SQRT5P1D2

Translation of the original newsgroup posting about Macedonia

(This message, was sent from me to the Usenet newsgroup grk.forthnet.users and it has absolutely nothing to do with messages from other "Greeks" or "ethnic Macedonians" in other internet sites.)

For several days now, the "Macedonia" entry in Wikipedia links directly to our neighbouring country, although previously there was an article page describing the various uses of the name in english.

The rationale behind this (at least what is presented), wasn't built up using strong arguments, neither it stands according to the regulations on neutrality and naming by using credible sources, such as academic ones.

This action is reversible and at this moment a relevant discussion is taking place.

Whoever wants to participate, may do so here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia

Vote here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Survey

The relevant section in which I set forth my opinions, based on Wikipedia's policy (nickname SQRT5P1D2):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Since_when_Wikipedia_promotes_counter-nationalism_to_fight_nationalism.3F

Request:

a) no sarissas, the referee will show you a red card (note: meaning "be rational and leave nationalism outside of the field")

b) remember, this is an away game (note: meaning "use proper language, if you want your voice to be heard and your arguments to be taken seriously")

Recent additions to the ArbCom page

I really doubt, unfortunately, whether your recent additions to the ArbCom page on the Macedonia issue will do any good. ArbCom has expressly stated, both in general and regarding this particular case, that the only thing they will address is conduct, not content. Having read your addition to the evidence page, I see nothing in it relating to conduct. If you have anything to say which the ArbCom would find useful, please feel free to add it to your section, but also realize that any attempts to get them to possibly even do so little as address content will probably fall on deaf ears. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't conduct based on certain criteria? Is neutrality among them? Is verifiability among them? I believe that I've presented valid arguments against the move, based on conduct. A user cannot simply move according to his/her personal preferences; not to mention that conduct is always about content. This is how things in this universe work, unless I'm fundamentally wrong in understanding the political shifting in Wikipedia's mechanics. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To optimize the phrasing, it generally works best to have comments read something like this: "On (date), (editor) did (thing). This action is a violation of policy/guideline (X)." Such phrasing allows them to better address the matters of conduct with which they work. And I have added the request to have you added to the case. I don't know how long it might take for the arbitrators to decide, because it is their call, but I hope that you will be hearing a response relatively quickly. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So far I've edited many Wikipedia articles as an anonymous user, but I never really spent much time exploring the mechanics driving it. I understand the need for optimization and I will try to focus on learning that. Let's hope that the arbitrators will accept me in the list. SQRT5P1D2 (talk)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence

A couple things. Regarding your evidence section, at this point it appears to be a lot of arguments/conclusions but little in the way of actual evidence. I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#Evidence for a better understanding of what is most effective in convincing the Arbitration Committee. Also, even though you are not a party at the moment, you are still allowed to present evidence to the Committee. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. John Carter suggested the same and it seems that something is wrong with me. I think that I present valid arguments about neutrality and verifiability, but they're somehow not meant to "work" for the case. Could you (or anyone else for that matter) please inform me what "little" of my writings constitutes acceptable evidence? It will help me to focus on that when building new arguments. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I read that evidence "should be in the form of diffs to contested behavior". ChrisO's behaviour violates Wikipedia's principles on neutrality and verifiability. How can one judge a case like that using textual differences? This is about a move of an entry. Arguments are needed to back this, but I also read that "argument is not evidence". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am relatively new myself. Of the various things I've read, I think that this was the most helpful. I have been moving my policy arguments to the workshop; perhaps that is a better place to have them. --Radjenef (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Radjenef. I'm more used to court-like presentations outside Wikipedia, that's why I misjudged a few things. I also plan to move most arguments to the workshop and rewrite the evidence part. Maybe tomorrow, or the day after, since I have other obligations in real life. In any case, your input is greatly appreciated. :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Help / Βοήθεια

Hi :) I'm sorry if I can't email you right now. Do you want to tell me here what you want me to assist you with? Or you rather wait for my email? I'll try to help on either case. Please bear in mind that I'm also comparatively a new editor and I don't have experience on Wikipedia arbitration too Shadowmorph (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I salute our newbiness. I see your edits and raise you a cookie; or two. Regarding the communication, I'd rather wait. For others reading this, it's about an off-wiki matter. You know, the usual stuff, Nazi voodoo ceremonies in Area 51, social gatherings of prehistoric lolcats and such. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Counter-POINT violation

Hello. Please do not violate the rules of counterpoint to illustrate a point, as you did at File:Newbiedrama.png. If you are found introducing octave parallels into Wikipedia theme songs again, you may be blocked or banned from participation in any further singing contests. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good, my dear, but you don't see the irony or the big picture. The irony is about the "nerve" to participate in ARBCOM and others prejudging the outcome; as in Mr. Gould's project. The big picture is that you fell into the trap, although I left you a big hint ("imperfect"). Now I know that you know and you'll be my singing partner to the end of love. But the soprano position is taken and you can click your heels to eternity; over my dead fugue. Now, "cast away all that you were told and the theory that you read" and let's make Mr. Gould proud. We'll start with "Never be clever for the sake of being clever, for the sake of showing off." SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For others asking about this, it's about a cheerful response to FP about his fugue. All in good spirit :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hang in there

I know how disheartening these discussions can be. But the evidence collection should be done soon. I imagine that there will be a few questions directed by the arbitrators to various parties, probably including you and probably including me as well. That is probably expected in cases like this one. But I do think that the high drama is probably more or less drawing to a close, even if it seems to be rising right now. It shouldn't be much longer till the accusations are over and the real discussion and decision come down. Anyway, I don't know much about the music content, but if you think I could ever be useful in that regard let me know. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your kind remarks are greatly appreciated (again). No worries, I'm not a quitter. But it always amazes me how people forget that they're communicating with actual human beings and not robots. Anyway, regarding the evidence collection, I believe that I'll be done during the next 48 hours; I do have some inhibitions about repeating some diffs, since others did that, managing to finish their sections before me. Also, I'm not a party (yet) and no lights on the horizon about the injuction. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Disconnect between reliable sources policy & Google hits policy, suggestion

Hello Square - I like the way it took a relative newbie to point out a disconnect between WP's reliable sources policy and its Google hits policy. I hope you will consider this tack. The Library of Congress maintains an authority control file that includes subject headings. The subject headings are also used by the British Library [1], the Library and Archives Canada [2], and the National Library of Australia [3]. To me, LOC represents a resource that is based on scholarly research and is also aimed at the Common Reader. The LOC authority file can be searched [4] but unfortunately not permalinked. But a keyword search of their catalog [5] offers individual entries that give you the subject heading and can be permalinked. So, in the authority file under Macedonia: "Here are entered works on the ancient country and kingdom of Macedonia...". The authority file entry for Macedonia (Republic) states "The provisional heading "Macedonia (Republic)" remains valid pending BGN approval of a form that is not provisional." As examples of individual entries following this policy: [6] where you find "Subjects: Macedonia--History--To 168 B.C. ", and here [7] where you find "Agriculture--Macedonia (Republic)--Ovče Plain."

Yes, Arbcom doesn't technically address policy. Have policies have in fact changed after several rounds of righteous indignation were expressed there? - ask around. Try Wikipedia Review. Novickas (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for what it's worth, I would avoid the Wikipedia Review. While there are some good people there, there are also a lot of people there who have been blocked or banned for misconduct here who believe that we were the ones in the wrong and are desperately trying to "stick it to us". Such malcontents probably shouldn't be encouraged too much, as it tends to give them cause to make comments which are ever more "interesting", if also ever more dissociated from anything like objective truth. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Novickas, thank you for your comment. I'm open minded and will take anything under consideration, if it's "relevant to my interests" :) I'm not really sure about what happened in the past between Wikipedia and former users, leading to the creation of Wikipedia watchdog sites. My experience in dealing with these matters is zero (0) and I'm trying to focus on what goes on here, now, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If one way or another, people in charge eventually find out that they should deal not only with matters of conduct (X did that, X said that) but with content, especially on heated issues, then so be it (WP:IAR). John is more experienced and I plan to take his advice; of course, that doesn't mean that I'm dismissing what you're saying. There were repeated attemps to ridicule and discourage me from participating in this case (apparently from parties collaborating externally about the move), but I'm not doing them a favour. I'm not vindictive either. At the moment, I want status quo ante for Macedonia and nobody banned or stripped from his privileges; then, we'll take it from there. If certain parties realise their mistakes, excellent. If they don't, people above me will decide about their future. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My cat and dog state for the record that this issue is irrelevant to their interests. But here I am anyway. So - I would argue that in some cases, conduct issues have morphed into policy issues. The WP online admin chat channel, for instance. There were persistent concerns, some voiced at Arbcoms, that led to distance - don't know how formally this distance was created. (This is something that bothers me in general about WP policy pages - they don't usually give you any historic background on their own evolution - you have to dig thru dozens of scattered pages, umpteen KB, to come up with an understanding.) Re Wikipedia review. Yes, there's a lot of noise and malcontent - that's a watchdog group for you: some wheat, lots of chaff, hard to reference the point at which a concern is taken seriously and/or internalized by the community.

I'm basically with you on restoring the status quo - a disambig page, am I right? There seems to be an unspoken argument that needing 1 (one) extra click is a Bad Thing. Novickas (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I also state for the record that no cats (or dogs) were harmed during this edit :) To tell the truth, I understand that there are many issues regarding Wikipedia. But that's why WP:IAR exists, in order to improve things; this is also part of the policy. You're right, I believe that in Macedonia we need a disambiguation page, though some seem to have a different agenda. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whew, you're in the thick of it. Hang in there. Thanks for introducing my pet idea to a wider audience. It may get deleted as not evidence. You're right about IAR. It's kind of a (Jeffersonian) permanent revolution clause. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As many arbitrators said (more here), they would "try and move the broader dispute towards resolution", "assist the Community in finding a solution to the naming conflict" and not only "look at the recent move but also the underlying issue". This is not simply a case of "X did that"; it's more complicated. And I'm certainly going to make a point of it. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought. On WP, America is a disambig page. We all know what most of the EN-speaking world means there - as evidence, if some were needed, when you type America into Google, the WP page United States of America is the first entry. But we continue to inconvenience our readers and editors by forcing them to go thru disambiguation. By the logic of our current policies, the other uses of America should be a hatnote. Novickas (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki stuff

Maybe let the whole discussion about off-wiki stuff go. It doesn't lead anywhere for anyone. We are all living in meatspace too :) Shadowmorph (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sqrt, stop it, now. Your latest round of canvassing other people's talk pages crosses the line into harassment behaviour, and I will do everything I can to get you blocked and/or excluded from the proceedings if you continue. This is your only warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, be civil. "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion" (WP:CANVASS). I asked John Carter about the potential of a motion request and sent two (2) notices to other editors; that's three (3) neutral public postings on the subject, at most. While a few days ago you've told me to "shut up", I actually believe that you personally are not to blame for what happened and my intention is to improve the discussion by bringing potential evidence to the table. I also believe (but cannot prove) that other editors accuse you for things that you didn't. John also asked you about your correspondence. Others might be interested in that too. You refused, as you have the right to do so. In any case, threatening someone certainly doesn't help and from now on, you're kindly requested not to harass me. P.S.: the funny thing is that I was going to ask ChrisO about his thoughts on this matter, before seeing this "only warning". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the authoritative notice by the previous person. It's his standard intimidation and threatening of new users that don't conform to his POV. Nobody will ban you for talking and asking questions. With luck, after the arbitration, we will all continue writing articles instead of fighting. Shadowmorph (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Some people don't understand that being dumb is one thing but playing dumb is another. All they do is being self-destructive, which is a pitty; it doesn't do any justice to their valuable contributions. Being king of your castle in meatspace doesn't mean that Wikipedia is also your personal playground. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

Hello, SQRT5P1D2. I am here because of a thread at the Arbitration Committee clerks noticeboard. After looking over the diffs provided ([8] [9]) I have a request to make of you. While your posts did not violate WP:CANVASS, I am sure you can understand how such edits can be read in a disruptive manner. Because of this, I would like to ask that your refrain from any further kind of canvassing regardless of if it falls within the "green" section of WP:CANVASS or not. I am asking this of you so that we can attempt to keep a positive environment during the length of this case, ensure that wrongful conclusions are not drawn, and for parties to feel that accusations are not being thrown. I hope you can understand how someone could see those messages as an attempt to canvass support for your view, regardless of your intentions. Also, please note my wording. This is a request, meaning that you can choose to ignore it should you wish. But for the mental health of all involved I hope that you choose to do as I request. Feel free to reply here, on my talk page, the clerks noticeboard, or via email. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for kind request. While I agree on keeping a positive environment, I'm curious as to why there is preferrential treatment for some parties. This user attempted to discourage me from the start (WP:CIV, WP:BITE) and is still harassing me; his rationale is "one less for opposed parties, one more point for us". He accused me that I want to take part in this case for my "grandstanding" [10], told me to "shut up" [11], in the clerk request basically implied that I lie about my activities in Wikipedia ("new" user) and that I'm here to "stir up the shit". Right above he threatened that he "will do everything" he can to get me "blocked and/or excluded from the proceedings", if I continue to question [12] his admitted off-wiki collaboration regarding the case, as I'm not "honest" or "intelligent". And these are just examples of his behaviour; ask others about more, like Shadowmorph. While I'm a newcomer (in the past I edited as an IP and I was only familiar with this part of WP) and I made mistakes along the way, this is not expected or tolerated behaviour from administrators. In the spirit of WP:AGF, although I could, I didn't ask from anyone to impose measures on any other party. In addition, I don't see anyone else instructing this user to behave. This does give the impression of having double standards (not you, of course, generally speaking). You did good asking me to be extra careful, in order to achieve resolution and not consume ourselves with fighting each other; however, the difference is that I didn't harass, fight or ridicule anyone. Others did cross the line and I don't see anyone bothering with that. Would it be better if I collaborate off-wiki with others and hide that, instead of sending a couple of notices (canvassing is a negative term and doesn't have any kinds but one)? Of course not and I choose to do what I do publicly. I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter and how you plan to address matters of conduct regarding this user's behaviour. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't ignore kind requests. It's other things that worry me about, like abuse (not from you) in order to silence others. I see no way to protect ourselves if we can't collaborate publicly, in order to investigate what's going on. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind response. As for your concerns, I can certainly see where you are coming from. I would though, like to bring to your attention two warnings issued to FutPerf. One here (issued by a ArbCom clerk) and another here (issued by an Arbitrator). Do you feel these warnings do not adequately address the situation? If not, what would you like to see happen (no promises it will happen that way though). Also, just like any other user, should you feel you are being harassed or need a clerks assistance you can post to the clerks noticeboard and request assistance. I am sure someone would be more than willing to help you. Tiptoety ^talk 00:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these warnings is timing and context. Nobody bothered with past attacks regarding me and these were issued about what goes on between FP and Avg (apparently they have a history). Not that I asked, because a) I find it childish ("Dad, tell him!"), b) I'm not vindictive and c) I always remember that behind their monitors, there are people with feelings and not robots. However, when others abuse policies and guidelines that I could use to my own benefit, in order to advance their goals, I can't help but feel that there is some kind of apartheid against new users ("he's an administrator, therefore he must be right, chase the newbie") and nobody bothers with that. In that spirit, I believe that it wouldn't hurt if someone asked certain parties to watch their language, be careful before making accusations and not harass and discourage editors using valid means, in order to investigate (not in the sense of wikilawyering) the case. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And the beat goes on. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia 2

I am quickly approaching the point where I am going to block you for disruption. I strongly suggest that you stop commenting on others. Both on pages related to the arbitration case and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Arguing with each other on the talk pages and in the workshop is pointless. It will not change the outcome of arbitration, and may in fact hurt your case in the eyes of the Arbitrators. Please add your evidence, your proposed decision, and let the Arbitration Committee handle the rest. You should consider this your only warning. This note has already been left for Avg, and Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have a few questions:

• "Stop commenting on others" has a broad meaning. For example, on talk pages, people talk. They comment on what others said and argue (of course, according to policies and guidelines). What does "stop commenting" about the case and "elsewhere on Wikipedia" exactly mean? Does it also mean not to discuss admitted off-wiki collaboration of parties involved in the case, when other administrators and editors agreed that it may be a crucial element of this open case?
• As showed in the workshop and elsewhere (example), my postings are classified as friendly notices and not canvassing. FP continues to distort the reality and wrote that I "admitted canvassing" in his evidence section. How do you plan to deal with that?
• FP accused me that I want to take part in this case for my "grandstanding" [13], told me to "shut up" [14], in a clerk request he basically implied that I lie about my activities in Wikipedia ("new" user) and claimed that I'm here to "stir up the shit". Yesterday he threatened me that he "will do everything" he can to get me "blocked and/or excluded from the proceedings", if I continue to question [15] his admitted off-wiki collaboration regarding the case, as I'm not "honest" or "intelligent". Today, to prove his POV he misquoted what I wrote and told that I'm a "nationalist ethnic essentialist". I would like to hear your thoughts on this abuse of policies and administrator privileges. What was/should be done to protect me, personally, from this kind of harassment? Was FP issued with a warning not to comment on me, personally, making unjustified accusations?

Finally, I agree about the disruption, although there is a qualitative difference when responding to unjustified accusations and irrational arguments, in order to protect yourself and demonstrate how absurd some claims are. I understand that your time is limited and that there is much work to do, therefore I would do my best to assist you. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop commenting on others means simply stop with the infighting, bickering, accusations, and insinuations. It is harder to be more specific than that. Basically, I am going to know it if I see it. I suggest you present your case and then go explore the rest of Wikipedia. I am not going to sit in judgment of evidence, that is not my job. Regarding the last point, I am looking into it. KnightLago (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Therefore, discussing admitted off-wiki collaboration of parties involved in the case, when other administrators and editors agree that it may be a crucial element, doesn't violate any rules and is not considered "harassment", if no policies are violated. That's what I wanted to clarify and FP should take note of this, before claiming "harassment" again. Regarding the last point, it goes hand in hand with the second point; this is not evidence but POV mud throwing for a resolved matter. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you're looking into it and I'm anxiously waiting to see the outcome. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, FP rephrased after my response. While this could be an honest mistake (even though he accused others not agreeing with his POV as being "nationalists"), other matters like threats and being told to shut up, give a clearer picture of the situation. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia

You do, of course, realize there is utterly nothing you could possibly do that would convince any sane administrator to move that page? Because based on your endless arguing on Talk:Macedonia, you apparently do not. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, although I'm not sure about its nature. Feel free to be more specific. A talk page is the proper place to discuss everything related to an article. During a discussion, there are arguments for and against actions; this is only natural. As for the sanity of administrators and my understanding, I believe that they're irrelevant to the case. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I should not have been so blunt with my original message, and I apologize. Essentially, I think that your time is not being used wisely by discussing the title there, but of course you may do what you wish. Sorry for the confusion. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

See? Your comment needs a disambiguation page, like Macedonia (couldn't help it!) :) No need to apologize though. This newbie may be responding to these pages, but also reads policies, guidelines and previous ArbCom cases; it's not easy to make sense of it all in a few days. My workshop and evidence sections will have a spa treatment shortly, if you refer to that. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment on the workshop page, but I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say with

"As for what constitutes a common name, if crystal balls should prevent editing, how administrators should act if consensus is not reached and what many of us are trying to achieve, the details are already here. This is not a simple problem.".

I think you fragmented a sentence in there, or else you tried to add a dependent clause in a place where it will not work. Also, I don't know what conclusion you are trying to draw from "if crystal balls should prevent editing...". That makes no sense. Can you clarify a little? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. "As for a) what constitutes a common name, b) if crystal balls should prevent editing, c) how administrators should act if consensus is not reached and d) what many of us are trying to achieve, the details are already here." A is about criteria (determining factors on primary topics), B about preventing future editing (nobody has a crystal ball, in order to predict the future and impose a binding solution), C about dividing editors (the Greek faction, the UFO faction) and D about intentions (thought police). While I responded to you, I also summarized what went on in this thread. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO hands out illegal warning

I just got a warning from ChrisO for 'Original Research.' I was editing the list in the Macedonia Name Dispute page and I had just removed a reference used fort he Dutch position as it was a dead link. Then I noticed the two GOVT references on this page: [[16]] both point to Denmark using FYROM or FYR Macedonia yet Denmark was in the list under 'List of countries to be sorted.' I moved Denmark to countries which use FYROM, ChrisO immediately reverted stating you need a source that states how Denmark uses the name, not infer it yourself from a random document. I then informed him, the 'random document were two Danish Govt Pages that were already there as references concerning Denmark and reverted. ChrisO then proceeded to revert and dish me out with an 'Original Research Warning.' This time he changed his story and stated: you are inferring Denmark's position, but the documents you cite do not say anything about whether Denmark recognises the constitutional name or not. This is interesting. Most of the list is made up of Embassy pages using the word Macedonia, and immediately they are on the list, under countries who recognise the Republic of Macedonia. I wonder how many of those editors received warnings from ChrisO? I am going to make this action of ChrisO stick as his behaviour in general has downgraded the neutrality Administrators are supposed to have. Any help on how to make him come to account for this action would be most appreciated. He has put the case down here:[[17]] Reaper7 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it, but I believe that all old EU countries, recognise only the FYROM designation and not the constitutional name. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought this also. Reaper7 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Library of Congress

I noticed you added that in your evidence. Just a stylistic suggestion. Include a new section header named "Library of Congress" to distinguish that part of the evidence from the "how it happened...". I would also suggest to add a small table that would visually stand out. Don't put the whole of the table from your user page. Put just the four entries

• Library of Congress choice of disambiguation
  • Macedonia  :region and ancient history of the region
  • Macedonia (Republic)
  • Macedonia (Greece)
  • Macedonie (Bulgaria)

from this search you did[18] Hope that helps. Of course it's your choice of style. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also thought about that, but I'm too beaten up to continue today. I'm still at ~800 words or so, therefore I have room to improve. Of course, there is always the argument that inclusion in the "how it happened" section helps text-focused people, since the flow is natural. "Look, these people deal with it this way, but X did that". Less sections may give the impression of fragmentation, but we're not dealing with readers with the attention span of a five year old :) However, you're right: tables do stand up. I'll think about it. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider de-linking the words and putting your diffs next to the words. By seeing other peoples evidence, I think that style is more preferable (it reduces the amount of blue words mixing with black text). Καληνύχτα Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. That online linkage timing was truly weird. They've been making noises about putting authority files online for years...Did you feel dizzy? Hum "Synchronicity" on the way home? One suggestion, that the British Library, Canadian National Lib, and Australian National Lib use of LOC authority files be mentioned (links above). For starters - there may be more. Later, Novickas (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gods, hubris, tisis, nemesis; all in the game, to the very end ;) Regarding sources... (cue Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau accent) Ideas? There are. Time? There is not. Hopefully next week. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia 2 case

I have added you as a party to this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the trust :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Privacy considerations on Arbitration cases.

I'd like to copy over my response to your reply at the Macedonia 2 workshop page, as it's most vital for you to be aware of the specifics of the current situation:

• I'm a strong advocate for full accountability and transparency where possible, but occasionally, we must sacrifice that for the sake of our editor's privacy. Please use a little tact when juggling with the identity of an editor; privacy is an area where our on-Wiki actions can quite easily spill out of the Wikipedia Bubble and into real life. If you'll insist on pressing ahead with this, then beware that a number of individuals have been banned from the project for publicly "outing" project contributors. We have an Arbitration Committee partly because we need some things to be handled in private.

I also would like to note that the actions of several parties contributing to the Macedonia 2 page are being actively scrutinised; editors who are considering using public means to post evidence of real-life COIs, rather than privately contacting the Committee, will almost certainly attract scrutiny. I'm not attempting to bully you into changing your actions, but rather wish to be quite honest and open with you: privacy concerns are amongst the most serious matters that grace the Arbitration forum, and those who treat them inappropriately have traditionally been treated quite unsympathetically.

My talk page and e-mail are open if you wish for any advice.

Regards, AGK 12:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded in your talk page :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Workshop

See my last 2 posts on the workshop. Knock it off. Don't even think of outing someone either. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. I responded in the workshop. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Herodotus

Besides these, footmen were furnished by the Thracians, the Paeonians, the Eordians, the Bottiaeans, by the Chalcidean tribes, by the Brygians, the Pierians, the Macedonians, the Perrhaebians the Enianians, the Dolopians, the Magnesians, the Achaeans and by all the dwellers upon the Thracian sea-board. (s:History of Herodotus/Book 7, translated by George Rawlinson).

περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἔδοξε Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ξυμμάχοις κατὰ ταῦτα:

As to these points the Lacedaemonians and the other allies are agreed as has been said." (s:History of the Peloponnesian War/Book 4 translated by Richard Crawley).

The question here is whether the Ancient Greeks had the notion of a state as we have today. It appears that they equated the state with the poeple. Even today, the official name of the City of Athens is Δήμος Αθηναίων[19]. Αθήναι was just the name of the place, not of the state. The same for Μακεδονία.  Andreas  ^(T) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Andreas. This is an area I'm also interested in. Of course, judging the past by today's standards is always problematic and language doesn't help, that's why many are easily confused (it's all greek to them! see δήμος for example; also, regarding your specific examples, remember Bush speaking about "Americans and their allies").

Naturally, the modern notion of the state is different in some aspects (no GPS or laser for defining borders!), although many of them were also present in the ancient times. Essentially, the state is a territory inhabited by the people. These people may share common characteristics; notably culture and language.

The concept of γένος (genos)<φρατρία (phratry)<φυλή (phyle) (note: these articles could use a facelift but the basic idea is there) from Ancient Greece, are still present in various modern civilizations. Forming smaller or larger groups of people is not a static, but a dynamic procedure.

The same goes for forms of government. During Cleisthenes' reforms, the Athenian Boule (modern "Parliament") had fifty men from each of the ten tribes. One wouldn't imagine that such expansion was needed when Athens was a smaller place, but from a settlement to city-state (though I dislike the term city-state; a state is a state), many things changed.

During the course of time, many city-states and their dependent territories, formed larger socio-political groups. By then, their people shared language, customs and goals, the defining characteristics of a nation. That's why Aeschylus, the father of tragedy, wrote in "Persians": "Forward, sons of the Greeks, liberate the fatherland, liberate your children, your women, the temples of your ancestral gods, the graves of your forebears: this is the battle for everything" ("Ώ παίδες Ελλήνων, ίτε ελευθερούτε πατρίδ' ελευθερούτε δε παίδας, γυναίκας, θεών τε πατρώων έδη, θήκας τε προγόνων νυν υπέρ πάντων αγών"). There was a common understanding about "greekness" (ancestry, evolution). Others like Isocrates, explored the cultural aspect of this "greekness", beyond genes. Alexander after the victory in Granicus spoke for the Greeks as a whole (OK, these naughty Spartans were absent), against Persians. The Greeks had a nation, evolving genetically and culturally, but a different kind of nation.

The United States of America, also have a different kind of nation. To illustrate the different perceptions about nations and ethnicity, I will borrow an example from their page in the CIA factbook. Quoting from the "ethnic groups" section:

• Ethnic groups: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)

Now, I don't know any "white" or "black" ethnic groups. I'm sure that you don't know any of them either. This is the entry for Germany:

• Ethnic groups: German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish)

No white ethnic groups in Germany (and in every other country of the world, really)!

It's all about perception. Perception can be used, but also can be abused. Many factors contribute to that: lack of education, political games and so on...

Feel free to ask or discuss anything related to these matters. I don't have much time lately, but eventually I'll respond: :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Macedonia's /Evidence talk page.

Re: this post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence.

SQRT,—

Your comment earlier today on the Macedonia 2 evidence talk page was unprofessional and insulting. Although I'm sure your intention wasn't to irk the editor to whom your comment was directed, statements such as "It doesn't matter what X wrote: you are not able to translate it. You lack the skills" are out of place in an objective analysis of the facts, and, as such—and in light of the recent warning by Rlevse that all poor conduct will be met with a ban from the case pages or a block—I'd ask you to rescind those parts of your comment that are insulting.

Yours,

AGK 16:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: The reply by SQRT, although personal, was in response to the comment by PMA: All right, SQRT5P1D2 knows more ancient Greek than Tarn and Thucydides put together. I give up; fie upon it; I cannot compete with such genius which was obviously sarcastic and personal. Therefore he was provoked in answering this. A note on PMA's page would also be required in my opinion. Dr.K. logos 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was ironic, certainly. But that is indeed what SQRT is claiming. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Did he also claim he is a genius? In this game Sep. these things are no big deal. Neither your comments nor his are so out of line at least not when compared to some other comments floating around. What I wanted to do by adding my comment here was just to mitigate what I thought was an one-sided warning, assuming that a warning was warranted. (Which I think it was not; for either side). Dr.K. logos 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Implicitly, yes; knowing an sncient language better than its native speakers and well-known secondary sources is a mark of genius, surely? But I would be happy to amend to "before such a genius," if you like.

I do not think the situation symmetric, however. I have not asserted that he does not know Attic; let the reader decide on that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he is a genius he may discern that indeed you may not be as up to the task in Attic as you think you are :) Dr.K. logos 20:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that I amn't; certainly there are better and faster Hellenists than I am. I am mildly encouraged, however, that Andreas, some two sections up, has made much the same point that I have done, using the same example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't look at me Sep. I never asserted anything about anyone. I am just an innocent bystander, with just a few external observations. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I gave that comment the benefit of the doubt as it was made before the final warning was issued to all parties; SQRT's was made afterwards. On that basis, my request for him to refactor his comment to avoid unprofessional remarks stands. (I'd admit that Tasoskessaris's comment was otherwise fair, though.) AGK 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand your clarification and thank you for your comment about my comment :) Dr.K. logos 22:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, guys! First of all, sorry but I couldn't log earlier, because I'm still abroad. I don't have much time now and I'm here to respond to messages, so I'll be brief. But for good measure, this was my response:

"The irony is usually effective when someone is right. The problem in your case is that you don't have basic grammar knowledge about the ancient greek language. That leads you to misinterpretation. It doesn't matter what X wrote: you are not able to translate it. You lack the skills. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. You're probably knowledgeable in other sectors that I'm clueless. But I'm a fluent user of greek in every form, from ancient to modern and I've studied the subject extensively. Don't be arrogant and don't insult others, when you're wrong."

(see also previous Septentrionalis comments)

I'm clueless in other sectors and Septentrionalis is not. I'm not clueless in greek (from ancient to modern) and irony is not needed when someone obviously doesn't have basic language skills. Septentrionalis can't distinguish between plural genitive for persons and singular nominative for place names. I explained, added dictionary and text references, but nothing. Writing that someone "lacks the skills" about a certain subject, is not insulting. It's the truth. I'm not a "genius": I have years of education to back knowledge of greek, in every form (and frankly, you don't need that much education for elementary grammar; let Dr.K. tell you about it). I also lack molecular biology skills. If you tell me that I do (lack the skills) and prove me wrong repeatedly, I should admit that I should not argue about a subject that I'm not as knowledgeable as I should be, in order to argue about it persistently.

I did not see any recent warning from Rlevse, because I didn't log for days. But what we're dealing about in that specific section in the talk page, has little to do with "evidence". That's also what I told Taivo a couple of times, hoping to discuss more about it in a terminology talk page about Macedonia. In any case, feel free to ditch every reference that others found insulting.

I have to go now but hopefully, tomorrow night I'll have more time. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Chill out on the PD talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Topic banned

Please note that you are topic-banned. You aren't allowed to contribute to articles or talk pages on the Macedonia issue. If you persist in violating this ban you can expect to be blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In relation to this, please see WP:AE#SQRT5P1D2. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Chris. How are you?

Quoting from the arbitration page, I was "topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.".

Quoting from the "All related articles under 1RR" section "articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

According to Wikipedia, an "article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and articles "belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages"; this "does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia help: "Articles belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia [...] which does not include [...] the Wikipedia namespace [...]". The centralized discussion belongs to the Wikipedia namespace, therefore it is not a Macedonia-related article, as defined in the arbitration decision. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've requested clarification on your topic ban here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Coren has replied to my questions here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You should wait for all arbitrators to be heard. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Coren made it clear that it was appropriate to enforce it now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it wasn't clear that there is consensus about that between ArbCom members. If they have something to say, they will and I will accept it. If they don't, I won't prejudge anything. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, with the clarification that was posted, your editing the Centralized Discussion again, should you do so, is pretty much guaranteed to net you a block. This is not a threat, as I wouldn't dream of making such a block myself, but simply a warning of what I think I can be certain will happen if you do so. And that's about all I think I have to say about this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus on your request for clarification. Let Arbitrators speak for theirselves and don't prepossess their decisions. To be frank, the behaviour displayed by some parties is immature. If I had anything to hide or wanted to avoid measures against me, I would make the edits in question under another account. I could also request measures against those making POV edits. But again, I don't perceive Wikipedia as my personal playground. Off for today :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of the word "ban" do you not understand? I presume the word "ban" exists in Greek, yes? Now please do what you've been told to do by the Arbcom and stay away from anything Macedonia-related until 11 June 2010. The alternative is to be blocked, quite possibly indefinitely. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Chris. The word "ban" doesn't exist in Greek. Quite possibly because it's an english word. But I do believe that the word "panache" exists in english. Now, go edit according to Wikipedia's policies. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion at WP:AE, and your editing in violation of the topic banned, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please do not edit in violation of your ban after the block's expiry, or you will be reblocked. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

shadow-mail

Hi 'φ'. I've added email to my account in case you want to contact me directly.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of alcea request

Hi SQ- I'd like to put the etymology of Alcea into its article, some sources relate it to the "greek word for healing" and others, probably related, to a mythological woman. [20] Do you have any info about this, and if so could you share it? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, but a little troubled to hear you're developing amphibious or reptilian characteristics. I know metamorphosis is a time-honored response but... Novickas (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC) BTW congrats on having your LOCMAC page as a permanent link at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus. Novickas (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)