe not if Im having to write this) propaganda.