(mine is only the first comment, signed 'nic') and follow the links.
i find the conversation that has developed on the matter interesting. i was originally going to ask you the same thing i originally asked Docboat, especially reading his "using rather more stern measures" comment - which You have, to a point, taken with the user nostradamus.
However, now having read the full development of the debate on Docboat's page, and especially listening to Docboat's reasoning, i am rather intrigued by the whole situation, and now instead simply want to ask your opinion before we proceed - if at all.
So, if you are not putting your hands up from the issue (which would be understandable!) and having read all the sides' opinions...
what do you think?
I would be extremely interested in hearing your opinion on the matter. In fact, why don't you have a chat with Docboat on the issue - i feel you two have managed to get a pretty intelligent grasp on the whole argument.
Hi Future Perfect. Vielend Dank auf den Warnung und Erklaerung. Koenntest du bitte mir die Seite wo es das html Kode fuer die Bilder eklaert ist? Danke.Xenovatis (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ich habe die Loesung gefunden. Du brauchst nuer {{clear}} am Ende der Sektion schreiben und lasst es genug Raum bevor die nechste Sektion.
Hi again, Future. Considering you've been somewhat of a moderator of this article, I think I should discuss my intention with you first. I'm planning on carrying out an über-cleanup of the article, you know, neaten it up a bit. The thing that kind of bothers me though, and which I would like to have removed before I can properly cleanup the article is the now-"Background" section. The whole thing is an addition of Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism and is completely irrelevant to this article — I don't see what the ethnicity of Macedonians in the early 20th century, the IMRO in the 20s, the "Macedonian Question" or the Balkan Wars have anything to do with the topic of this article. What should be under the "Background" section are all the sections after "Occupation of Macedonia" but before "Beginning of the resistance movement". The background should concentrate on something that was recent to the event and was a major contributor to the start of an uprising, i.e. the Invasion of Yugoslavia. I don't want this article to be another piece of crap about Macedonians' ethnic and national identity. As far as I'm concerned, the only things that the article should cover are the Invasion of Yugoslavia, conflicts that occurred in Macedonia as a result, regardless of ethnicity (many Macedonian battalions had communist Albanian and Jewish soldiers), and the outcome (the subsequent creation of a socialist Yugoslavia). What are your thoughts? Köbra8511:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Balance is a pretty hard thing in this particular article. Consider both POVs in any case. I'll try to help, but time is not something I'll have till late May probably. I'll try to check all changes at least. I have info to add to the article as well, but it's a hell of a thing to start, so it'll be somewhere in the (I hope) near future. Oh, and try to be careful really, you got blocked because of this. And there's one more thing - I don't think User:Jingiby did worse things than you, but still you're going to edit the article which sparked the tensions between you, and he on the other hand - is not. I really, really don't think this is fair in any way. --LaveolT22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm, Jingiby got banned from all Macedonia articles because he was continually disruptive, both 3RR style edit-warring and the slow kind. Everything he did was POV. Do you honestly think that his brand of edit warring is more productive than actual editing? BalkanFever00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Check Frightner for the meaning of continually disruptive and for every possible way of insulting other editors after you got banned. --LaveolT00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You may have missed the part where I said I would like to remove all the Macedonian and Bulgarian propaganda included at the beginning of the article, not change it to suit my POV. As a matter of fact, I do not include my personal POV in articles, I never have, take a look at Saint Panteleimon, Ohrid for example. If I remember correctly, Jingiby was going around spreading his biased POV on all ethnic Macedonian related articles. He sure knew how to piss people off. And at that, you're starting to piss me off still calling me Frightner. Köbra8509:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you closed out the sock puppet case on User:Nicholas Wolzen as an obvious sock, but you mentioned the user as already being blocked. I don't see any block on ether of the sock talk pages so I was wondering if this was an oversight.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Future Perfect. Can you please look into this matter?
This edit by Appletrees deleted the current article name "ume" from the lead section, while switching the words "Korea" and "Japan". I think he's got a serious attitude problem, and he may be trying to start a revert war.--Endroit (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Here you go again. Endroit. You are the one having serious attitude problems like your recent fishing expedition on my RFCU report on Bason0[1] and this. You inserted your claim without any evidence that Ume is a common English name for Prunus mume. That is why many people gather to discuss for changing the current title. Your google reference only shows "plum blossom", not for "ume".[2] So actually, you initiated a revert and tries to start a revert war. The species also was introduced to Korea first, and then Japan. Do you think the historical order is the same of the order with Liancourt Rocks?
Appletrees is not making sense again. I restored the word "ume", deleted by PalaceGuard008 in the lead section.--Endroit (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Endroit, you confess "you're the one who initiate the revert war" per "I restore the word "ume". Thus, it means you falsely accused me of "starting" edit wars. I really concern about your attitude. --Appletrees (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you showing double standard, Furf? Endroit certainly takes advantage of my recent block by you, so reported about false accusation on me again just like his parade of lies at past ANI report.(false links and examples such as his mention about Saintjust's RFCU) It is so ridiculous that every time Endroit reverts someone's edit, he always claims that his edit is legitimate even though his references don't back up his claim or he fails to get a consensus like the above example. Whereas others reverts his non-consensus edit, he calls it 'disruption' and blames that he or she start an edit war. If his definition on edit war is right, his revert is nothing but a disruption and he truely initiated the edit war. --Appletrees (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Appletrees, some weeks ago you went as far as revert-warring over the mere ordering of some category listing on that page, again for transparent J-K nationalist motives. That was a new low of WP:LAMEness I haven't encountered before. About the term in the lead, it is quite simple: As long as the article is at that location, the term must be listed in the lead. The current dispute seems to be about to what degree it is the predominant term in English; nobody seems to have seriously argued against it being one possible term. Making a fuss over it is disruptive. Fut.Perf.☼06:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to respect you because you're have a power, but I'm very afraid to say that I can't agree with your definition on disruption. I've tried to 'forget' the false charge on me because I'm very tired of speaking with you and anything going on here. As I said before, your blocking policy is not consistent. Going back to the article, your answer is only for articles with settled title name (regardless of real life usages) The article was moved to its biomoninal name after discussion, however, due to one editor's strong object, the discussion is reopened. Endroit's self claimed evidence (google search by just "plum blossom") fails to provide for the claim that it is a common English name. His reporting here to exaggerate mine and reduce his misconduct is also far away from good faith. You tend to think that mentioning 'intentional' and 'lie' are disruptive, but saying truth is far from what you defines. --Appletrees (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I was working on the SSPs quite late last night in an attempt to clear the backlog. I've removed the archive tag but I have no idea how to restore it to the main page. Does the bot do it? My apologies for my mistake, friend. Take care! ScarianCall me Pat11:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I was only referring to the edit summary and my first impression of it; see my talk page where I have admitted my past accounts — hence the apology. Cheers, Jack Merridew15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I stand by "despicable whitewashing", I as an editor interested in that page I say I will not accept leaving that case out, to the extent that I can influence the page at all. Fut.Perf.☼17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but your post says you'll impose it. This latter comment of yours, while disagreeable, is perfectly legitimate. Please, please, help me keep the tones low from all sides, as I always do. "This stays" and "end of story" are not arguments yourself would like to receive (not exactly applicable link, but it summarizes what I want to say, only for talkpages). Same goes for my "you dig" above, of course. NikoSilver18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll make this brief since I am already late for an appointment today. Look, just leave Elysonius alone. I think you scared him off, which is probably why the poor guy hasn't responded to any of my emails. As far as I know, he's made positive contributions to Wikipedia. Not to mention the fact that he actually cooperates with other users and treats them with respect (something I didn't do often when I first started). I really hope you know what you are doing. God help you if I lose him because of your paranoid Inquisition. In the end, you really are a rogue administrator. Question is, how long will these games of yours end? I have to go. I'll get back to you tomorrow. Deucalionite (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Would it kill you to leave us mentors alone? Would it also kill you to leave my student alone? It's not like Elysonius is disrupting articles like Dodona. Sheesh. Deucalionite (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Slavic language (Macedonian)in Greece
I am now confused! How can be Macedonian named as dialect in Greece? A Macedonian can be named as dialect in Greece only when if the Macedonian language will be officially recognized by the Greek government as a distinct language, and only than we can talk about dialects. With the current policy of the Greek government, you cannot put dialects because you have not even recognized any language and not to speak even for dialects. Put Macedonian language or stop writing nonsenses. We are now speaking about dialect of which language in Greece? Of Greek? Come on please change it into Macedonian --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Because I do not know which is speedy deletion template and even if I use 1 you will be angry ...
We need to deleted this pictures from wikipedia : [3] , [4] , [5] . Reasons for speedy deletion are: recreation of deleted material and false copyright statement. That his copyright statement are false is best seen in this picture because it is cleary made long time ago. Evidence that this is recreation of deleted material are on his talk page because editor has been warned on 13 March about deleting of this pictures because of copyright problems [6] . Pictures has been latter recreated on 24 March. --Rjecina (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Because you are great face in Balkan related articles I am interested to hear how is possible to use this argument for reverting and which version of article is more NPOV. If this is first or second version. I am really interested to hear your comments about that !--Rjecina (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, about those images. Re-upload after a speedy deletion is not automatically grounds for renewed deletion, if the copyright problem was fixed in the meantime. The images are now declared as self-made. I have no strong grounds for doubting this; their age is not an argument – believe it or not, but some of us Wikipedians are actually old enough to have archives of non-digital holiday photographs from fifteen years ago somewhere at home. About your dispute on Podgorica Assembly, well yes, Pax' argument may be a reasonable one, if he says your revision had deleted too much factual information. I must admit I didn't read very carefully through all the diff texts. If you object against particular bits in Pax' version, you'd need to point that out more clearly. What I can see at first sight, however, is that your version was very poor English. Sorry, I don't want to offend you, but that alone would be grounds for reverting it. One hint: If you wish to contribute to history articles, you want to learn how to use the past tense and present perfect. Historical narrative is always in the past tense in English. Fut.Perf.☼13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Problems with article are deleting again and again from other editor of only 2 historical sources about events in question. In my thinking speach of Montenegro primeminister General Gvozdenovic on Paris peace conference and Chicago Tribune from 1919 are again and again deleted because they are killing fantasy of 1 nation (Montenegrin and Serbian) which are living in 2 states. After reading this 2 sources and today version of article can you please if this version is NPOV.
About sources on Serbian language I will give you part of our discussion on talk page of article. This is here [7] .
All in all I am having problem with editor which is using like source page 52 (example) of the book but is deleting all statements confirmed by page 82 (example) of this book. This together with our only historical documents are point of dispute in this article. In my thinking article is very POV.
PaxEquilibrium (aka HolyRomanEmperor aka HRE) is OK user but he has kidnapped few articles. Today I will rewrite his changes in "his" article Pagania which are against editor consensus (8:1 on talk page discussions and 5:1 in consensus vote of March 2008). --Rjecina (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that brakes the fantasy of 1 nation, nor it's factual relatedness (for one thing, I'm not even going to consider Gvozdenovic's pretty obvious propaganda for anything at all) to the Assembly. As I have said before - I invite(d) you to cite parts of the article in precise you don't like - and then to cite the proposed amendments to it, but you still haven't done it.
As for the Pagania article, the voting was Canvassing and based on you-know-what - but in case you haven't noticed, regardless of that, I have already started the article's amendment (the true reason though being my searching of new historical sources). ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but it is not possible to other editors to believe to user which is making statements without sources on wikipedia with words "I am searching of new historical sources". You have writen this 4 times in last 24 hours !!!!
Because this is second time that this user has used word Canvassing or something similar (earlier on talk page) I am interested to hear if calling all users which has entered discussion on article talk page to vote about consensus is canvassing or not ?
I am on other side interested if PaxEquilibrium has broken any rules because of 3 years of edit warring in this article. Because of that I will ask WP:ARBMAC decisions which will ban him from editing this article.--Rjecina (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue is we have been discussing this so many times across so many pages, that I can't find precisely on which I posted it. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying old tricks ol' friends. You have used that trick few times before... This is clear example that why we need WP:ARBMAC decision about you and this article. You have again reverted to Serbs against talk page consensus--Rjecina (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm? Not sure what you mean I'm afraid. You're not User:Afrika paprika, are you? ;)
Perhaps you are not aware that I's the first one who changed "Serbian" to "Slavic". Yes, I reverted your removal to every Serbian reference in the article, and also added Croatian references. I think you were too hasty and didn't observe the edits. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo
My beef with the trolls is not on splitting or merging: I have long stated that both are viable options. It's their implicit insistence that the RoK (the 2008 Republic) and Kosovo (the piece of land) are identical and one and the same thing (and their pretended inability to even understand objections or neutral suggestions). Which is patently not the case, the same way the Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) and Kosovo the piece of land are not the same thing. If the Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) gets its own article, I really fail to see why Republic of Kosovo (2008 to present) should not. dab(𒁳)14:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you may begin to see why I didn't think the "merge" solution would pacify the trolls :) dab(𒁳)13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any object on your blocking User:BongGonPlease read the "Unblock BongGone" thread, however you should've blocked User:Sennen goroshi as well if you look to be fair. Did Sennen goroshi bring any discussion at the talk? He should be equally blammed for the disruption. He solely is blammed for the disruption.--Appletrees (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)--Appletrees (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, perhaps I misread - however I thought that we were allowed one revert and one revert only on edits that fall under the "naming lameness" category. I did read the rules of engagement, and although I noticed that my edit had been reverted, I did not make any further edits. User Bonggon was aware of the rules and he broke them, I never broke the rules or went against the spirit of the rules, I see no reason as to why I would/should be blocked for my edit on the article in question. User Bonggon has been less than civil, calling me "crazy" for example, and as an admin on Korean Wikipedia, he should know better. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sennen, why did you provoke him as leaving somewhat the uncivil comment? Whether he keeps his talk page as a redirect is none of your business. He said he was very angry at your "rude" comment (I of course, regarded his "will", so left a note at his "Korean talk page") And why do you start "stalking me" again? You are frequently reported for your stalking and civility issues on many editors at ANI in these days by the people angry at you. I don't want to waste my time dealing with your stalking any more. That is enough. You were rude to BongGon, and he bounced back. Your incivility could be first judged. --Appletrees (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Provoke him? I put a message on his talk page, saying that it would be nice if he had an talkpage on the English version of wikipedia - he responded by calling me crazy and calling my polite suggestion a "command" - I was not rude, end of story. If you wish to talk any further, then please talk on my talk page, I have no desire to fill someone elses talkpage with such lame arguments. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Because I think you're equally responsible for the lamest disruption, so I'm telling this at the admin who blocked editor on one side. You're rude and at least two people think so, end of story. As for your resumed stalking, please don't exhaust me at any time. If you stalk me one more time, I would not bear it. You're already did on me more that enough. Regard. --Appletrees (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I am having problem with user:64.46.2.216 in this article. He is reverting article again and again [[10]] .About article and NPOV policy we have discussed on our talk pages, but he is insisting with POV statement which is added without confirmation by source. On other side from user:SWik78 I have recieved warning about reverting this SPA account. Few minutes before posting this on your talk page I have asked user:Kubura to protect article..--Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I see this person is at it again (using a different account this time to bypass 3RR). If you take a look at the page, you will see there is a source for this information and it is very clear that what I have put there is correct. In fact, (s)he even agreed to it! Just look at their replies to my discussion page... --64.46.2.216 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"This person", "to bypass 3RR"? LOL, if you mean I am a sock of Rjecina, that's funny. And yes, look at the talkpage, unlike you I have actually used it. I wasn't disputing the factual correctness of the source (i.e. that the songwriter was making those claims). I was disputing its relevance and notability for the article. Fut.Perf.☼09:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I mistook that Sennen goroshi reverted "BongGone"'s previous edit due to his edit summary and his subsequent chiding comment on BongGone's previous edti on BongGone's talk page. In turn, Sennen goroshi is the one who violated the naming order and left a wrong waring. He fooled you, another admin, and me as leaving the confusing edit comment and a false warning. In this case, Sennen goroshi should be blocked for the disruption. If you don't believe me, please check the edit history. --Appletrees (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sennen goroshi's revert has nothing to do with BongGone's previous edit and "the rule". What Sennen goroshi reverted is actually your revision of course without any discussion, so BongGone only restored it "per the rule".
Therefore, you blocked the wrong guy instead of Sennen goroshi. I think you should lift the block sanction on BongGone and endorse the charge to Sennen.
P.S As per 'the rule, Sennen goroshi's revert of breaking the rule is restored, so please don't block a wrong editor again. --Appletrees (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is getting silly, my edit was clearly after Bong's edit, I was merely reverting what I considered to be a lame naming edit, I don't really care about who started what. I made a single edit, as per the guidelines, Bong made numerous edits, against the guidelines. I fail to understand your point or see any logic in what you are saying, maybe there is no point, or maybe I am just getting sleepy, afterall it is past 3am in Japan.
Future Perfect, if it makes your life easier, feel free to give me a 24hr block to match that of Bong. I am not admitting any wrong-doing or accepting the accusations of Appletrees, I am just a little embarrassed at being dragged into this argument and it might make Appletrees feel some sense of justice, or whatever he is looking for. I would ask if you do ban me, based purely on my offer to be a sacrificial lamb, that your summary on the block log reflects that. But then again, if you decide that I deserve a block based on this talk section, or if you have no desire to block me, I am cool with any of the above. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
NOT a minor revert, Sennen. You did not reverted BongGone's "so-called lame" edit at all, but just switched the name order for your sake to have addressed for over 3 months without any discussion with anybody.
Your change on the sentence is the most heated subject when J-K editors make edit wars per the history. You switched from Dokdo/Takesima to Takeshima/Dokdo because you thought BongGone changed it but you are wrong. Your wrong edit summary fooled many people enough. I surely want to fix this drama initiated by you. You should take the consequence and apologize to BongGone because he was falsely blocked due to you.--Appletrees (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Furf. if you don't lift BongGone's block and don't block Sennen, I would be very surprised because that is not what the 'new rule' tells us. --Appletrees (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, guys, this is indeed confusing. Appletrees got something right there. BongGone was edit-warring about the (presumably secondary) issue of the naming order in the "East island / West island" sentence. It used to be J-K, he switched it to K-J twice, being reverted once in the meantime by Kusunose. Then Sennen – I assume mistakenly – changed not that East/West island sentence back to J-K, but the main Dokdo-Takeshima sentence. Then BongGone reverted that one, and then two other users (one of them a neutral outsider) reverted in turn, so it's now again in the status quo ante. Now, who gets blocked? One certain fact is, it was BongGone who started the whole confusion, he began all the editing about name order in the first place, so he's the main culprit here, and he had richly deserved his block on the basis on his first two edits alone. I will believe Sennen that he honestly thought he was just undoing Bong's edit, sticking to the rule, and I guess we can forgive the latest two, each for thinking they were just restoring the status quo ante. Now the only issue is, let's stop this right here, on whatever is the current state of it. I could revert Bong's original change of the second paragraph sentence so that we'd have the full status quo ante on both pieces, but I'm not going to. It is of absolutely no importance which of the two orders is actually in the article, the only thing that matters is that it doesn't get changed every other day. Anybody who thinks the order of the names has any importance is a freaking idiot. So let's just stop this here and now and forget about it. Fut.Perf.☼21:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Then, why didn't you equally block Sennen goroshi? Because you missed his lame disruption unlike today? Sennen goroshi's revert was not only his own mistake but also a result from his gamming the new rule. He left an uncivil remark and then provoked BongGone "restored" Sennen goroshi's revert. I'm really shock to confirm again that your blocking policy is really unfair and inconsistent. You're an admin and take responsiblity when you block somebody who should follow rules here. Your mistook the situation and then no retract?
Why are you so generous always Japanese side this time again? I won't forget it unless you retract the unfair block and block Sennen goroshi. You didn't care BongGone's mistake, but have to care Sennen goroshi? It is really unfair. --Appletrees (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s Freaking idiots? Who are really being freaking idiots here? Please be civil and don't use such the inappropriate comment here, especially big no no for admins to be models for editors. You confused the situation without carefully looking at the history. Your block is also punitive only toward Koreans. --Appletrees (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I read your statement again, but you didn't admit your mistake. You did not block BongGone's for his second edit warring but confused that BongGone changed the most heated name order. The above statement is an ex post facto rationale like a 2channel sock said here. Your immediate block on BongGone was addressed "Per the rule", so Sennen goroshi should be judged by the same rule. Only you and Sennen goroshi can forgive your mistake so I can't do that. --Appletrees (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I unaware of the original order of the names, as I imagine were a few editors. After searching the 17 pages !! of archives, and a few million edits, I am still not sure exactly what was agreed to, and which name was first. However, as of today, it is Korea/Japan, which I have no issue with, if that order makes people happy, then leaving the order as it is, and forgetting the whole stupid issue has to be the best choice. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sennen, you haven't apologized your mistakes and Furf.Perf. obviously not lift his unfair block. You can forget the stupid isssue, because you should've blocked for your wrongdoing. It is also my mistake because I should've raise it at ANI first and believed that Furf would admit his mistake and clean up the mess. I don't believe it.--11:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Appletrees, you didn't listen to what I said. I explained this all in detail. I didn't block Sennen, because I think he honestly thought the K-J order was a result of Bong's previous edit. And I kept Bong blocked because, even though his last edit wouldn't have been that abusive if he had done it in the spirit of the rule, his previous two edits were disruptive enough to warrant a block all by themselves, and also demonstrated that he had no intention of sticking with the rule anyway. Fut.Perf.☼12:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously your statement seems to me an "ex post facto rationale" for justifying your mistake. Did you look through the history when blocking him? That is totally upon your responsibility but you defend Sennen goroshi because the two are the main contributor of this silly mess. I know why Sennen goroshi got the wrong idea to accuse BongGone because he has stalked me and saw my involvement in the previous argument just like his stalkings last year. How could I trust you as keeping unfairness and bias only toward Korean editors? When you block Korean editors, there is no second thought and very quick without carefully looking at the situations and filing RFCU and SSP. As for Japanese editors, you have given too much generosity and time to them. You even try to let a Japanese sock, user:Limited200802th to use his disruptive sockpuppeting. When it comes to me, I can put up with your abusive admin tool, however, I can't do that to other Korean editors. You are an admin to whom editors have to follow your behaviors, but when admins commit mistakes most of admins are afraid of wheel war wiht each other. Forgetting all this? For what and why? That is because your mistake? I let Spartz know this briefly, because he is one of the two admins supervising the article and conducting the new rule, so don't falsely accuse me this time of going shopping admins. The case is also worthwhile to report at ANI (I should've reported there first). --Appletrees (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll respond here to keep the discussion in one place. I left a message on BongGong's Korean userpage last night warning him not to blind revert and reminding him of the rules of engagement. I saw that he received the same warning on 7 march and that he did not discuss his revert on the article talkpage. This prompted an edit war on an article that is subject to probation because of the amount of disruption and sheer lameness that it has previously engendered. Given that BongGong was previously warned to read the terms of engagement I'd say that any block is perfectly permissable because no editor who engages in potentially disruptive changes on a article on probation should do this lightly. Apparantly BongGong has limited English. If this is the case they should take double the care. I might not have blocked because I'm a big softie but I support this block because the evidence is that BongGong had already been warned and it is incontrovertable that they made a reckless blind revert. SpartazHumbug!17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, My English is not limited. Only My expression on English is limited.(in other words, I'm not good at making the sentence and writing the essay on English) And I'm not BongGong, just BongGon. And you guys insulted all Korean users and you regard them as vandalist. I granted that my action is not justified, but opponents action is not also justified. I will no longer access on Eng wiki because of this trouble, but I will check your real nature, angel or devil. BongGon (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"Angel or devil"? Oh my. Somebody here is having massive problems with cross-cultural communication barriers. BongGon, I don't know what it's like in Korea, but here on en-wiki we normally try to be just humans. I had no intention to "insult" you, let alone "all Koreans" (goodness, how did I manage to do that??) I just block people I find edit-warring, is all, that's my job in this place, you know. Whether you continue contributing here or not is up to you, but if you do, please stick to our standards of politeness in future. Fut.Perf.☼17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Furf, please don't prove the angry man. I perfectly understand what absurd block makes him feel like. You didn't stick to rules here, Sennen goroshi is the evidence. This case is a mixture of your mistake and Sennen goroshi. --Appletrees (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Spartaz, you might've not blocked BongGone but Furf. already blocked him so quickly without scrutiny as the result of his blind belief on Sennen goroshi's false and ill-faith edit summary. So this case shows a big difference between you and the admin. I know you blocked Odst (talk·contribs) for one month, but the case has a reasonable rationale unlike this case. Furf mentioned "per new rule", but if the new rule is working well, Sennen goroshi would have been blocked already several days ago. Furf. missed that and due to the "edit summary', he blocked BongGone. In this case, who are going to believe the deceiving new rule and admin who has no mercy only on Korean editors? As I said before, Furf did not block BongGoe for the above reason, so his mistaken block can not be justified.
However, honestly, I did not expect you would unblock him because it would be a wheel waring between admins. What I feel most absurd is that his standard is not fairly applied to Japanese editors. Not only do editors be judged by their contributions, but also do admins. Is Furf. a qualified admin to mediated or supervise J-K articles? Several Korean editors don't think so. Anyway, Spartaz, thank you for your input and time.--Appletrees (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Appletrees - you have often been a voice of reason and sense on this article and I'm genuinely sorry you are upset about this. I can't agree that Future Perfect at Sunset is biased. I can see the sense of the block. Blind reverting is simply a bad idea on this article. SpartazHumbug!19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You're a sensible and reasonable person, so I appreciate your calm demeanor. I wish you're more active around J-K related articles when a dispute arises. However, the Korean admin, BongGon left a note above with no intention to edit Wikipedia due to this experience. --Appletrees (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
FPS, You must insult Korean Wikipedia users. Before I said, I'm Korean Wikipedia admin, so that means I'm trusted by them. and the act which I did in Apr 4 didn't do on purpose, but Sennen goroshi stimulated me at my Eng wiki talk page. I don't know why he bullied me at my Eng wiki talk page. It is the right that I don't use my Eng wiki talk page, but he forced me to use the place... BongGon (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I realise that this is childish, but I cannot help but see the funny side of having an editor accuse me of "stimulating" him - I dont know quite how to respond to that, apart from blushing.
However, on a more serious note, I made a polite request for you to use your English language talk page, for people who wished to talk in English, that was all. No demands were made, no insults were given. I think the phrase I used was along the lines of "It might be nice...." I think you got a 24hour ban, which is no big deal, it let the situation cool down a little, that was all. The language you used within the summaries was a blatant example of you breaking the civility rule, however due to admins kindness you didnt get another block - I personally think you have come out pretty well in the whole situation, I can imagine other situations, when you get blocked, and then insult the blocking admin, that would result in far longer than 24hours. You are an admin on Korean wikipedia, so I imagine you are familiar with the procedures - there was no bias, and no one insulted you. You got banned for a banable offence, and got offended by something that was not offensive. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That is zero politeness, but just your arrogant and unsuitable lecturing caused by your own fault. You're the one should've been in the first place. It is so natural that the unfairly blocked editor can voice his own thought to fight for justice, so there is nothing "childish" of him. He let everyone know of his position at Korean Wikipedia and he is also a human allowed to get angry at the injustice. However, Sennen goroshi is being really silly here, why do you keep brushing up the incident initiated by you? That is very disadvantage for your sake and making you unwarranted more. Sennen, you're very very lucky, so you have to acknowledge that. If you had not left the deceiving edit summary, everyone interested in the article would have reported you as soon as you revert the lame violation. I got too much WP:AGF on you for a while however, you gave a really good lesson that WP:AGF should not be considered for such the editors who frequently breach Wikipedia policies and endanger other ediotrs' well-being. Admins and editors must keep on eye on those editors for sure. Just please keep quiet if you want your safety. If you don't, ANI could give broad opinions by uninvolved editors on this matter.
P.S Your revert is really a violation, and we all know that, so your speaking of "bannable offence" is really funny --Appletrees (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Zero politeness? WTF are you talking about?
I said "if you are going to edit the English language wikipedia. it might be nice if you had an English language talk page."
that is not arrogant, neither is it lecturing. If I wanted to offend someone, trust me, I am more than capable of causing offence, while remaining within the rules.
BongGon was banned for edit-waring. He made a number of edits, on a controversial article, that had warnings on it, that he was aware of. If the roles had been reversed, you would be screaming for my head on a plate, infact that is what you have been doing. Are you unable to accept that not everyone who makes an edit opposed to your opinion, might not be a Korea hating, Japan loving biased editor/admin? I made an honest edit, and an honest mistake. BongGon was not blocked because of MY edit, he was blocked because of HIS actions.
Your attitude is hardly constructive, you see wikipedia as some sort of nationalistic battleground in which you are either pro or anti whatever the cause of today is - have you not realised that the majority of editors are not here to promote their political view, they are here just to edit.
This discussion is the perfect example of how NOT to deal with a problem - if you have an opinion regarding the action of an admin, just email them and ask for the reasoning behind their decision, give your opinion, and accept whatever is said, unless there is a blatant example of abuse. I got blocked, I emailed the admin, they explained why, I accepted it. But then again, the above does not really apply to you, you see abuse/bias/conspiracy/sock puppets in every edit/summary/decision that does not go your way. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
WTF, "Screaming for your head on a place" ? This is the third time in a row within one weeks to see you speak of the inappropriate slurs, especially "the F-words" against me. You really prove yourself unsuitable for editing anywhere near Wikipedia. Your first comment at BongGon was purely induced by your own mistake. You confused that BongGon changed the Dokdo/Takeshima naming order, so arrogantly left that comment 6 minutes after your violation.[11][12]
He scarcely edits English Wikipedia, so speaks he doesn't need it. That is his free-will whether keeping his page at English Wiki or not, so it is NONE of you Business to speak of that and provoke him. If he had not falsely been blocked instead of you, his user page is not really necessary for him, so that your lecturing is redundant. You're not an honest and good faith editor, just you're an editor with speaking continusly slurs. You're not constructive and don't have sincere attitude, you just enjoy gaming Wikipedia. I don't edit here as nationalistic battle ground and have tried to fight against distortions by biased ultra-nationalistic editors. None object his block? Who? You? Here is only one person who can judges this situation. Spartz, neither you nor Fut. Your mention of "my screaming" is really pathetic. I've been asked to speak of this on behalf of BongGon by his request at his Korean Wiki page, so your previous blocks have nothing to do with my delegation. Even if he did not ask me to do that, I have my own will to speak of my own thought. That is what the spirit of Wikipedia and differentiate "banned" and "blocked" if you don't know it. Do I come to edit here for nationalistic agenda? Huh, you missed to look at my old contribution here.
Let's say, you must remind that you admitted that you came to here to revenge your real life enemy for youyr friend's sake unlike many good faith editors.[13] Almost none of new editors creating their account in one month would be summoned to ANI for disruptive wikistalking and bashing or leaking real life informaiton like you did. You're not honest because you've fully acknowledged the rules of Liancourt Rocks unlike BongGone, so your disruptive violation is a simple mistake? I don't believe it. Ah... This is not the first time Furt protects you. He closed a RFC on you too soon because only Good friend100 gave his comment, however if I left my input, that result could be totally different, and you know that. I know your "wikistalking", "vandalising my talk page" and ill-faith manners. I know too much about you. I believed WP:AGF and tried to believe you tried to be civil and refrain from doing wrong. I was wrong on you, and you proved it yourself. So I don't worry about your future because of so frequent reports on your wrongdoings at ANI by other editors. Wikipedia really needs true editors. --Appletrees (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay Appletrees, can you now please get this off my page? It's getting annoying. As far as I'm concerned this issue is over. Fut.Perf.☼15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Fut. as long as Sennen goroshi does not introduce such the factual error, I have no business here. I'm "truly" sorry for your page being filled with the drama. However, you're also involved in it. That is my second time mistake that you'd fix the mess. --Appletrees (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
To very polite person SG(Oh~Ho~), you said 'He made a number of edits, on a controversial article'. Don't you have your eyes? or became crazy? I edited that only 3 times. The other edit, was only about the Football interwiki. BongGon (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello FP. Please take a look at the intro of the article. User:Karabinier made a lot of improvements in the article's structure, but he has also changed the long-standing consented version of the intro.[14] I let him know of the issues involved in his talkpage [15], including WP:MOSMAC and WP:ARBMAC and the relative painstaking earlier consensus (see my edit summary here). (Also see my discussion with User:BalkanFever in my talkpage). He ignored my suggestions, did not reply, and re-reverted to a non-consented version.[16] BTW I like his job in reorganizing the article with his other changes. NikoSilver19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I could use a little help with this user. He seems to be one of the worst POV pushers I've seen. And he seems to be supported by BalkanFever. He has created an article Pirin Macedonians which starting with the name is the worst POV fork I've seen. And every single of his edits is just...well see for yourself, please. --LaveolT10:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I redirected it, but what do you mean with the POV on the Blagoevgrad page. It doesn't look that bad since it has what Bulgarians think and what ethnic Macedonians think. --LaveolT10:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Umm, most of the article was sourced, wasn't it? That's more than I can say for the section being redirected to..... BalkanFever10:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The article was the worst POV-fork I've seen. And that's all I've seen from the editor in question as well. He has been POV-pushing all the way in every article he edits. --LaveolT10:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
He created articles on ethnic Macedonian minorities. In both articles you attempted to turn them into Bulgarians. Tell me, what is more POV than that?BalkanFever11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agreed with you on the Albanians article (although if something is disputed, it is disputed and you don't have the right to include only your POV), but the other is about the Bulgarians in Bulgaria that according to the article, are in fact Macedonians. And it is the worst POV I've seen from a Macedonian editor. I said it before and I stick to it. --LaveolT11:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The first sentence was "In the Pirin region of Bulgaria there is a Ethnic Macedonian minority". Aside from some spelling errors, it clearly talks about the Macedonians of Bulgaria, because Bulgarians are the majority there. Unless you are saying that Bulgarians are the minority there. Maybe the title confused you. I told PM it should probably be moved to "Macedonians in Bulgaria". BalkanFever11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So the question (to FP, not Laveol) is: Can we have an article about the ethnic Macedonian minority in Bulgaria? BalkanFever11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said on its talkpage, I don't really care whether it ends up as a separate article or not. The crucial thing is it needs to be integrated with the other version. I maintain that both versions are equally bad. If you can, rewrite the whole thing from scratch. Fut.Perf.☼11:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is that section there anyway? It discusses the Macedonian minority more than any "irredentist allegations". Most of that section should just be removed altogether. Then "Pirin Macedonians" should be moved to "Macedonians in Bulgaria" and we can start afresh. BalkanFever13:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not me that named it (the section) - you could easily rename it. You could create an article about Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, but a NPOV one. --LaveolT15:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks laveol, i am really offended by your statements.
1, i am not POV pushing! -the fact that i have tried to create a page about a topic which did not already have one, is not a POV. My article was HEAVILY sourced, unlike the article on page-Blagoevgrad Province.
2. Please tell me WHY the article was a POV?? and could fut-per-sunrise also tell me why it was a POV? I did not use irridentist sources eg. makedonija.com etc.! the link to UMO pirin-illinden is a link to the party which represents the people in question. It is also amusing that the article we are bieng directed to is 'more' NPOV with only 6 sources whil i used 19.
3. please explain to me why 'pirin macedonians' is an innapropriate term? these people identify with the pirin region. Not with plovdiv or varna. This is similar to the sudeten germans, who identify with the sudetenland not with bohemia etc. If this title is innapropriate then which of the following is more appropriate. "Macedonians in Bulgaria", "Macedonians in Pirin"?
4. About the spelling mistakes, my apologies.
5. We should have an article about the Macedonians in Bulgaria, could fut-perfect please remove the automatic link to blagoevgrad province and reinstate the page, for editing.
6."I agreed with you on the Albanians article (although if something is disputed, it is disputed and you don't have the right to include only your POV), but the other is about the Bulgarians in Bulgaria that according to the article, are in fact Macedonians. And it is the worst POV I've seen from a Macedonian editor. I said it before and I stick to it. --"That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The first sentence was "In the Pirin region of Bulgaria there is a Ethnic Macedonian minority"." - - -[[User:Laveol" - the article is not about bulgarians in bulgaria! it is not POV when for 9 years the bulgarian government ACKNOWLEDGED the existence of the macedonian language and minority in pirin! listen, laveol. POV pushing would be writing an article on the macedonians in greece ok.! where the government has never officially recognised them, they do not write macedonian in census (because greece does not count ethnicity), etc. they would be irredentist allegation - not macedonians in pirin.
7. Please tell me any other reasons why the page was a pov?
i would appreciate a response and the action i have asked for
The fact of the matter is you cannot just delete article because you politically disagree with them, that is not fairPMK1 (talk)22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice comment in Alexander the great talk page.
Dont think that i will write back the same way. I prefer to be polite.
Seleukosa (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hardly a fair comparison. While the Greeks are simply expressing widely held opinions on historical matters, the "Macedonians" are openly advocating irredentism. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's be constructive: I hear you BF, (although I couldn't spot what exactly annoys you in Asteraki). I created a shortcut to make our lives easier for edit summaries: WP:MWNB-UP. I propose I delete what offends you from the Greeks, and you delete what offends me from your compatriots. Only it will have to be a fair deal, so we'll bring it to WP:MWNB-UP for discussion. Deal? NikoSilver10:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I really don't care what you have to say about anything, Kekrops. I'm sure where you live, telling "Skopjans" to shut their "dirty mouths" is a great thing to be proud of. Well, that's if you can't lynch them. BalkanFever10:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
to the page you gave me to change my username a 3-4 days ago but not only do i not see it fulfilled or rejected but i can't find it at all on the page(and on the archive)!!!I don't know what is going on.--Eagle of Pontus (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the page was vandalised yesterday and a number of requests were deleted. Since it will be difficult to clean up (without losing either old requests or new ones added after the vandalism) it might be easier if you just re-submitted yours. Fut.Perf.☼09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Future. How are you doing? As you know the articles about ethnic Macedonians were a real mess. I made a revision of the article Macedonians (ethnic group) and National Liberation Front (Macedonia) which were approved by the majority as neutral and informative. I only want to finish with the revision of this article (which we all agree was very chaotic. But this can not be done over night. i go to work, and in my free time (when I have some) I go to the library and read material, take notes, afterwards I translate them. It is a process. First I must finish inputing data (which as you see is informative - for example when which unit was formed, when it was destroyed and so on). The user Köbra is reverting all my revisions (although I added 65% new text to the article). I must finish adding, afterwards I will improve the English, and afterwards we will adjust or exclude the things that according to the majority is not neutral. You know that I always make quality contributions. Don't worry, let me finish it and afterwards we will all together make a great neutral article, and maybe recommend it for an wiki award. Cheers. --Revizionist (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Your thinking is needed in this article because of small nationalistic edit warring which can become great edit warring between Croatian, Hungarian and Serbian users. Serbian users are demanding that section Vojvodina (which has been sneaked by user:PaxEquilibrium in february) is in article but she is not having any reasons to be here because Vojvodina has existed only between 1848-60 (and this is speaking about 1918 events). Real name of Vojvodina during this time is Banat, Bačka and Baranja (you can see that in article Banat, Bačka and Baranja) so this territory is now having (in article Creation of Yugoslavia) 2 sections. All in all user PaxEquilibrium has not been discussed in talk page and it is possible to see that because of controversial issuer of this article all other changes has been discussed before editing.
FTP, why did you block me for only adding a language at Skopje or Shkupi article, I would like to know how can i be unblocked? User talk:Gollak 21:53, 8 Aprij 2008 {UTC)
I have added some properly referenced info in the article. It might seem POV, but I have provided the sources for it (and they are certainly not form the Balkans). I am for deleting everything besides the current situation, but since the Macedonian (ethnic) user asked me not to delete the stuff, I've just added the other POV (or probably the real world POV). I only want you to look at it - I can guess what you might think, but I've got it sourced (at least). --LaveolT21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a little problem with User:PMK1. He seems to like editing from an i.p. and I don't think it was an accident. See PMK1 (talk·contribs·logs)
actually it was an accident thats why i changed it afterwards!
Could i pose a question to you Fut-perfect, "The oppresions ended in 1958" this is highly inaccurate information bieng posted by user:laveol. i would urge you to search the information up and find out that this in fact wrong. thank you, PMK1 (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
youve written a change of policy occured in 1958, would it be able to state " a change of policy occured at the 1958 plenum ...."""??? PMK1 (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. That user has requested to be unblocked. Could you comment? It's not really apparent to me why he is supposed to be a meat- or sockpuppet; his edits appear innocuous. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Images in Greek minority in RoM
Hi FuturePerfect! I included a fair use rationale in both images' description pages in the hope that this would suffice. Are there any further steps I should take to ensure use of the images is allowed and if so what are these? The images add significantly to the article and they are used as intended by the authors. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I see little chance for the school one (Image:Greek scholl.jpg), because it's replaceable. If that school exists, anyone could go there and make a new, free photograph themselves. For the "destroyed church" one (Image:Greek church destroyed.jpg), there might be a case if that destruction was an important, unique event. When did it happen, has the church been repaired by now, or is it still in that state? In that case, you could again just go and make your own photo. But about that one, there is also a problem of content sourcing. Are there reliable sources that state vandalism of churches is a significant problem? Is there a reliable source stating this is, in fact, a church in the first place? (It sure doesn't look like one.) Is there a reliable source stating this building was vandalised, rather than just abandoned and left to rot? For all I know, this could simply be some random derelict shepherd's cabin in the woods, and the blog from which it was taken certainly doesn't count as a reliable source. Fut.Perf.☼11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The blog cited contains another photo of the congregation and priest in front of the church, verifying it is indeed one but since this has not been published in any WP:RS I will not insist. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
secret messages from hidden muses
Hi FP,
Hope we're friends, after the bickering those many moons ago. I have a secret message to present to you. Go to User:Wetman, scroll down to the bottomest bottom of the page ( the "Licensing" section), and click the edit button. Enjoy your hidden message. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask you to make an impartial observation of the edits this guy User:Gennaro is making in the Rab concentration camp article. "Relativization of the holocaust" would be the polite term, I think. --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
DIREKTOR is removing numerous sources from the article[23] in an attempt to paint Italians in a highly derogatory and history revisionist style. He is also trying to cover up war crimes commited by Yugoslav Partisans such as those at Bleiburg massacre, Foibe massacres and 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka by blanking sourced information about them from the article. By the way, the way he racistly tries to allege the Italians commited a "holocaust" without anything to back up this claim, is highly controversial and approaching blood libel. He doesn't seem to realise that the Nazis commited the Holocaust. - Gennarous (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Let us not discuss this matter on the man's talk page. Should he decide to become involved, he will review your edits himself. I suggest you take this to the talkpage of the article. --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(Had a feeling you'd say that ;) I'll try to find someone but its not gonna be easy, apparently. No hard feelings, of course. --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Velebit again
You know about puppets of user:Velebit aka Stagalj aka Standshown. Can you imagine that puppet of this user has started action against me because of my deleting of his comments. Look this this and this. Second comment has come after my writing that I am asking checkuser for this account:)))--Rjecina (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to be issuing a block to User:Dbachmann for violation of 3RR as well. I warned him about it on his talk page and mentioned his arbitration case, but he continued to edit war on the page nevertheless. — Zerida☥11:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There's disruption and there's discussion. Look at the talkpage and contribs, and the two cases are not identical.
Fut.Perf. I actually came here to ask you, as someone experienced in the area, to take a quick look at my recent changes to Greeks and weigh in on the talkpage briefly, if you would. Relata refero (disp.)11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly believe that Dbachmann's actions were little more than disruption, including personal attacks as a matter of fact, which looks like I will have to bring up on AN/I. — Zerida☥11:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Zerida, it seems you yourself have also broken 3RR, so if I were you I'd keep a low profile there for a while. Fut.Perf.☼11:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Future, I just looked at the history again to make sure. I made two separate reverts and and a third I reduced the amount of tags. My edits before that were in relation to the article, not anyone's edits. This however still doesn't address Dbachmann's conduct and the personal attacks. — Zerida☥12:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Lochner-Hüttenbach
...he, he a lot, indeed a lot. I read it some few years ago and to my knowledge this is the most comprehensive work on Pelasgians. I am amazed that you are familiar with it. I can't give any page numbers if that's what you want and that's why I haven't used it in the Pelasgians talk page. I already asked a friend in the Blegen Library here in Athens to browse it for me and look for quotations confirming a) that this is more of a linguistic controversy (and an unsettled one, at that) b) that their language or languages is considered at any rate prehellenic c) that ancient authors very often use the term quite loosely [especially Herodotos] c) that as far as the archaeological record is concerned they are actually invisible d) that there is no actual evidence identifying them with Greeks. I am sure I remember well what I read but I have to check it before I edit anything in here. Lochner von Hüttenbach considered Pelasgians an Urvolk but occasionally tried to link them with several later greek populations (the Athenians being amongst the most prominent examples). This might create confusion to those who want to be confused, therefore I want to get my facts straight first. I also asked my colleague to search for recent bibliography through Dyabola to dig out any recent scholarship that might prove me wrong. By the way I envy you too for your English LOL--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)...oops, forgot to ask, what did you mean by "at our place"?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am quite busy these last few days and I just now checked my talk page. I spoke with my friend who is now browsing the book on my behalf. He informs me that Huttenbach is indeed considered the main source for Pelasgians and that he is actually a proponent of the Illyrian connection. I have to admit that I did not remember this claim and I' ll probably check some of the relevant book reviews in the next few days to see what other scholars think about it. At any rate this means absolutely nothing about Hüttenbach's reliability. The fact that Der Kleine Pauly includes his work as a main bibliograpphical source in the Pelasgians article is proof enough for me.(For all I care he could have been right). In the meanwhile, I just found out that you are a linguist so the chapter you will probably find most interesting is Das sprachliche Material S. 151. I' ve been told there is an important article focusing on the linguistic aspect of the Pelasgian debate (it was published in Glotta) and I will probably have it by next week. I' m no expert in comparative linguistics, so could I somehow forward it to you when I get it? I think you will be in a better position than me to judge what would be important to incorporate in the article. P.S. Who is Dodona?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Sounds very interesting. I can get the book at our university on Monday and then I'll check too; perhaps I can also find the Glotta article you mention. (Got the exact bibl. ref. by chance?) – Dodona is an old acquaintance, an Albanian editor who has been extremely persistent pushing some fringe ideas about Albanian being in reality the true and only Greek/Pelasgic/Illyrian/I-don't-know-the-difference-so-just-name-whatever-language-sounds-good; and he recently got banned for disruptive editing over that. Whenever you find somebody ranting on in incomprehensible English about such topics, it's Dodona. Fut.Perf.☼14:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just came back from an appointment and found your message, the article is P. Kretschmer, "Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volksschichten," Glotta 28(1940) S.231-279. I also took a closer look at the Pelasgoi article from Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike Altertum, Band 9, 2000, 489-491. It more or less confirms what I wrote earlier but cites only Hüttenbach in the reference section. An interesting point about the Lemnos "Pelasgians" -mentioned in the Wikipedia article under the "archaeological evidence" heading- is the following: "Sicher unberechtigt ist die Ausdehnung des Namens der Pelasger auf die Vorgriechischen Bewohner von Lemnos und Imbros". I am still looking for more recent scholarship but it seems that Vermeule's remark "Δεν είναι πια της μόδας να τους θεωρούμε σαν πρόβλημα που μπορεί να λυθεί" (Η Ελλάς την Εποχή του Χαλκού, Αθήνα 1983 σελ. 21 = Greece in the Bronze Age, 19641, 19722) still stands. Bis bald, Future Perfect...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope that I am not becoming tedious, but did you by any chance have a look at the Kretchmer article? I just finished reading it and I am at a loss--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you with the most detesting news you will hear today, but this article has problems again. Is there any way to ask for a complete outsider who has been never involved in any edit of this article or its talk page to simply merge the two versions as he/she best finds fit?
I think I owe to explain my problem with Moldopodo's version: it is not about this tiny region, it is about the entire Moldavia/Bessarabia/Moldova, with links to history and archeology that have no relevance for an ecological region, with citations that were meant for Moldova as a whole, not for 2% of it. And in fact, I introduced them into History of Moldova and Geography of Moldova at the time. Dc76\talk15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The versions were merged, all you have to do is to compare edit history. One can always add new paras, as long as they are verifiable and not invented in the mere original research approach. The citations do refer to the Beltsy Steppe namely, not at all to Moldova as a whole. What the f. is "ecological region"? What is this new invented notion? --Moldopodo (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but I've proposed most of your image uploads on commons for deletion. These seem all to be copyright violations. You have given no evidence that they were released by their creators into the public domain, and the "PD-MD" tag you used is evidently not applicable at all. Fut.Perf.☼15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It was not a smart idea from your side, as most of them were taken by me. At the time when they were uploaded I thought that that was the proper license. Had you really wanted to improve something, you would have contacted me. This is really so little, if you know what I mean from you, I guess you are about puberty age and ready to revenge. No offense, but just a quick question, how did you get interested in the images I uploaded all of a sudden? You are so low, really. Another user, having had a dispute previously (like you with me) would have stepped aside in your place. What a shame that Wikipedia has an administratir like you. --Moldopodo (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't personally care where it is - it should be obvious to every intelligent reader that classifications like this are arbitrary constructs and simplifications; there are no objectively defined, real-world entities called South Asia or Central Asia, so there isn't any objective "truth" at stake in classifying Afghanistan as either the one or the other. Put it wherever you like - but what I don't like is the current solution of putting it in an extra "disputed area" category. That sounds as if there was a notable, serious political dispute out in the real world. Is there? So far, I can only see a dispute between wikipedia editors. Don't take yourselves too seriously, guys. Fut.Perf.☼07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
”
You made that statement on Template_talk:Asian_capitals#RfC:_The_proper_geographic_regional_location_of_Afghanistan_in_Asia. I recently renamed a section on South Asia from "Controversy over the Definition" to "Differences in definitions". Another User:MainBody has been causing much trouble on this article, and for a very long time he has been trying to remove Tibet from South Asia, even though the idea of a South Asian Tibet is well referenced on the page and even though multiple RfCs have stated that Tibet belongs on the page. He also has been labeling the page non-NPOV because all the sources are English (though, this is English wikipedia and it is well-accepted that that will be the case with most articles and that just because the sources are from the western world, it doesn't make it non-NPOV, right?). I am requesting your input for whether "Differences in definitions" is a better section header than "Controversy over the Definition". Also, I am requesting that you answer the question of whether the page is all of the sudden non-NPOV because the sources are western. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
My page
Hi! I would like to ask you why have deleted the picture of Rainbow on my page? I have taken it from Wikipedia so it is free as far as I know? Can I now put it back or not? Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It is non-free, i.e. copyrighted, and can therefore be used in Wikipedia only where there is a special justification under the rules of Fair use. We have a general and very strict rule that such images can never be used in user space. HTH, -- Fut.Perf.☼09:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's just your own copy or adaptation of the original logo, then it's still a "derived work" from it and therefore still theirs, so I'm afraid that won't help you. Fut.Perf.☼09:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made a picture but it is not same as the logo. It is the name with the color as rainbow and I think it will be fine. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey i thought that the modern writer did not adopt the view as you concluded but that herodotus may have as implied by the link and requested by that factcomment.Megistias (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the modern writer we were discussing describes Herodot as using a wording that sounds as if Herodot was implying there was a relation. The author puts this down to muddled thinking on Herodot's part, not to a serious belief of his that there actually was such a relation. In addition, even if Herodot believed there was a relation, "relatedness" doesn't entail identity; plus, even if Herodot believed in such a thing, it would become relevant to that article only in the instance that such a claim was used by modern linguists as an argument about the linguistic nature of the Pre-Greek substrate. I'm not aware of that. Fut.Perf.☼11:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: macedonians in bulgaria, neutralizing the page
hi fut perf, i was just wondering if you could have a look at Macedonians in Bulgaria the user:laveol is deleting information, declaring sources invalid and adding irrelevnat information than requesting the relevant information be removed with it. would you be able to have a look at vesion "Revision as of 11:40, 12 April 2008 (edit)
PMK1 (Talk | contribs)" and tell me and laveol what it wrong with the article to prevent an edit war. I have already edited the article significantly to present a more neutral point of veiw. Could you please have a look becuase it seems as if the article is geting no where. PMK1 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to discuss them - one of the issues are the sources - He has put as a source for the current population a book: ^ Georgeoff, Peter John (with David Crowe), “National Minorities in Bulgaria, 1919- 1980” in Horak, Stephen, ed., Eastern European National Minorities 1919/1980: A Handbook, (Littleton, Co: Libraries Limited, Inc.). The year is 2008 now. And the second is a pdf of the Greek Helsinki monitor. Is this relevant in any way? Further - this was the part of the template with regions with significant populations. How could a minority that totals 5,000 have significant population in 5 different towns? To the other issue - The map in question has been posted in commons by the same user and promoted to the following articles: Languages of Greece, Slavophone Greeks, Macedonian language, South Slavic languages and Minorities in Greece at least. The user has been promoting it all the time. It is from 1918 - the article starts from 1945. There are tons of maps showing the opposite and one that shows what he likes. Is it fair to have his POV only? Especially since it is by far a minority view? I'll not remove it till you say what you think. I've asked for better sources from the user since he uses the sources:
Македонското малцинство" в Република България, Антон Ж. Иванов,1991
which are actually one and the same thing. And moreover they speak about Macedonian Bulgarians, not about ethnic Macedonians. I don't think the source is neutral anyway, and should in my opinion be removed. I've asked for better sources already and will wait to see what turns out. --LaveolT17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
actually those sources are pro-bulgarian so it is a bit hard to call me a macedonian POV pusher. I also have the other source which i used before "http://demos.hit.bg/makm.html" which was more neutral. And just for clarification the CEDIME-SE report is the most comprehensive surveys conducted on the macedonians in bulgaria in quite some time, so i find it extremely hard to suggest it is irrevelevant. "How could a minority that totals 5,000 have significant population in 5 different towns?", well how could there be a significant bulgarian population in slovenia and poland.??? if we continue going on like this NO-ONE will benefit, thats why the article needs the administrative reveiw.PMK1 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: slavic toponyms in greece
Delete without prejudice, for the sole reason that it's been sitting around unsourced for so long and no sourcing is in sight. Allow recreation if sourced. The systematic eradication of non-Greek placenames and renaming to (partly artificial) new Greek names in the areas that were incorporated into Greece in the early 20th century is an potentially interesting encyclopedic topic, if handled correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC
I was just trying to get some clarification from you, does that mean if someone can find appropriate sources they can recreate the article or is that it, no more article?? PMK1 (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please can you see my page and the vandalism that Niko Silver has made? He is deleting my page. Please see it if you can. Regards.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see talk page. I want to resolve this speedily and in the interests of that suggest that you too refrain from editing the main article in the mean time. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
When you get to MacedonianBoy's edits don't forget his friend from RadiovceRaso mk. They are friends from real life and make pretty much the same edits, stick to the same position and always avoid discussion with words like - "Talk to me - I'm not gonna listen. Basically they're like one and the same guy (not like a sockpuppeteer) and should be treated like such. They've been co-ordinating in removing info and making disruptive (at the very least) edits. Mind you that MacedonianBoy is also telling lies about the map. He knows more than well that the map is a fake - PMK1 was told here that the maps.blog.com.mk is a fake one. The other users didn't seem aware of this map until he asked for it. I don't know if this is a case of co-ordination between the three of them, but it is more than obvious that they understood about the map either from him personally or from his comments about it. Either way they know it is a fake, but MacedonianBoy]] continued with the lies - see his talkpage, and look at the page history since he deletes all warnings, block notices and discussions that compromise him in some way. Sorry for all the trouble - if you don't have the time - I'll go to the noticeboard. --LaveolT21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
TO Laveol: First of all you confused guy, the map is made on basis of a map extracted from a book (I do not use blogs as you). Second, I do not know how is making a propaganda and is removing everything that contains the word Macedonia (obviously you), third, every language has its own dialects and should be accepted like that. You and that Greek guys are doing the same thing spreading away Greek and Bulgarian propaganda but I do not and do not want to spread away Macedonian propaganda.We respect all of you and we want to be treated like that- with respect. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No you don't respect me and you have proven it with your comments both on the En and Bg wikis and with the e-mail you sent me. You're dealing with serious stuff here. Have you seen any of the Bulgarian and Greek users calling somewhere the language of RoM Bulgarian dialect? Articles state that Bulgarian scientists consider so and that in the past the language was considered such by most neutral sources. But is there anyone going on a spree of adding propaganda maps that show that Bulgarian is spoken in RoM? No. And about the map - so you stick to the lie (Fut. Perf., please consider this) - you were told that the map was not the real one - it is not from a book, but from a propaganda blog. And you keep on with lies. --LaveolT22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Future about the talk page on Dialects of Macedonian Language. Because of the conflict of editing I have deleted by mistake your edit. I think it is not a big problem? Sorry again.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention (in that section above) that in addition to being part of the Greek Wikipedian Chauvinist Junta, you are also a member of Macedonian nationalist pov-pushing group. If that's not NPOV, I don't know what is :D. BalkanFever12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Heya, I've posted some new proposals at the WG wiki and would appreciate everyone's input... See the main board for the link. :) Thanks, Elonka05:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're not the only one. :) And it's not just the WG wiki... I've been checking contribs, and multiple of the WG members are AWOL, even here on EN. We need to get more aggressive about inviting new members. I've taken the liberty of empowering AGK to start updating the "Requests to Join" page with more of the names of people that want to come in. Then again, if it's quieter than usual, maybe we'll actually get something done! :) --Elonka06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that my "Dealing with disputes" page (or at least the top part of it) is about ready to be copied over here to EN so that I could get some more public feedback on it (plus it would make it easier for the WG members to comment as well). Do you have any opinion on the matter? Thanks, Elonka03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Because it is a dialect continuum which means that there is no clear line where Bulgarian ends and Macedonian begins (despite the fact that Macedonists like to identify that line with the borders of "United Macedonia"). You are aware I suppose that some experts (Trudgill I think) consider the Slavic of places like Drama as Bulgarian.--Dexippus (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Inkscape. It's in SVG format in the original. Nice program if you get used to it, but steep learning curve. Unfortunately there are some incompatibilities between Inkscape and MediaWiki's SVG renderer, that's why I didn't upload the original SVG yet; it wouldn't be displayed correctly in Wiki. Fut.Perf.☼17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Template:Macedonian dialect
We have a permission from the official website to use the picture and if you want we can give you the mail, they have gave us. regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Have they explicitly released it under a fully free license, like GFDL? Trouble is, for the sake of consistence in our internal policies, as long as it's just a permission in the style of "oh sure, you can use it in Wikipedia", it's still not "free". "Free" means, anybody, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, should be able to do whatever they like with it, including modifying it and stuff. I'd be surprised if an organisation gave away its logo under such conditions; I certainly wouldn't if I were them. Fut.Perf.☼21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that I added a note about the two dialects which according to the article (and the template) are spoken in Bulgaria. As they're obviously dialects of the Bulgarian language as well the note says: "Also dialects of the Bulgarian language." It sounds pretty neutral to me. --LaveolT21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You would probably already know of them, but in case you don't, I think publications by these linguists might help:
Victor A. Friedman
Horace Lunt
Zbigniew Golab
I haven't been able to get my hands on much yet, maybe you have skills :-)? Hopefully things will settle in that article soon. BalkanFever07:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hoax
Can you please ban 1 guy and all his puppets because of this. We are having enough problems without need for puppeteer which is creationg hoax articles.--Rjecina (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Grüss got
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 an uses prooved sources nd I am "just" economist that makes articles about geography and loves his own mother tongue. regards --Raso mk (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Ich werde morgen versuchen eine gute und alte dialekt karte zu besorgen.
Why are you write in German? I didn't say you're one and the same person, but that everywhere you edit the same things and add the same info. MacedonianBoy even says it on his Userpage that you two work together. Check it out if you want. --LaveolT22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is written for articles about Radiovce, we have been working together on that article. And Rašo is more active on the Macedonian Wiki, not here.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
MacedonianBoy said that the map is from a Polish professor. So either way he was not telling the truth. So much for being a linguist - is it from a book or from that Polish author? --LaveolT22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Laveol, you seem to be mixing up two different maps. The one you were discussing with M.B. earlier, on [27], is an entirely different map. Where and when did M.B. speak about the source for this map? Fut.Perf.☼22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made the map based on map made by Polish Slavists in Poland. The map is in the book Macedonian language for high schools in Macedonia and the map is included there in original version. I have made the map in colour and borders are excly same as the original. I have not made a propaganda or something else. I have just made it in colour and in English.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A macedonian schoolbook, ey. But the original map is not like the one you drew? Or is there another professor from Poland that makes such maps - could you tell me his name, please. And since you're a linguist why do you use schoolbooks for such information? Not that a schoolbook from RoM is anywhere near a reliable source. --LaveolT22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm losing my patience with you, quickly. Now, for the last time, tell me, what the hell is actually wrong with the map? Which isogloss exactly do you believe runs somewhere else than what the map shows? Fut.Perf.☼22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And here is the original scaned version. [[28]]--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And these guys are the authors.(Z. Topolińska- B. Vidoeski, Polski~macedonski- gramatyka konfrontatiwna, z.1, PAN, 1984)--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Well, for one thing, you have to admit you changed the southern boundary in Greek Macedonia. It doesn't show it reaching that far south. And the boundary towards Bulgaria seems like the original map is implying it's less clearly delineated than what your version suggests. Fut.Perf.☼22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So this is the view in RoM. Can we now proceed by adding the view in Bulgaria? Btw who of the two is Polish? It has other problems as well (besides being from a RoM schoolbook) - it's from 1984 (some 24 years back) - is it used till now? --LaveolT23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Which other view? Heavens, for the thousandth time, what fucking detail would actually be fucking different? Except for the fucking language name which this is simply fucking not fucking about? Fut.Perf.☼23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, I do not say no but it is difficult to draw a map if you have just the present day borders of Macedonia. If any mistakes are done sorry but at least I have tried to donate something to Wikipedia, but I see now it is not welcomed by many users. I am sorry again if I have made such problems to you.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with that map is that it is irredentism; it is quite clearly first and foremost a political map of "United Macedonia" in which the "borders" which separate "United Macedonia" from the rest of Greece and Bulgaria are marked as identical to those separating Greece from Albania or Bulgaria from Serbia. Is Greece's northern border at Larisa?! That is the impression that map gives! Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda, which is why that map, as it currently is, doesn't belong here. This map is promoting typical Macedonist fiction about natural "ethnolinguistic" borders under the guise of innocent good faith linguistics.--Dexippus (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I grant you the treatment of the borders (in MacedonianBoy's adaptation, not in his original source) is not very good. The map should of course clearly show the modern national boundaries, and there should be some graphical indication that the boundary towards Bulgarian is not a clearcut one. Fut.Perf.☼05:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi to all. I don't want to return to Wikipedia and don't want to be editor again, but I'm horrified by the massive nationalistic Macedonian pov-pushing, which is spreading in the articles connected with Macedonia (region), so, please, permit me this short intervention. First, the map above obviously has the borders of the "geographical region Macedonia" as they were shaped predominantly by the IMARO propaganda in the end of the 19th century. This concept later was accepted by the Macedonian nationalists in their irredentist theory about United Macedonia. The second problem is that this map and especially its eastern and northern boundaries has no connection with the dialectical linguistic situation - in these directions there are dialect continuums. The linguistic ties are particularly strong to the east mainly because of the common Slavic analytic structure in the dialects in contemporary Macedonia and Bulgaria. Furthermore, on one hand there are linguistic phenomena which are common both for "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" dialects, and on the other hand there are linguistic phenomena in south-eastern Macedonia, which are shared only with other "Bulgarian" dialects, but not with other "Macedonian" dialects. Check the maps from the book Stoiko Stoikov, "Bulgarian dialectology", Sofia, 2002, Publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of sciences. See also another example - Yat border, which runs inside geographic Macedonia and separates its south-eastern part, which is portion of the so called "Eastern Bulgarian dialect zone":
Yat border
In conclusion, the proposed map of the "Macedonian dialects" shows more political nationalistic claims than strict linguistic phenomena, principles and borders. Greetings, Ex-Jackanapes (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
P. s. Because Future Perfect at Sunrise obviously acts as a member of the Macedonian nationalist pov-pushing group, I have to state that the use of the term "Macedonian" with its contemporary national connotation inevitably leads to POV map and article. The boundaries of the so called "geographic", "united" or "ethnic" Macedonia are not clear dialect or linguistic borders in any aspect! In fact these borders have strictly political background. The neutral definition could be something supranational as "Slavic dialects in Macedonia (region)", but "Dialects of the Macedonian language"... Excuse me! And, of course, one future map of these dialects must show the dialect continuum towards Serbia and especially non-Macedonian part of Bulgaria. Have a nice war, friends! Ex-Jackanapes (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
ahaha these maps are so funny. you should come to northern Greece- the real Macedonia and try to find Slavic languages. it will be good for you. it must be the first language that acts like a ghost there. just compare it with the albanian language in Fyrom and Greece (which is not a ghost lang) and you'll get what i'm saying. you people need to visit Greece. really...DefendEurope (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The map
Hi Future! I am redesigning the map and I plan to make few changes. You can see it on my talk page. When I will finish the map I will give you immediately. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Should it be capitals or lower case in Macedonian? Also, change Tkveš to Tikveš, and I think it's Porečje, with a j. BalkanFever13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I do not know whether to correct it or not because Future said that he is making a map. If he does not making a map I will correct this one. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that any map should make clear that just because an area is marked as being within a traditional dialect area, it ought not be understood as meaning that that the Macedonian language is necessarily spoken there today. Unfortunately, there is much exaggaration regarding Bulgarian/Macedonian-speaking minorities in Greece and many people seem to have deluded themselves into believing that there is a possibility that, outside Thrace, there are indigenous competent native Slavophones under the age of 70.--Dexippus (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's very good. However, I think the city in Albania should be marked as "Korçë (Korča)" and maybe the (Central) Serbia-Kosovo boundary should be a broken line. Also, how do you think that the map should be described in the captions, Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum maybe (as it excludes Serbo-Croatian)?--Dexippus (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please somehow separate Ohrid dialect and Struga dialect from the Upper Prespa dialect and Korica should be Gorica and Blagoevgrad in brackets (Gorna Džumaja if it is possible) and Seres in brackets Ser. regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's a good idea to use the archaic Slavic names (as they appear in "United Macedonia" maps) for the places where the local Slavs use other names. Today, in local Slavic, the city in Bulgaria is called Blagoevgrad, not Gorna Džumaja. Today, if I'm not mistaken, they refer to Korçë as Korča as well, and not as Gorica. The only point in including the Slavic names in Greece is to indicate how native Slavic-speakers may refer to those places today, not to challenge Greek sovereignty. If names like Gorna Džumaja are no longer used, they shouldn't be in the map. Including it would give the impression that Bulgaria's "renaming" (?) it was in some way illegitimate.--Dexippus (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is much better Fut.Perf., thanks! Very good effort. May I ask why exactly Greek cities should have the Slavic name in brackets but Slavic cities should not have the Greek name in brackets? --Avg16:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Basically a purely pragmatic choice: In the context of Slavic linguistics, the Slavic names might be encountered in the literature. For instance, the article currently speaks of such things as the "Voden dialect" or "Solun dialect". I don't know if the English-speaking literature generally does that, but as long as the article does it we need it on the map to aid the reader. There is no corresponding need in converse (but, for instance, if I were to make a map of Greek dialects in Asia Minor I'd include the Greek names too.) - Generally, I'm glad you guys like this proposal; I'll collect whatever other constructive suggestions for tweaks we get here and then make a new version tomorrow. Fut.Perf.☼16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And final suggestion, can you put dialect continuum northern from Kumanovo in Serbian territory, because and there are Macedonian dialects. And about the statement of AVG, the original names are in Macedonian not Greek.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from my map and from the original [[29]] there is a small piece of land that belonged to Macedonia and now is under Serbia and the monastery Prohor Pčinjski is there. People there speak Kriva Palanka dialect.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The "original" names? What does "original" mean? Unless you don't know that the Greek names precede the Slavic ones by some thousand years.--Avg20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not that simple; the dialect continuum stretches far into Serbia and Kosovo (cc Torlak), it doesn't end at the monastery. It's quite clear that MB is motivated by "United Macedonia" related considerations.--Dexippus (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
bts, also the vevcani-radozhda dialect has dissapeared. And golo brdo dialects is actually drimkol - golo brdo. Also the solun dialect should reach the sea like in the original map, but apart from that very good PMK1 (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Summary:
Add "Kožani" in brackets for Kozani
Change "Delcevo" to "Delčevo"
Add the Vevčani-Radožda dialect (between Golo Brdo dialect area and Lake Ohrid)
Hi! Can you please take a look at this article Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo. Laveol is putting there Bulgarian language (which is useless and is not necessary) and some info about BG passport (that is not necessary too). Please review the article and delete that section and that language because it is obvious that Laveol want to put a BG propaganda there. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it not necessary? Since there are people there who are documented as self-identifying as Bulgarians (from independent sources as well as Bulgarian ones), I'd say it is relevant and necessary. I detect yet another whiff of "United Macedonia" promotion (man that never gets old!).--Dexippus (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, enough with this already - you have no reasons for your reversion. Since there are people self-identifying as Bulgarians and others self-identifying as ethnic Macedonians the article should have the name in both languages. I told you again - there is already a POV fork of this article in Macedonians in Albania. If you want to spread something go there. Or otherwise - if you ask me to write an article about Bulgarians in Albania and remove the Bulgarian name, why is the name in Mk still on the article since the POV fork is already present? --LaveolT19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, I thought I was removing what MacedonianBoy re-added, but it appeared to be the other way round. Thanks again. Chaldean (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
user:Xenovatis
hi, i was wondering if i could get some help with user:Xenovatis, he keeps on removing my official census information to replace with estimates from the greek foreign ministry which are all inflated numbers. and he is calling my census information vandalism
RE
greeks in serbia he said 15000
census shows no greek presence, with the lowest count at 2210 the greek population must be less than 2210.
could you please have a look into these false figures which Xenovatis keeps replacing. they are obviously wrong. How can estimates be more accurate than these official census, imagine if ethnic macedonians quoted their government as saying there is 250,000 macedonians in greece. not very NPOV. could you please have a look thanx PMK1 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
All figures are sourced, including the Serbian one. However since Greece's MFA does not mention a Greek community there I removed it some hours ago [31]. All the rest are sourced information supplied by a WP:RS. All this, including Kossovski's vandalistic involvement (he deleted several sourced statements [32] and I reverted this) in the article smells a bit WP:POINTish, especially regarding his statements about the ridiculous (but typicall) RoM claims. I didn't work hard to bring this article to GA to have every hate filled antihellenist come to vandalize it. As long as there are reliable sources these statements should remain. It might have been acceptable if Kossovski had inserted a range and kept the referrenced statements but that is not what he did. In any case the figures are kept to one estimate for all countries for clarity since they are only indicative and the fact that they are estimates is explicitly stated beside all figures that are such.[33] There is no misdirection here only a greek hater with too much time on his hands. On principle I wouldn't be averse to a range being included for those estimates that are contested but of course that is not what PMK1 did. Xenovatis (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jesus image
I don't want to get into an edit war about this, but the point is that this image was intended to be part of a reconstruction of what Jesus may have looked like. Whether it is "accurate" or not is in one sense irrelevant. All images are "inaccurate". Its function was to reconstruct a skull from the time and place of Jesus, and to depict the hairstyle most likely to have been used at the time. It is made by a very distinguished forensic artist. The argument is that Jesus is more likely to have looked like this than to have looked like more familiar depictions. The idea is that it's as near as we can rationally get. It takes its place among other images as part of a range of representations, in this case one that is linked to claims to create an historical rather than an idealised image. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, point taken, but if you want to use that as a non-free image, then at least this kind of discussion needs to be spelled out in the text, in my view. If this "reconstruction" is a notable part of how scientists these days deal with Jesus, then okay, maybe. Fut.Perf.☼19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Respectable
I suppose you did not put your sign in my last posts about alexander the great introduction because you realized what sort of shame was happening with the greek editors pushing and sayng alexander was an ancient greek. to preserve your reputation you just left them do the dirty work, maybe it was the best way, but aniway i will leave wikipedia since the articles about balkan are infected by "well-organized-teams" wich still i do not understand if you support or not.
Mark t don't worry about what has written NikoSilver, I was right as you can see, a neutral editor never had sayd that affermation.
Fut.Perf. Wikipedia is a really good idea for quick free informations, but not a good idea for when the articles are written with intentional purposes in the cases of the history of the contryes. PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really supposed to use semi-protection to give registered users an advantage over anon users unless the anons are clearly acting in bad faith or are otherwise egregiously disruptive. In this instance, I can't help but notice that you yourself were edit-warring about as bad as the anon, although you didn't literally break the 3RR. I've protected the article (on the wrong version, naturally), but also blocked the IP for a short while because of the parallel revert wars elsewhere. Fut.Perf.☼21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am certain those three IPs are the same user, because all three have edited both Saranda and Komotini within the same space of time. This whole thing started when I got into an argument with him over leaving in the town's Greek name, and he fired back that the same should be done for Komotini. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, it seems to me that the three IPs above are in fact none other than User:Arditbido, who back in February got into a ferocious revert-war with Megistias on Chaonians, first as IP Special:Contributions/217.24.237.116 and then as User:Arditbido. In the contribs log for Special:Contributions/217.24.237.116, you can see that he also edited Saranda, which Arditbido claims as his hometown. The similarity in IPs and interests leads me to believe that the three IPs are in fact Arditbido, who was placed under revert parole on Feb 13th for his part in that revert war. Coincidentally, the disruption on Saranda started on April 13th, the very day his revert parole expired. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, look. That IP user is seriously confused in that he/she continues to add city names in different languages whether or not they have a minority. Look at his edit summaries: there are no minorities in durres so there is no need for other languages. What is that suppose to mean? Long before it was an Albanian city there were Greeks, Romans, etc. living in it. Now because the city has no Greek or Roman minority we're just going to delete the information? Komotini is spelled in Greek because it is a Greek city. It's Turkish name doesn't belong in the infobox because it's not a Turkish city, it belongs in the history section where it is. This IP user blatantly deletes information for no reason at all and doesn't bother if it's necessary to put the deleted info in a more appropriate section. And as Tsourkpk has pointed out whoever this IP user is, he/she seems to have a history of blatant editwarring. El Greco(talk)01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm now positive those three IPs you mentioned are User:Arditbido. Too many coincidences (same interests, mentality, similarity in IP address, resumption of edit-warring the day the revert parole expired). --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep you`re right it is me Arditbido, and so? Lets find a solution. Every town in Albania will have the greek, latin, etc name in its page, and every town in greece, will have the turkish name in it, or macedonian, jewish, albanian, arvanitic, aromanian, in areas where there is or was a certain minority.
From what I can see here, there is a problem with putting the Greek (or any other language) names in the lead for cities and towns in Albania. Greek users want it, but when it comes to articles in Greece, no. Not sure, but didn't this happen with Greeks and Turks a while back? And the Greeks and ethnic Macedonians? Honestly I don't see the point. Create a "name" section, or chuck them in the "history" section. BalkanFever07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We tried that with a dedicated policy draft page with the Greek-Turkish issue some time back, but it never really materialised into a working guideline. It would indeed be a simple issue if people really thought like encyclopedia authors. But unfortunately too many wikipedia editors tend to think of geography articles the way dogs think of lampposts. Fut.Perf.☼08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, no, I'm actually for the inclusion of alternative names most of the time, but if they are more than one or maximally two or if they require any amount of explanation, they shouldn't be in the brackets in the lead sentence. My preferred position is an extra sentence at the end of the lead section (better there than in an extra names section, that's only for the exreme cases). Fut.Perf.☼11:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we have a long-standing agreement that in the lead paragraph only one name should be mentioned (the name in the official country's language) and all the others should be in the name section? Again, it seems it's only the evil Greeks who adhere to that...--Avg13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not just you, I'm the one who's been removing them from the towns in my country. And that agreement is what I was going by. BalkanFever13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a terribly good criterion in my opinion. Some states have very restrictive policies on not "recognising" minority languages at all (Turkey comes to mind), while others are or have been forced to be more "liberal" about such recognitions. Following their different standards basically boils down to granting the states censorship over our coverage. Fut.Perf.☼13:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not censorship over coverage, the alternative names would still be included in a name section in the main text. I'm suggesting that only currently used official languages should be mentioned in the lead (so as to avoide the Korçë mess). The real problem is implementing policies, try explaining it to every anon who wants his wayyy and policing every single article. The "inclusive" approach has clearly failed (how else can Gostivar be explained).--Dexippus (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No the problem is this. That IP user wants to force the Turkish name of Komotini in the infobox. That's not going to happen. It has no place there. It's not a turkish city to begin with. Now if he wants the turkish name of Komotini in the article because of the historical reasons........fine by me. But not in the infobox. It goes in the history or name section as according to this: WP:NCGN. And if you're curious, the turkish name is in the history section. El Greco(talk)15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a very thorny issue, but one that I feel is too important to leave unresolved, as it will invariably lead to all sorts of edit warring. How about the following: 1) Official name only in the infobox (to avoid a Korce-style mess). 2) If a living, significant minority (more than a few hundred individuals) exists in the city, include the name in the language of the minority in the first line of intro, in parentheses (e.g. Greek for Saranda, Turkish for Komotini, etc..) 3) If there is a strong historical connection between an ethnic group and the city (i.e. the city was founded by that group, or was the majority of the population for most of its history), include that with an explanation somewhere in the first paragraph. We should be able to reach a consensus if we all put our minds to it in good faith. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid yes, too involved. He must be at 6 or 7 reverts now, together with his IPs yesterday. Unfortunately, you and me have also already gone to 4... :-(. Κατάρα στον λαδέμπορα. Fut.Perf.☼12:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Too involved" simply means I cannot take administrative action against you myself while I'm in an editorial dispute with you. I'd otherwise have blocked you by now. But when I'm involved as an editor in the dispute I'm supposed to leave blocks and such to other administrators. BTW, the "katara" wasn't directed at you personally. You are not an oil merchant, are you? – About your reversal of the facts about whose edits are cited and whose aren't, no comment. Fut.Perf.☼13:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This cursive is directed personally at me, and will be reported as soon as i found out how.
"No comment", ofc no comment you have nothing to comment as you have remained silent in the talk page as well.
The Linguist List, dear, is clear. And my edits are clear and cited, the only edit of my own that is not cited is the "evolve" edit, all the others are appropriate and needed.
And when you do find a comment, let me know. As for me being an "oil-merchant", a "lademporas" is irrelevant and your excuse is ridiculous. It is like saying to somebody "curse to the goat-herder", and then asking him if he actually is one.--Elampon (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And 3rdAlcove, how come you are so interested to get me banned? And why dont you like my edits, and references? --Elampon (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry man, the "lademporas" was really not aimed at you, honest. - as for the rest, well. Well. Well. What can I say? Well. Fut.Perf.☼13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as i know, i am the one who forced you to revert 4 times, and hence, this remark is clearly directed at me. As for your comments, "Well...well""--Elampon (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, jumping in here from a completely neutral point of view, I'm not particularly sure what's going on, but I've been asked to take a look by Elampon. Elampon, from the above, I can deduce your side of the story. Future Perfect, why are you / are you reverting well sourced edits to original research? If so, why? What's the matter with what Elampon is adding? I haven't got any knowledge whatsoever of the content of this article, so at the moment I'm not accusing either side at all - I just need to know the facts, and they're not particularly jumping out at me. TalkIslander13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well, thanks for watching. Elampon is pushing the Greek nationalist meme that Ancient Mac. was simply and certainly a Greek dialect, whereas the overwhelming majority of international scholarship says that we know too little about it to ever know, although it was most likely at least closely related. Elampon is blatantly reversing the facts where he says his edits are cited while mine aren't; the exact opposite is true. He is pushing a bizarre OR idea that XMK "evolved" into later Koine Greek, whereas all scholarship agrees it was "replaced" by it. He has not a shadow of a source for that. He is also blatantly misrepresenting one source, which he claims classifies XMK as Greek, when it is plain obvious when you only look at it that it does no such thing; it classifies it as a sister of Greek within a larger superfamily.
Apart from that, yes, I seem to have broken 3RR yesterday; having lost count when in addition to Elampon another (much more abusive) IP editor harassing me joined the fray. My little stunt at showing off with Greek slang expressions was triggered by that guy; I'm honestly sorry if Elampon felt personally attacked by that, it truly wasn't intended like that. Fut.Perf.☼13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a summary of our discussion in the talk page[34]
The majority accepts it as a Greek language, and the Linguist List database, classifies it as such[35], why should not this be clear and cited? And how is this Greek nationalism? And why should this be replaced with original research?
In addition, the remarks defended by FPas, are not the accepted view, and are blatantly original research. The "evolve" edit, is the only edit of mine that is not cited, but this "replaced" term implies that a language other than Greek was replaced by the Koine Greek, which is original research as well, and supportive of the minority view, and it is also a distortion, because the accepted fact, is that Ancient Macedonian, belongs to Hellenic family tree. The position pushed by FPas, is that of a nationalist person from the Republic of Macedonia, and the respective quotes which he defends(and are original research) can be found in nationalistic Republic of Macedonia videos all over the youtube, where they support, that Ancient Macedonian, is a language other than Greek, and support it with the exact same edits, that FPaS is defending, by claiming that "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language" and hence unable to form a consensus, this besides the fact that it is original research, it is also a distortion because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", and the consensus has been reached, and the language has been classified as Greek, as you can see from the Linguist List Database, which is the International valid authority of Linguistics, worldwide. A consensus has not been reached as to where should be Macedonian be classified within the Greek languages, and not whether it is a Greek language or not. This is crystal, and terms implying otherwise, while at the same time being original research, certainly cannot be accepted.--Elampon (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't know how to read a tree diagram, do you. The link is [36]. It is plain obvious that this tree classifies XMK not under Greek but side by side with Greek, under a common parent node called in this proposal "Hellenic". BTW, no, this database at LinguistList is not a "international valid authority of linguistics". You are making things up. It's just a rough-and-ready tool compiled by people who aren't necessarily content experts on each of these languages, and it certainly has not pretensions of presenting a fixed and final consensus about each and every detail of what it contains. For the real state of the art, read the article and then walk into a library and read the books we quote. This has all been discussed here a million times; you are just re-hashing old misunderstandings. Fut.Perf.☼14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It classifies XMK, side by side with the other Greek dialects, which all belong to the Hellenic tree. Your idea, that consensus has not been reached, is blatantly false.
And the Linguist List is the database that illustrates the current consensus. And is the site responsible for the XMK code-link, which is linked on the article, while the the same article, writes, the original research term "possibly" Greek, when in fact the XMK link that leads to the Linguist List, classifies it in the Hellenic family tree. My edit was "this language is Indo-European, of the Hellenic family tree" and i cited the source, and i did not touch, the rest that goes.. "possibly a close cousin, or a sibling language, or to some extent related to Phrygian", in order not to cut off the other theories. I added something that is crystal true, and referenced. Second, do not question, my knowledge on the sources, because you have clearly no idea regarding my person. And i repeat; the next remark is: fallacious, dangerous, POV, and original research: "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language", because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", i can bring you a million examples from youtube nationalist videos, where the particular quote is used to promote a specific agenda. And i also repeat, the Linguist List from the Michigan University, presents the Linguistic consensus, which in this particular case has already been reached, and Ancient Macedonian is not "possibly" Greek, but is firmly inside the Hellenic family. In addition, if one takes a look at this page of yours, it is crystal-clear that you have aided people from the Republic of Macedonia, on the past, and when they need something, they come over to you for help.--Elampon (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow yeah, I aid people editing, and when they need something they come over to me for help. You know what, I'm very proud of that, because that's my job in this project. Now, can you please stop wasting electrons on my screen. I'm not going to search for another slang expression to tell you this time, but you might go and take some inspiration from the title of this thread. Fut.Perf.☼14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, no comment regarding, our disputed "text", this should conclude, this discussion; and i will kindly ask from the Insider, to revert back to my edits, with the "evolve" edit, to remain unchanged as it is, to "replaced" since i cannot cite it, but the Hellenic family tree oughts to be there, since it is fact and cited, while the "Marginalized from the 5th BCE" to be deleted as it is original research, as well as the "It was probably spoken inland, and away from the coast" to be deleted as it is original research as well.
Unfortunaltely for your so-called ethnic-Macedonian friends, the consensus in Linguistics has been reached, and their agenda of promoting it as a "phantom" language cannot be supported. --Elampon (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've seen enough now ;). Future Perfect, perhaps you shouldn't have cited that slang expression, as it seems that after a misunderstanding Elampon took it as a bit of a slur, though I clearly note that you've apologised for that quite a bit now. Equally, though it is understandable that you are getting frustrated, quips like "...please stop wasting electrons on my screen" are not helpful, and just further problems. Also, can I suggest that both of you take a look at WP:3RR - you've both broken it at some point in this. Future Perfect, as the reverts weren't really blatent vandalism, they don't really fall under the exlcusions for 3RR. Clearly no further action should be taken in this case, but I point this out merely so that you're aware ;) (I suspect you are anyway, from the things you've typed).
All that aside, Elampon, you are clearly in the wrong. The site that you reference shows, as Future Perfect points out, a simple tree diagram, in which this language is placed beside Greek, and not within it. Future Perfect's reasoning is backed up by other editors and reliable third-party sources; your's is not. Please step back, cool off, and in future discuss contraversial edits before making them. If you continue to be disruptive (which making a mountain out of a mole hill and then refusing to accept any appology is, and which adding poorly cited material to an article against editors who know what they're talking about is), then you'll probably end up being blocked. Don't make a sysop block you, there's no need.
Islander, i am not clearly in the wrong, The Linguist List shows the consensus, and the consensus is that the Ancient Macedonian belongs to the Hellenic family tree this is the current scientific consensus as reported by the Michigan University, and this is what my edit clearly writes. The other remarks of FPas, are clear distortions and original research, while my edits are cited. I do not see how original research material are correct and cited material are in the wrong, sincerely. This has got to be one of the unknown cases when cited material are being replaced by original research. As for the slur, it is a clear insult. And the apology, came only after i warned him, that i will report it. --Elampon (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It was not meant as an insult, and Future Perfect has appologised profusely, and he only appologised then because he didn't know how much it insulted you beforehand. I'm not a linguist, and so cannot verify this one way or another. However, it's been said that the Linguist List is not the best of sources. If what you say is true, you'll be able to find me a list of other, reliable sources to back you up. So, please show us these sources. TalkIslander16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Islander, the ISO-standards website in regards to XMK[37] writes explicitly "for description see Linguist List", and the Linguist List is clear on the matter, if the ISO standards are not good enough, i sincerely do not know what is. In addition, the most up-to-date theories all agree that it is a Greek language, the theories that claim otherwise are outdated and old. You can see this from the wiki article, in the paragraph "classification". But this is really besides the point, because the ISO-standards, have published their consensus, and the consensus is exactly as i wrote it in my edit. "A Indo-European language of the Hellenic family tree, but its exact relationship is unclear: possibly this..and possibly that." In addition the text "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language", is very bad POV and original research as well because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", i have cited and even linked the book from the google.books database. Regarding the slur, i do not sicnerely care if this person should be punished for it or not, but it is useful to illustrate the POV of our respective positions, and a probably evident bias regarding this particular case. --Elampon (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Confused little man, let's hope that you'll be able to find an answer to my question until tomorrow. Good night and good luck. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am. You can't go around accusing and swearing at people you don't know. Not in WP. You've been for quite some time here, I think, you should know better. ktr (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ktr (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for asking. Yep, כתר (talk·contribs) was a harassment-only account, definitely a reincarnation or bad-hand sock of some experienced user with an axe to grind, who previously used to pick edit-wars against me through anon IPs. The other guy is just a somewhat aggressive tendentious n00b who won't take no for an answer, but I'd still assume some good faith in that case. Fut.Perf.☼17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like I returned too late. I'll certainly keep an eye on your page and the other relevant pages when the blocks expire ;). TalkIslander18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Antihellenic sentiment from our own gung(sic) leader??
Yeah, sorry about that, couldn't resist ;-) I have a feeling Niko is gonna hate me particularly for this... (and I think I also got the grammar wrong.) But the addressee can't really complain; after all, I was implicitly likening him to a great and warlike king, wasn't I? Fut.Perf.☼20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dialects
Hi, according to "Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett. (2002) The Slavonic Languages (p. 247. The Macedonian Language) (New York: Routledge Publications)", the Korca-Kostur-Nestram dialects are part of the Western group. Alekishere (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Imbris has engaged in CANVASSING concerning a move vote in the Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta article. He has repeatedly been messaging people and trying to persuade them to vote in accordance to his own personal view on the matter. He appears to have ignored my requests to cease, I'm hoping he'd stop if he was warned to stop by an Admin.
Canvassing: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]
--DIREKTOR(TALK)01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
hi, thanx for clarification
there would be no way of posting it. Thats alrite, just delete it i guess. I was wondering is there a special program i should get to modify this image to look properly, as opposed to editing it on photoshop? I would like some help with this if it is possible? thanx PMK1 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes your right, i dunno wat {{db-g7}} means. Is there a category to post internet images or is that not-free as well.? PMK1 (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thankyou. I will. Could you give me a step-by-step of just say adding colour to one country? if that is possible? PMK1 (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain reasons for your support of POV pushing user:Mike Babic . Because of POV pushing he has been reverted in articles Controversy over Kosovo independence (by The Devil's Advocate) ,Hashim Thaçi (by user:Dchall1 ,user:Ossicle ), The Hunting Party (2007 film) (by user:Dchall1 ). Like you can see I have not spoken about article Serbs of Croatia or using 2 accounts. I am sure that you will not agree but in my thinking Mike Babic is nationalistic, edit warring SPA account. 1-2 day block will not change his way of editing ...
When I speak about him can you please move picture with name Image:Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg to right name Famous Serbs from Croatia because it is POV and because Mike Babic has first created that picture with name Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg and few minutes later in article Serbs of Croatia he has given second name to picture. This is clear example of bad faith edit because it is not possible to give 1 name now and second name 5 minutes later.
Can you please in future look his edits (in similar way in which you are looking my edits) so that they are NPOV --Rjecina (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your advice
There is an article about Pontic Greek language but as you see the title is a confusing one as Pontic Greek can mean a person or etc but doesn't imply that the article is a linguistic one. Now i think the title must be changed but as i expect that you have some experience with other cases what would seem more reasonable; to change it to Pontic Greek dialect or simply Pontiaka as they are known in Greek? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm generally in favour of a relaxed approach to wording in info- or nav-boxes. Just imagine we had to squabble about exactly with what wording we should hedge the claim ("likely"? "possibly"? "...(but has been hypothesised to have been a separate language)"? "...(marginal)"? Shudder. Just leave it be, it does little harm in that box. Fut.Perf.☼10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Can you take a look at Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo article and tell me what you think cause I have made many changes to the article for several reasons:
that region is non official, instead there are municipalities such as Pustec, Korča and many others. In Albania there is no such region,
the article should be about geography of that so called region not the nationalities that live there,
the article was a reason for many conflicts btw the users,
and if someone want to write about the Macedonians or any nationality in Albania, there are different articles and Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo is not place for that.
And can you somehow separate the article into two articles because Mala Prespa is something else and it is located near Ohrid Lake and Golo Brdo is located near Debar and Struga. There is no connection between the two small regions. I think these changes that I have made would be a great solution for many conflicts concerning this article. Thanks --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
New England Interstate Route 8
Hey- I know this isn't a history subject, but geography is close. Anyway, there is a page called New England Interstate Route 8 in which the old route NE-8 from 1922-1926 is supposed to be discussed. Instead, in User Talk:Polaron, Polaron is convinced that it means all the routes called 8 in the region of New England, which makes no sense, because they are not interstate- the roads are different in each state, hence the markers. I reference the roadgeek.com site because it clearly discusses the NE system. Thanks! Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Videmus Omnia
Can you tell me if this user is legit? I'm not sure how, but when I try to see this user's user page, I see myself logged in! Also in Wikimedia although I have a different user name there as 1mrg3105.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, yes, V.O. was a legitimate contributor. He had some trouble with another editor off-wiki and decided to leave, that's why his user page is deleted. I can't really tell what you mean by "I see myself logged in", though, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Fut.Perf.☼12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
When I click on his user page, I see his user page but at the top it says mrg3105, etc. If he had left, why is he/she deleting images? Moreover, most of these images have been in public domain for decades, and no notices were posted to talk pages if there were copyright issues.
You mean commons:User:Videmus Omnia, his user page on commons? Weird, I can see nothing unusual about that. Can't imagine what you are seeing there, technically. As for his actions, yeah, he's apparently still active on commons; I wasn't aware of that; and he's an admin there. If you have a problem with his deletions, why don't you go and ask him directly? Fut.Perf.☼08:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I had, and did get a reply. There was apparently a change in legislation on the 1 January 2008 of which I was unaware of, as would many English language editors. It seems to me a less then wise move to unilaterally delete images which may or may not have been in violation of the copyright because they use a template that is no longer applicable. For the most part the use of template would not have been in intended copyright violation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
pictures and dialects picture
hi, thanx for the help with the pictures, i created a better version using the inkscape. I also noticed that on the map Macedonia slavic dialects the vevcani-radozda dialect is only in albania, which is incorrect. This map shows a more realistic veiw of where it is situated, half in macedonia the other half in albania. other than that it is very gud. Thanx again. PMK1 (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy, although the map is great but the division of the dialects is wrong. There is no Debar dialects and between Polog dialects and Kičevo dialect there is no at least slightest connection. The old one is more natural and is based on th similarities between the dialects.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello guys, I haven't really got time to deal with the Golo Brdo stuff right now, sorry about that. As for the dialect classification, I think the only way we can get into a meaningful discussion of which classification is more useful to our readers is if we can get our hands on the original analyses and get an understanding on what actual dialect differences these classifications are supposed to represent. I might be able to get some stuff from the library some time during the next days (certainly the Comrie book, which must be a pretty good resource). Fut.Perf.☼08:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well if you plan to use that book, keep in mind not to name the group Polo, because Polog group is made of Upper and Lower Polog and Kičevo-Poreče is different. And also do not name Debar group or Ohrid group. Why we should join them in one group. The problem is for Korča only, and we can discuss for that dialect only. I know the dialects from Western Macedonia very well, thats why I do not want to be put in a group that is not good.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said, subjective impressions like this, even by a native speaker, are not terribly helpful here. Neither is an appeal to authority such as saying that this or that is a publication by the Academy or whatnot. We need to know what actual features are involved. So, what are the isoglosses that divide (for instance) U Polog and L Polog from Kicevo? Does the work you used actually give such a rationale for its classification? Fut.Perf.☼08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, as I see my work is not welcomed here. Lower Polog is similar with the south Serbian dialects. That is the difference. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Poreče-Kičevo is central dialect and Debar group is imaginative group. A foreigner can not know more than our academics and native speakers. We all know which dialect is which. It is more reliable than someone says something from Australia, USA or wherever.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, why getting upset? I'm just trying to have a friendly chat between linguists here. I'm simply curious as to what the basis for those classifications is. In the end, of course, there's no such thing as a dialect group. It's all just a web of cross-cutting isoglosses, and the rest is simplifying abstractions. Fut.Perf.☼16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - Fut.Perf. could the map have it's old stamp Bulgarian on the territory of Bulgaria? --LaveolT13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No! The map shows macedonian dialects. Not bulgarien, not greek, not albanian , not serbien. Only macedonian.--Raso mk (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Argh. My intention in the original map was to make it look like both the "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" strings go across that area, but then I thought it looked clumsy and I'd better leave it to the text to explain. Fut.Perf.☼16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Other users are treated as me “wrongly”, is this just an excuse treating them as I it was me?
I still believe that you over reacted with me, this is understandable if you look you my user page User:Dodona . I still am open to an agreement, I never was a vandal and misbehave although I was justified to do that , do not forget ..!
Yes, I know other people are mistakenly treated as you, Dodona. We aren't doing this on purpose. We can't avoid it, can we? It's your fault. I told you before that with your behaviour you are actually harming other Albanian contributors. This could all stop at once if you just gave us a clear promise that you'll actually stop. Fut.Perf.☼16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying with all I have done to protect my country history and name from manipulations that I am harming other Albanian users?!They are not usual Albanian users actualty because the most active ones were blocked and banned .I have some experience actualy and you have to respect that.. compare... with a bunch of greek users working intesively.You got to keep the balance and not to ban me ! I can of course just stop using different accounts.You in exchange release my account after a reasonable punishment period, you will expect me to just leave do you? After all those references hunting I have done. ..
No, Dodona, you are banned. Accept it. And it wasn't my doing, don't blame me. Whatever you do, this is not going to change any time soon. You have the choice: you can just be reasonable and forget about this project, or you can keep making a nuisance of yourself. Either way, there is no chance for you to ever actually change an article. You'll be found and reverted. You'll just cause everybody and yourself more annoyance. And yes, as long as you keep fighting windmills, this project will do whatever it takes to keep you out as well as it can. That means other innocent editors will suffer as a side-effect. I don't like it when that happens, but that's life. If you want other Albanian editors in your place to be able to edit through those IPs, give me your promise that you'll leave us alone. Fut.Perf.☼20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You want me to leave for just opening a discussion, you insisted with Moreschi I was about to be released … Leave you …who are you? We have collaborated and I considered you as friend and still do .Do you mean that my all my contribution was nothing and did not change the light at all ….
"you will expect me to just leave?" - yes, that is exactly what I expect. And if you're smart, that's what you'll do. You are doing no good here, and will only harm your countrymen and your nation's portrayal on Wikipedia. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to hear that from an Albanian , no I only give another view that’s all.The one that was almost ignored , you like it or not .I was appricated from my people and the others … I know . May I ask you what country you belong? What ever you support just respect the oposition and be fair
My national portreit it is stamped from the histrory and not one ,neither me nor you can change nothing ,the truth will come out by rebels like me and not from the camp of mediocres
Templates
I am interested to know if restoring templates dubious and citation needed is revert or not ? Reason for question are obscure books which are used like source without possibility to see internet links (I speak about article Srbosjek and this change)--Rjecina (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Jesus picture
On "Image:Proposedjesus.jpg" you wrote "people in Jesus' time looked no different from people today, so a reconstruction of just some random guy of Jesus' time tells us zilch about him."
"People" is a pretty broad term here. I assume you mean "people who live in Jesus' area", but what makes you think they look "no different"? Migrations, wars and such change the way cultures look. If Popular Mechanics and the BBC thought the subject was worthy of coverage and analysis, I'd call that a fair argument for notability. Have you got any sources that say otherwise? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I was discussing that with Paul B a few threads above too. If you want to make such an argument, the least thing that's necessary in my view is that it needs to be in support of an actual passage of text that describes the study it was part of. It's the normal criterion for fair use: Fair use is basically only if you need to talk about the image, in the text. So, if that study was such an important part of how scientists today deal with the historical Jesus (I have my doubts it was, rather than just a popular media gimmick, but I leave that to you to work out), then by all means write a section on it in the text and use the image for illustrating that. But don't use as having an image for the sake of having an image. Fut.Perf.☼05:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you jumped to my defence with the SwatiAfridi case, I thought I might bring this to your attention: There's another sock, Tajik007 working against established consensus on Afghanistan. Thanks for any input/help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Name issue
I was banned, because i just made the same standard in every town, in Albania and Greece. Will we find a solution, not double standards, to name issue? I propose that only names of ethnicities which live in a town, should be written in the heading. So do you agree with my proposal? balkanian (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a little bit more complex than that. Just a few remarks:
We should be talking about the inclusion of name variants not as a means of gratifying some local population groups or of symbolically recognising their existence, let alone some political claims to territory or minority status. We include names because they are valuable encyclopedic info for outside readers. (Local readers don't need Wikipedia to tell them how they are called, they already know that.)
The most important criterion for inclusion or exclusion is therefore not how the various groups of locals call a place, but which names have been historically used in English. On that criterion, you will often need the original names of ancient or medieval cities. In your part of the world, that often implies Greek names or their Latinized variants (e.g. "Dyrrachium") or Italian forms ("Durazzo").
I will never understand why people are so damned obsessed with that position in the first sentence of an article. The bracketed position after the head term should always be kept short and crisp. If there's more than one or two names to be covered, and/or if they need any amount of explanation, they should go somewhere else. On the other hand, I don't particularly like hiding them away in a "history" section either. My personal preference, in many cases, is an extra sentence at the end of the lead section. Like:
[...] The town has also be known historically under the original Greek name AAA or its Latinized form BBB, and under its Italian name CCC. In the language of the local DDD'ese minority it is called EEE.
If you have something like that, then the initial words can be reserved to the most common English name and (where different) the local official name in the national language. Fut.Perf.☼09:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been constantly reverted from editing Saranda. My references (a study from Council of Europe and an other one from Southeast Europe Organisation)) have been reverted for no reason from user:Megistas. I need help, in order not to start an edit war again, becouse I will not allow neutreal edits been reverted (like this one [44] by any nationalist. balkanian (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If I have done anything wrong, I would be happy to see you are taking sanctions. But the problem is that I haven't! The only thing i did was that I did not use a Capital G for the word/country name; greece. I did not even saw that I was writing it with a small g. Anyway, even if I did. What's the problem? That country is not even willing to recognize my own existence, nor my country, now that's a problem! But I don't hear you about that. Instead I hear ridiculous remarks about me not using a capital G :) That's just funny.Makedonia (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Gorani
Hello! I must ask you whether the Gorani people speak Bulgarian as it is stated in this article or not? [46] Can we reedit it? regards and I am not sexist it was just a comment.:)--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My 'Extremism'
I would like for you to find me where I wrote anything remotely extremist. I am on the discussion pages in order to show the other side of 'the wall'. Are you telling me that wikipedia banns people for arguing against certain material ? Everything I write is legitimate, and I, unlike everyone else on that page, am a specialist of NDH.AP1929 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Saranda
I have been constantly reverted from editing Saranda. My references (a study from Council of Europe and an other one from Southeast Europe Organisation)) have been reverted for no reason from user:Megistias. I need help, in order not to start an edit war again, becouse I will not allow neutreal edits been reverted (like this one [47] by any nationalist. Will you help me? balkanian (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? I really made it by myself! It is not difficult to make it so what it problematic there. If the license is wrong than change it as free license. I have drawn that picture yesterday. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
By simply re-drawing it after some model, it doesn't become yours. It still belongs to the organisation whose logo it is. Fut.Perf.☼19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if this is in fact the organisation's authentic logo, you can use it, you just need to fulfil the formal requirements for non-free content. It's basically just filling out one of those "fair-use rationales". I could do it for you, but to tell you the truth I'm too bored to do it right now, sorry... ;-) (and happy Easter.) Fut.Perf.☼19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, commented on it just a minute ago, thanks for the notification. Do what you like, I honestly don't feel like re-hashing and explaining all the background to this case again at this point. Fut.Perf.☼17:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi FP. I've noticed that you have topic banned this user for six months. If you haven't already seen his remarks on my talk page, you may care to take a look when you've got time. I believe it would be appropriate to topic ban him indefinitely. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
On talk page of article Serbs of Croatia we will create consensus about NPOV sources for Yugoslav Wars (Talk:Serbs of Croatia section NPOV sources). My question is can we latter ask ARBMAC to confirm that this sources are NPOV and latter if it is needed to enforce statements confirmed with this sources.
I am sure that you understand that without some sort of wiki community support are consensus will die very fast--Rjecina (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That certainly looks like a good step to try and work out such a list, thanks for the initiative. I'm particularly glad to see you and Civilaffairs working together constructively - she seems to be a very competent editor with a good sense for neutrality and good sourcing. However, I don't think we can do any formal endorsement of such a list through the ARBMAC mechanism, like saying: this is it, and anybody who doesn't stick to those sources will be banned, or anything like that. You know, the ARBMAC sanctions are not supposed to be about deciding content. But certainly, if anybody were to undermine such an initiative by blatantly disregarding a consensus achieved on its basis, or to disrupt the process in some other way, I'd certainly want to take that into account when dealing with sanctions and the like. Fut.Perf.☼09:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Review and not by just one ADMIN
My opinion from the talk page Greece is that you sometimes find difficult to deal with the group of Greek editors, your words “Greek editing community has been putting up an insane amount of disruptiveness and obstruction, and unfortunately we can't ignore their sheer revert-warring firepower” Why you do not become two ore more Admin to decide, in all the delicate issues …. All the articles where some Greek user were extremely free to edit and are working in group against anybody that oppose them, must be review independently .I will make a case in ARBMAC included mine….
P.S Nothing ABOUT TROLLING AND QUALITY what is wrong with the source, you can paint well your “minority” map especially in Epirus. No they wish they were but they are not only Tosk (but Tosk and Geg) the Arvanites and it was not my post to say that .I would not like to be instead of •ΚέκρωΨ• , but behind him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.246.80 (talk • contribs)
Me but not poor actually, you can se I am to a certain extent rich , I have a motivation and your name is very appriciated— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.246.80 (talk • contribs)
You would say ”Molesto “ but trust me your calm waters are worse vellajo— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.246.80 (talk • contribs)
Dodona's bizarreries have had a tendency towards the surreal lately, certainly adding to their entertainment value. Maybe he is still emotionally overwhelmed by having his latest block summary mixed with a Happy Easter greeting from me. Fut.Perf.☼14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please to the point!!
Ps.i appriciated and you know the Easter greeting mixed with block , me bizzare what is it you can change fast..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.246.80 (talk • contribs)
Υγεία, χαρά, αγάπη, ευτυχία, έρωτα, δόξα και λεφτά! Κρίμα που δεν ήρθες, αλλά ευτυχώς για τη... χοληστερίνη σου! :-) NikoSilver13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Να μάθουνε να μιλάνε, αλλιώς να μάθουνε να ακούνε. Χρήση Ελληνικών μεταξύ Ελληνόφωνων είτε δεν αφορά Αγγλόφωνους είτε θα μεταφραστεί αν ζητηθεί. NikoSilver23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Και να φαντασθείς πως το χειρότερό μου δεν το είχαν καν προσέξει [48]. Λες να'τρωγα μπλόκο? Αλλά τώρα θα με σκωτώσεις γι'αυτό εσύ, το ξέρω... ;-) Fut.Perf.☼00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL τρυπήσανε κιόλας? Καλά έκανα και παραιτήθηκα, ε? Πάλι καλά που δεν αντιμετώπισες σχετικό πρόβλημα με τη νέα μου δραστηριότητα (ακίνητα)! Αλλά τώρα που το σκέφτομαι θα σου πήγαινε τρέλλα ένα κεραμμυδάκι στο κεφάλι! NikoSilver01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
hahahahaha!!! Thank you for the award!!! How is that thing working? Can I put it in my page??
Can I give awards also?
Seleukosa (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a template for it, it's sort of the basis for how they make barnstar templates. {{Award2}}. You can basically put in any image and text you want... :-) Fut.Perf.☼20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen some of the work you've done on the Macedonian articles lately, and I must say I am impressed. You might (or might not) remember me from last summer when i was involved in quite a few wars over macedonian articles, and I believe we had some exchanges with you (i apologize if i offended you, it was the adrenaline speaking :). You are doing a great job trying to put some objectivity in a very contentious issue. I must admit that my Macedonian compatriots bear the blame quite often, but the resources and time (and passion) that the Bulgarian and Greek editors put into spreading of their POV cannot be matched.
We kept FT2 in the loop about the progress of our review, as a courtesy given his earlier intervention in the AN/I discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Canadian General Andrew Leslie
Per WP:LIVING I have removed from the Andrew Leslie article recent edits which added defense attourney allegations against him made during the ongoing trial of Gotovina, Cermak and Markac in the Hague. You may read my reasons for doing so here: Talk:Andrew Leslie As I am new to WP, I wanted to bring this to your attention so that this can be handled properly. As I noted on the talk page, a portion of these recent additions may be admissible. Upon your review, I will make any necessary changes. Many thanks for your kind attention in this matter. Civilaffairs (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs
Thank you for your swift and sure help. I have added back the medal mix-up in summarised form, as you suggested. I am still concerned about what amounts to incorrect and slanderous information on the talk page. For example, "His collegue testifed against him and claimed that he wanted illegal evidence against the Croatian Amry". This "colleague" has not appeared before the Tribunal; this was merely an insinuation by the defense attourney. After studying WP:LIVING, it seems to me that statements like this be removed from the talk page, but again, I am new and don't want to do something wrong. Civilaffairs (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs
Wow, thank you! (blush) This was so nice of you, and such an encouragement to me, too. A lot of the credit actually goes to the efforts of Howard C. Berkowitz of WT:MILHIST who kindly took an interest in this struggle and taught me much, including pointing out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. I've thought for a long time that he deserved an award for his tireless and patient efforts, but I didn't know how awards work or how to give him one. Can I just do it? He deserves an award more than I do! Civilaffairs (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs
appears to have a different idea on who God is, and what constitutes for a Wikipedia article
15:23, 2 May 2008 Roarer (Talk | contribs) (11 bytes) (←Replaced content with 'Ben Whibley') (undo)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I know you said you didn't want to be involved further, but the review at User talk:כתר has moved on a bit, and I wanted to let you know that the attacks on you have been discussed and that the user has acknowledged he was less than polite, and has apologised here. Actually, I now see you have responded there in response to Fayssal's e-mail and my later comment about that. Given the inconclusive nature of the further CU investigations, the user's apology, and that the user does discuss things constructively, do you think you could ask Moreschi to unblock? Remaining concerns about sockpuppetry should be raised separately in a new case. Overall, I feel a second chance is warranted here, but I think an unblock request from you would be better than me approaching Moreschi directly. Carcharoth (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want him unblocked, I suggest you unblock him and not ask others to take that responsibility from you. You are well within your rights to do so, having discussed and consulted with the blocking admin exensively. So now do what you must, but don't expect me to give any extra endorsement to that. In fact, nothing in the world will convince me that this is a legitimate user, but that's just my opinion. Fut.Perf.☼09:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
When I cross the line between commenting on a case and advocating, I consider myself too involved to unblock. I also don't unblock without asking the blocking admin again, as they should have the chance to re-review the case. This makes things a lot slower, but ultimately I think it is better to do things this way. I accept and respect your stance, and I will go and talk to Moreschi directly. Carcharoth (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that, in the wiki article, Griko is considered a descendant of Doric. From what I've read in the past, it's simply a Koine-descended variant (with perhaps some Doric influence and various archaisms; don't ask for details, I remember none), and funnily enough there seems to be a(n old) dispute about its classification in the talk page. Since you're a linguist, if I'm not mistaken, and just miiight know something about it, could you weigh on in this? What's the consensus? Thanks. 3rdAlcove (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fut.Perf. ☼, not sure if you can help, but there is a little procedural/verification matter going on at the Macedonian Latin alphabet article, and BalkanFever suggested you might be a good person to turn to for ideas on how to handle it... The relevant section is → here... Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Abusive language - inflammator strikes again
Hi, Future.
The inflammator strikes again.
I wrote you about this unregistered user once [51].
He repeated his behaviour, please see my message to admin Steel359 [52] and [53] (longer ones, with compromizing sections and diffs) and much much shorter message, [54].
In short, inflammator again directly calls other users as "mentally unstable persons" [55], "defective brain" [56], "unnatural, fake creation" [57](calling someones ethnicity like that!).
This time, he acts through sockpuppets 24.86.127.209 (talk·contribs) (a new one, the insults are mostly from this one) and 24.86.110.10 (talk·contribs). Edit pattern is identical. Kubura (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Bilingual Ancient Macedonia on livius.org (Roman history source)
Hi Future.
I found one article on the Ancient Macedonian on livius.org. To be short they have promoted an idea of bilinigual Ancient Macedonians (because XMK has both Greek and non-Greek words, so they think it is XMK=unknown old Balkan language(not Slavic)+Greek). They have put a notion that it is hard to understand a bilingual state concept from national state view today.
The Romans had a rather unbiased view toward the Ancient Macedonians because they conquered their kingdom. Maybe the Romans and livius.org are one good and objective source for Ancient Macedonia and the language.
Feel free to write me on my talk page or on my email. (Toci (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
reconcile with what what i stated 7 hours before??:
i state here that the members of any agenda driven group exposed should suffer the consequences even when other agenda driven groups escape exposure. that goes even if the pro palestinian/anti israeli group is never found. i also state that that is an existential flaw in the wiki model because the presumption of neutrality cannot be judged from within, an essential condition of wiki world. i do not believe in god thus i do not believe in perfect knowledge. Davidg (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
you were called upon to produce evidence by one Rlevse supporting your assertion of 'meatpuppetry'. will you be doing that soon or will you permit the ban to hold until for its full duration?Davidg (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've an impression, which may be false, that he tries to impose himself as a "admin" on the majority of Macedonian-related articles.
Also, when I try to communicate with him in a normal way, he often responds with a certain dose of cynicism and mild personal attacks. So I couldnt reach any concensus with him. Though I dont want to go into paranoical accusations, I must honestly admit that his unfriendly tone reminds me of one previously banned Bulgarian editor.
He also unilaterally removed some templates from many Macedonian music articles, without making proper replacements for all of them in advance, which I see as a vandalizm.
And one of the hottest issues is this already-discussed, but still unsolved problem: On Wikipedia, most of the English musicians are listed as born in England, while the UK is not mentioned at all. Examples: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, Mick Jagger, Robbie Williams etc. England is not an independent country but a sub-national entity of the UK, but nevertheless all of these artists are described on Wikipedia as English and not British. If thats so, I think that the ethnic Macedonians have every right to list their artists born during the ex-Yugoslav period as born in Socialist Republic of Macedonia, although it was a Yugoslav sub-national entity and not an independent country. When I tried to put that in Milcho Manchevski article, I was reverted by the user in question, who insists on keeping SFR Yugoslaviaonly without mentioning SR Macedonia. I assume, though I may be wrong, that there is a political motivation behind his move. Personaly, I dont have issues with Yugoslavia, oncontrary, Im sort of "specialized" in ex-YU music articles. But let me point out to: Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Lukashenko articles. Both of their infoboxes include the independent country the USSR but also the sub-national entities: the Russian SFSR and Byelorussian SSR respectively. Moreover, the Viktor Yushchenko article has only the Ukrainian SSR without the USSR. Thats why I insist that the ethnic Macedonan celebrities articles can have this too. There must be some standard for everyone, I fail to see why Macedonian celebrities should be discriminated. Thank you very much for your kind attention and intervention --Dzole (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Signed as Köbra (same user as Kobra85): Don't be so bloody ignorant, I reverted the article three times to rid it of your god-forsaken bullshit. If I had reverted it a fourth time, which I have not, then I would have broken the "three-revert rule"... Christ Almighty!(end of quote)--Dzole (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
How typical, eh Future? That editors like this guy would come to you to complain. I reckon my statement about people bitching to admins isn't a fib after all. KöbraKönverse16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Future, if you see the history, you will notice that I did not brake the 3RR. I do not have problems with anyone. I just write informative articles. If some paragraph is POV, ok we will rewrite it, no problem, but please tell Kobra not to erase 80% of the article that is backed with references and photos. You know my history, you know that I behave civilly and have normal discussions. Please. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
FP hi. I want to insert a picture in the Elgin Marbles article but I don't have the faintest idea about copyright policies and the relevant procedure. The picture comes from a paper concerning the conservation of the marbles in the British Museum. It was published in Conservation, Vol. 47, No. 3, (2002). Is there any way I can use it? Does it fall under fair use or is this completely unrelated?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Giorgos. I guess if it's something technical, like a microscopic closeup made with special instruments to make some surface degradation effects visible, or stuff like that, you could probably make a case for "fair use". I guess it's not something you could replace with an image you could make by simply walking into the museum and shooting a photograph, right? You'd need to put the {{Non-free fair use in}} template on, and add an explanation what you need it for, plus the usual info about source/copyright. Fut.Perf.☼11:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. The photo shows an array of the original iron tools scalpels and hooks along with the whetstone used for scraping and polishing the marbles's surface. Would that be OK? If yes could you direct me to any wikipedia page explaining the procedure in detail. If, on the other hand, the photo does not fall under fair use could I simply add an new neutral background to the picture or change the arrangement of the tools in the photo and then use it as a photo made by me but based on "this and this source"? I hope I don't sound silly but I really don't know the first thing about copyright--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds okay to me. Better use the original image though; modifying it would not really make it yours either and might additionally open yet other cans of worms. I guess you should also take care content-wise that it's not used for "OR" or "POV-pushing" (i.e. to insinuate something to the lay reader that the source isn't actually saying) but I trust your good judgment on that. Just go to Special/Upload, let the system guide you through the process and then put those things on the description page - template, copyright and source info, and a brief description of why you need it. I'll have a look later and make sure the technicalities are okay. Fut.Perf.☼11:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I think I never indulge in OR (at least not so far) and the image will be used the same way it appears in the journal: as an illustration of British museum conservation techniques in the thirties. The article is by Andrew Oddy a well known conservation expert and I don't plan to put any words of my own in his mouth. At any rate I will probably be asking for your advice at the end and if there are still any second thoughts I will just let it go. I simply can't stand dogfights--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've tried to uninvolve in editing Japan related articles these days (I've been busy making geographical articles of Seoul), but his personal attacks and Azukimonaka-ish behaviors makes me report this. I appreciate your effort. Many thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
splitting- Slavic dialects of Greece
Hi, would it be alright if i was to split the page Slavic dialects of Greece? or should their still be further discussion? It would make more sense if it were to be split?? Any comments? PMK1 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've already given my comments on the talk page; I'm personally not convinced a split is a good idea, and I don't see anybody else besides you advocating it. My personal impression is there's rather a consensus against the split. Fut.Perf.☼08:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well alright for now but i will bring it up again but later.But the article needs serious work. I have worked on it so far but will continue to do so. Are my contributions alrite? PMK1 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering would it be possible to post this image onto wikipedia here??? Or am i not able to. I just wanted to confirm. IF not would i be able to make a recreation to put onto this page - Geographical distribution of the Macedonian Language???
That map is copyrighted and replaceable, so no, you can't use it. A re-drawn map of your own citing that one as a source would be okay though. Fut.Perf.☼06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I created this map File:Macedonianlanguagespeakers.svg but the texts seems a bit off. Would you be able to help me? Also should i tone the colours down a bit. If you like i can send you the original uncoloured version?? Please get back to me. PMK1 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Images
What tag should I put on images with possibly false PD-self tag? User:Makedonij has uploaded 5-6 such pics like these [62], [63] and [64]. They cannot possibly be made by him (the png one might have been edited by him though). --LaveolT22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The correct procedure would probably be to list them at WP:PUI, but you could also try first talking to him and getting him to say where he got them from, then we can handle the rest the unbureaucratic way? Cheers, Fut.Perf.☼22:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, although he's not too willing to speak to me. Not in the old-fashioned civilized way, that is :) --LaveolT22:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Update, I found one [65]. Interestingly it has a comment on the bottom - please, tell me the source - I need it for Wikipedia. I wonder who might've left it. I forgot the link to the image itself - [66]--LaveolT22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hy,first of all all pictures are from my own albums,i have a lot of books,and pictures are in the book,i allso have a lot of freind who send me pictures!!!
There is a link of Macedonians of Canada and it says this:The Historical Society's Resource Centre is Fully Accessible.!!!
The other thing is how Bolgarians can judge or Greeks what is to be writeen about ethnic Macedonian!!!
I belive that Humanwach organisations are desant sorce,more then Laveol!!!!
You are administerator,you judge who is corect!!!
I dont see any sorces on yours and his pictures!
I wonder where you find them!!!
I remember last year when this Laveol and some like him deleted everything i made about numbers and sorces in Macedonian nation,bu today they are here agin and nobody can deleted them!!!
The truth will win!!
If you thik pictures are fake please remove them!!But they will be put in agin soon whit all of information!!!
And one thing,let see all the pictures in Bulgarian site,i wonder how they got thouse pictures!?
Thanks
Makedonij 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I draw it!!!!Since you don't belive me,i will contakt others administrators,and we shoud fid out about pictures on other sites!!
And if i own a book,it is mine,i allredy pay for it!The whole thing inside of book is mine!!!
Now let see other images!!!
I draw that picture!!!OK
And for all other i will get permision and they will be put back!
Makedonij11:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well now let see the Bulagrian page?
There are missing a lot of census data there,picture of St.Clemente??HM?
There is not a single church in Bulgaria whi picture of st.Clemente!!
How that he is amoung all of Bolgarian faces???
I will remove all info without census data!
And image from web showing Macedonia on Bolgarian page???
They remove picture whic shows Macedonians in Greece,so way can there be a picture of Bolgars in Macedonia??
The other one is taken whit camera on a visit of Macedonians in Usa,where my KUD(cultural asociation) Ace Mircev from Radovish was there,we had a how do you say an acting of Macedonian dances and is taken whit photocamera in 2002!
Makedonij12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sory i'm not so good in english!What exaczly means that word "canvseing",i realy dont know what that means!
Makedonij 13:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
So look by your self:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ethnic_Macedonians
On the dicussion page we have talk about simbol!There is three Macedonians votes on Vergina simbol,one Bolagrian voute for coat of arms.....I allready put two links,from Macedonian(ethnic) organisations and every were Macedonians are abord it is SUN OF KUTLESH(Verginia),which represents ethnic Macedonians!!
So if you are neutral,you kan give your own koment,but i'm saying again,the article is about ethnic Macedonians not Republic of Macedonia!!
Please help!?
Makedonij13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What answer??I give you answer!!Ask again i dont know which one?
Take a look!
It is not copyright licens on picture look the webpage!!
Makedonij14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
BANED
Are you serius??TWO MONTHS!!!
That is not fair!!!
Why,becouse i put two images from web site???
I will complain you know!!
Please unbaned me,we will work this out!!
But i realy don't understand why shoud i dont upload images from websites?
Or is it the sun which you dont like to be used by ethnic MAcedonians???
Makedonij 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Man this is unfair,i wonder who let you use coat of arms of Macedonian state,or flag of Macedonian state,or have you got license of Macedonian musem in Ohrid??
How about pictures in other pages????
You are not fair!
And go on block me!I apologise allready!!
But sun of Kutlesh will shine every were where Macedonians lives!!!
BAy
Makedonij15:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Not again!
I'll get right to the point: we've got banned User:PIO's IP trying to restart Dalmatian edit-wars in the Istrian exodus and Foibe massacres articles. I wonder if you'd consider semi-protecting them to swiftly close the matter again? --DIREKTOR(TALK)15:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
POV pushing by LAVEOL,look here,there is not any info about(census doc.)about Bulgarians in ITALY and Albania,in fact there is a little srerios census data in that page!!
Would you care to look again and stop making lame accusations already. In fact the census data was provided by User:PMK1 not by me. There was a slight mistake in the refs - instead of 10 I had typed 110, excuse me for making such a huge mistake. But what is a fact is that every time you removed the census data, you removed the ref as well (you were able to see it when you edited) but you still removed the info instead of trying to fix the situation. That is pretty close to vandalism since you either remove info before even reading it or you remove info after seeing that it is properly sourced. And I ask you kindly to stop since the current numbers are a result of consensus between me and PMK1. --LaveolT19:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Laveol is right here, as far as I can see. The figures, especially that for Italy, were correctly sourced. Makedonij, please stop edit-warring, you're being disruptive. Fut.Perf.☼19:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well he broke 3RR on Bulgarians. And I had warned him. Should I take this to the noticeboard since this is the second time he breaks 3RR for 2 days. Some record. --LaveolT20:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Brrrr. I thought for a moment whether I am "involved" again (stupid rule!), and then said, bah, I'm not. Fut.Perf.☼20:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've studied lots of math as well :). But seriously - I do take the whole Vergina sun pretty upwards. And I do take it seriously when someone goes through and reverts you with the words: oh yeah baby, yeah. Austin Powers? What the hell was that? Btw I'm still following Brest's actions closely (you remember the admin that blocked my IP for an year on mkpedia). Recently he asked RasoMK to write macedonian interwiki instead of mk interwiki when he adds interwikis from mkpedia. Raso asked him why and got the answer: To annoy the Greeks and Bulgarians since this is something they cannot erase. Wow. That's not a complaint or something else, I'm just noting it (it's because of my mood) ;)--LaveolT20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello FPS. The possible Velebit sock quoted you in the ANI discussion. Rjecina seemed to have the better case, but you probably know more about the background. You are welcome to add your views. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Elgin Marbles
Dear FP, I have been working on the Elgin Marbles article for several days but I haven't so far managed to attract any responses. I am now proposing that it be renamed. If you would be interested to comment on my proposal I would appreciate some feedback. I am planning to notify other contributors as well in the hope to start a discussion--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You're kidding, of course
This is plain crazy. First you merge Macedonians (Greek) within Macedonia (Greece), then you say that ...the rationale for the pic doesn't apply? What on earth are you talking about? The headline perfectly highlights the strong regional identity of the Greek Macedonians, which is the subject of the article you merged. So, either {{main}} it out again, or back off. NikoSilver21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Niko, I'm not kidding. Fair use needs to be minimal. That usually means not more than one usage of an image, in one article. It's used in Macedonia naming dispute (where I wouldn't dispute it), but one article is enough. By the way, one could actually make a case that it's unnecessary there too, because it could easily be replaced by a simple quote. When K. said "I'm a Macedonian", this was the headline of several newspapers the next day. Has all the info, no image needed for illustration. Fair use policies. I know, life sucks. Fut.Perf.☼21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Common fair use image debates all throughout the last year. The policy is to be as restrictive as absolutely possible. Fut.Perf.☼21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To update you on WP:NFC: The section on non-admissible uses explicitly lists "An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source." Also, WP:NFCC No. 3 specifies "minimal usage" and "minimal extent of usage", and example of inadmissible use No 5 contains a (partly) analogous situation about an image being used in two articles at once; in our case, the problem is that it's used to make the same point in both articles. Fut.Perf.☼21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Boy, your policy reading starts giving me the creeps; I had no idea. I suspect the particular image of Apogevmatini applies better to Macedonians (Greek) then (since it talks about their regional identity), and the summary can go in the Macedonia naming dispute, where we can include the 1,000,000 Greek mob of Thessaloniki (which applies better for the "dispute" rather than for their identity only). OK? (hehe, I can always upload another 10 front pages from all newspapers and put them everywhere!) NikoSilver21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if you prefer it in that article, no problem with me. About the policy, it of course all comes with the MITKYP admin training... Fut.Perf.☼21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we were only talking about the newspaper title page. The rally photo is unsalvagable, if for no other reason than its copyright isn't even known. It's most likely a professional news agency photograph, which in itself would more or less make it off limits anyway. Fut.Perf.☼15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There hasn't been any so far. Technically it's a speedy deletion issue, so no formal discussion needed. You can of course open one (on the image talk page or at WP:FUR), but I wouldn't waste my energies on this one if I were you. It doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell to survive. Fut.Perf.☼22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cuvar_hristovog_groba.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cuvari_hristovog_groba.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krajisnikbrkonja20040bv.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dialect_of_Macedonian_language.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5479/dijalektickamapath0.jpg){kind=link}
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ktr (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
to look properly, as opposed to editing it on photoshop? I would like some help with this if it is possible? thanx PMK1 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
shows a more realistic veiw of where it is situated, half in macedonia the other half in albania. other than that it is very gud. Thanx again. PMK1 (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
![[62]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Makedonci_u_amerika_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Popis_u_Bugarija.jpg){kind=link}
![[64]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Macedonians_in_USa.png){kind=link}
![[66]](http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa260/Piperkata/wlszub-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tools_used_for_the_cleaning_of_the_Elgin_Marbles.JPG){kind=link}
