User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Thank you very much...

...for your trenchant comments in Talk:Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust. I always believed that people can disagree without being disagreeable, and I am glad that you are bringing thoughtful ideas and observations to this conversation. I am enjoying your input immensely, and I wanted to express my gratitude that you are taking the time to address this issue. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A plesant interlude

Excuse me, FPaS, but noticing your knowledge of Greek, can you understand what is so funny about this[1]? Kapnisma ? 18:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Greek language question

LOL. Nice one. I had only heard of that other one "Περι εξωπετάξεως όπλου γκρά" where the culprit turns out to be a "καραπουτανάρα που δε συμμαζεύεται" (that one seems to circulate in various variations). But the "eorakamen" is better, especially because of the anakolouthon in the second sentence. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The presence of this ancient verb,εωρακαμεν, shows an effort to prettify, what really crosses the limits of drollery is this incredible σελαγιζουσης ,from the slang verb σαλαγω (=drive the sheep into the fold) transformed into archail past participle... You were a lucky nation, not having such a problem with your language. Kάπνισμα 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in like that but the verb comes actually from σελαγίζειν which means to shine like a flame, to flicker cf. σέλας. What is meant is that the the moon was shining--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You justly remarked that, but I clearly doupt that Ioannis knew that when he wrote it and I believe he ment to use σαλαγω Kάπνισμα 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you are most certainly right in thinking so... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pomaks vs Bulgarian Muslims

It is not proven that the Pomaks are Bulgarian Muslims so the article should not be neither merged with Bulgarian Muslims, nor redirected to it. Think only about the Armenian Paulicians settled in Bulgaria and converted to Islam. Are they Bulgarian too? Since when troublesome articles get deleted or redirected without consensus? If you can't help solving the problem, then do not delete! This is stupid. --Chech Explorer (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood his intentions - see the talkpage of the Pomaks article. It should be deleted cause it's a copyvio. I for one support the merged article to bear the name Pomaks.

Some off-topic - I'll leave it in the same section, though. Future, isn't User:Mactruth (former User:Maktruth on the same 1RR per 48 hours as me? Cause if I'm not mistaken, he has broken it at least once - see this. Further he broke it without logging in on 23rd Oct - see this. He claims this was not him editing the article, although yesterday he edited a talkpage from the same IP on Talk:Philip II of Macedon where he immediately changed the IP with his signature [2]. Now he claims that this is another person, but even if is isn't this a meatpuppet since it edits articles in the same region as him? And with a pretty similar pattern? --Laveol ^T 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I will never get it right...

Is this [[3]] in the public domain? It has been inserted in the Hellenization page along with text that was actually copied verbatim from the sources. I like the photo a lot, but I am a bit confused. Can it be used under the terms described? If yes can I also use pictures of original texts whose copyright (I mean the text's) has expired?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have better pictures? I'd really like to read the some of the Aromanian. Balkan Fever 12:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, scanned pages from out-of-copyright books are generally fair game. Just like the many historic maps from old books we use. In what circumstances a scanned image of a text (rather than a simple quotation) makes sense as encyclopedic information is a different issue, but legally it should be no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I 'll see then if I can find any edition of old musical scores. I plan to insert them in the motet articles!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For Dufay there probably won't be much. The oldest reliable full edition (CMM Vol. 1, by Besseler) is from the 60s, I have no idea what older ones exist and how good they are. Might be better to re-set any example excerpts we need, as I did the other day with the Josquin bits. Sorry I still didn't find time to spend an hour or two at the music library. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ι was under the impression that the first CMM edition was older and could be therefore used... I still owe you the Leontaritis samples and I am looking forward to working with you on the french-cypriot repertoire. I' ll check if Gallica has any relevant material--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Leontaritis sent. Enjoy--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice stuff! Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do athletics fall into your interests?

Otherwise can you recommend me an administrator who is familiar with sports (basketball in particular)? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not really, sports clubs are not really one of the things I deal with. You seem to have a dispute about notability of players? Better to ask for a third opinion at one of the relevant wikiprojects perhaps. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bălţi Steppe

Oh, I am really sorry! I never thought about distroying edit history. When I tried to rename it, it prompted me that the page already exists, and that care should be taken not to loose the talk page. But I did not realize about loosing edit history. That means that it was imperative to undo what I did, and I am glad you noticed it. I am sorry I wasn't very thoughtful. (It is not the first time I do simmilar mistakes. But I never do the same exact mistake twice. :))

Sure, I will start a proposal to move the article from Bălţi Steppe to Bălţi steppe. I would like to add also that I accepted some months ago that this, and not Bălţi plane is the correct name (regardless of capitalization of "s"), and I am holding to that oppinion. I will not make any attemptes to change now that, I see, Moldopodo seems to be banned. I changed my mind because I was persuaded by the arguments, and the arguments stand regardless of whether a user is present or no longer. Thank you very much for your kind intervention. Dc76\^talk 00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Check the history of this talk page to see what this "award" is about. I think it might be that nutcase. Balkan Fever 04:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you have a word with ΚΕΚΡΩΨ about his recent disruptive editing

He has been adding the Greek Language among the languages spoken in Macedonia in a total of 7 times up till now. [4] We have some pretty strong evidence that the language is not spoken in Macedonia, at least not in a significant number: European Council [5][6][7], United Nations [8], Britannica encyclopedia [9] , BBC Educational [10], Eupedia [11]. This has been backed up by many editors also. The only lame arguments this user uses to support this fantomatic language minority is this web page [12][13] and even here the Greek it is not clearly stated among the languages of Macedonia. "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9." Non of them is Greek. Can you have a word with him about his recent disruptive editing and vandalism on the Republic of Macedonia page. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

dear fellow Admin plz do something about the nationalist troll ΚΕΚΡΩΨ and his attempts to edit Republic of Macedonia page at will, instead of editing the page just as he prefers to.[14]Alex Makedon (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Fellow admin? When did that happen? So not only can you un ban yourself, but elect yourself to an adminship now too? That's hot. By the way, in case you hadn't realized, FP's edit effectively contradicted yours, so I don't know why you're bothering to try to invoke his wrath against me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting an article

Hi , I think the White Serbia article needs to be deleted. It is a stub, poor quality, and the White Serbs article more than adequately covers the issue. The article can be done without Hxseek (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about sources

Dear FP. Is there any guideline prohibiting or discouraging the use of references from internet resources when the latter require (payed) login? I have a disagreement with a fellow editor in Talk:Armenia but I can't find any specific guideline elaborating on the issue--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK

Hello, Fut.Perf. Could you take a look at a newbie Occidentalist (talk · contribs) and have a WP:DUCK test? Since Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) was blocked by you for his plagiarism and disruptive editing to Comfort women and others in July, about 4 months are past (that means RFCU report would not be effective) and the newbie inserted the same plagiarized materials to Prostitution in South Korea using same "Katherine Moon's citations". Also, Priorend (talk · contribs) and Logitech95 (talk · contribs) who took over the edit used the same source. The newbie was temperarily blocked for that after WP:AIV report, but I believe Occidentalist is either Ex-oneatf or Priorend per their same writing/method/violation/sources. I would appreciate if you spare a time for that. Regards.--Caspian blue 05:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Tanthalas39 blocked and unblocked the newbie and takes it to WP:ANI. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Hello, the RfC on you has been closed. You are invited to read the conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Conclusion. To answer your question that was on the RfC talk page, RfC/U's are left up pretty much indefinitely until someone gets around to closing them. Since I'm pretty much the only admin who touches them, they can be up for months until they're dealt with. Wizardman 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I just now saw your note. I have no outside view to give, I only closed it as a completely uninvolved user. Pretty much it's either I close it or it disappears into oblivion, your actions neither right nor wrong. I can't answer which is better. Wizardman 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fut. Perf, you have an unambiguously clear sense of involvement in this RFC - it was not appropriate for you to refactor an uninvolved editor's comments. If you were not satisfied with the outcome of your discussions with Wizardman, you should've come directly to the RFC talk page where myself or another editor would've made the necessary adjustment, depending on who noticed it first. So don't get me wrong; I can appreciate your concerns in part that may have some merit. But without further input, what you did was not appropriate. There are specific reasons why the involved subject of an RFC should not make such edits, particularly to avoid escalating disputes. Please bear this criticism in mind for the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your advice is duly noted and archived in the place reserved for opinions of comparable value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Could you please take a look at the little trollfest on Talk:Kosovo? Both sides seem to have forgotten that the article is under probation. Colchicum (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for your time, but I really, really do not understand why should this be without an image? Any real point? Vlatko (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

what happens next?

care to give me a little advice?

I am a little apprehensive to dive straight back into the article resulted in my 48 hour block - I have suspicions that it might result in another edit-war.

I have made a proposal on the talk page, which only one person has commented on and there comment were agreeing with my proposals.

I did however think it would be fair/sensible to try and get Caspian Blue involved in the process, I left him a talk page message with a link to the discussion, but he does not seem to want to get involved.

At what point do I edit the article again? I am trying to use tact/diplomacy rather than cause more problems for myself.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Zwei things

Since you guys don't rewrite articles, how about a history merge? I know it's not caturday but it r been a wyle :).
Is there anything you can do about this? Balkan Fever 06:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece and Political refugees of the Greek Civil War? I don't think that would be very useful, there's too much interlacing edit activity; a merged history would be utterly unreadable. And since my recommendation is to rewrite the merged article from scratch anyway, there isn't much of a formal problem either. If you want to be very very correct about attribution, you could say "merging material from ..." in the edit summary whenever you copy literal stuff over.

As for the monkeying, I'd simply keep it around as a document. Revealing the varying degrees of cleverness among their team – they're doin it rather well, akshully. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. By the way, why did you add an "a" here? Apparently now the book is called "marijuana" (see WP:PNT). Balkan Fever 11:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I found that version on Google, in a search entry of a page that seemed to have been one of the very rare instances where her name together with that of some other book titles of hers were mentioned on some Macedonian news site [15]. Unfortunately, the page itself was no longer accessible at the time, only its Google shadow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:VivaNorthCyprus

Can you do something about this user? He/she continues to make POV edits on Cyprus related articles like Morphou, Lefkoniko, and so on. I've taken it to WP:AVI, and they did nothing. The user has been warned. Any help would be appreciated. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we may have a new sock on our hands, but "POW removed"? Hilarious. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

An anonymous editor has begun a deletion review for one of your image deletions but cannot inform you as your talk page is semi-protected. See: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 10.

CIreland (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

IP 86.166.86.153 is calling for a deletion review on Image:Barack-obama-mother.jpg, which you closed; the IP did not inform you because your talk page is semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling my arguments preposterous: whatever you may think of them, such an appelation surely paints me in a bad light. I don't look ill on you for disagreeing, but it's only right for you likewise not to look ill on me. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Aradic

Hi Fut. can you have a look at this and tell me if having two accounts like that is allowed?--Avg (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with the accounts? As far as I see he switched cleanly from one to the other, with no attempt at deception. It all looks more like some confusion over account names that were originally meant to be specific to each language wiki. Of course, one might recommend he should link the accounts through a userpage redirect. The discussion comments are unhelpful, but don't cross the line into the overtly disruptive, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Same stuff explained here--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this allows you to repost this kind if stuff even when you've been reverted and told they are offensive [16]. Unless you compare yourself to "anonymous trolls", which speaks for itself.--Avg (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Threads with rants from both sides removed. Aradic, yes, please don't participate in these kinds of pointless shouting matches. Avg, if you are going to remove crap, remove all of it, or your actions look biased. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't participate but it would be nice that Greek users (anonymous and especially registered!!!) stop taking the rule of prosecution,jury and executors at the same time . Including Mr. "Absolute Truth" -Avg --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Balkan nationalist POV-pusher and edit-warrior (incl. move-warring)

Bože pravde (talk · contribs). Take care of him, please. Colchicum (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He's abusing Twinkle as well. I've warned him to desist or be blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are way too kind. As far as I see, he has been doing that for years and is perfectly aware of the ARBMAC: [17]. Colchicum (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please also note the POV push at Šar Mountains and Kopaonik. Aramgar (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is rather pointless. The list is almost as long as the entire list of his contributions. Take any random diffs, and you will see something like Montenegrin => Serbian, Kosovo => Kosovo, Serbia. Colchicum (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Point. One's presumptions of good faith are certainly abused. Aramgar (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mactruth

Hey Future, please send me your email address to discuss the matter. Mactruth (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can contact me through the wiki "E-mail this user" function, see link in toolbox on the left. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of the minor edit tag

Hi Future Perfect. I noticed you've made several revisions ([18], [19], [20]) using the minor edit tag, which aren't really minor revisions. Please see WP: Minor_edit:

"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit marked as minor appears on the right of a lower case, bolded "m" character (m) in the history."

Since your edits were actually substantial, it would be great if you could avoid labelling them as minor. Thanks! -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 16:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Number one was a routine rollback of an obvious ban-evading troll sock; number two was a rollback of an image that had been restituted against policy after being deleted at IfD; number three was a purely technical dummy edit after a history merge (technically a self-revert, in fact). All three were correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

They were all justified edits; no argument there. But a minor edit is only for "superficial differences". These changes were not superficial, regardless of how justified they were. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked, rollbacks were always automatically marked as minor. Banned users get rollbacked, that's policy. The history merge one was as superficial as it gets (look at it this way; if you don't understand why these kinds of edits happen, look up "history merge".) The image one is the only that's even remotely debatable. It was indisputably enforcing policy, it had been explained in the previous edit summary, and not doing it would have left the page with a redlink, so yes, I maintain it was legitimate rollback too. Now please let's all do something more useful, shall we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Fut - I'm a little shocked about what you're doing. You're the only person that holds the view that Wizardmans closures of RfC's are wrong. Everyone's trying to tell you that he's doing the right thing, yet you disregard that and start reverting him complately against the consensus on WT:RFC. I'm not going to revert you again, but I will seriously consider taking this back to RfC or ArbCom if you continue this nonsense. I haven't really looked at your RfC, but some of the concerns were edit warring over things where you clearly in the minority - please take this to heart. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you evidently haven't looked at my RfC then. And I will continue to protest against the perversion of policy that is in those "closures", with all the means I have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, you need to take a step away from this issue - you've got a seriously clouded judgement with regards to this. Why don't you just leave it for a few days and we can discuss it when everyone's calm and thinking rationally? We can even have an RfC on the matter if you want! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm and rational, thank you very much. And all I'm asking is a minor clarification of the wording in the format he uses. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can discuss that with him can't we? I don't see any other people raising these concerns, rather I see people supporting what he does. Perhaps you could ask him to change how he "concludes" user conduct RfC's in the future - using terms like recommendations (based on the consensus) rather than more formal words like conclusion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did just that, I made one such suggestion to him and carried it out for him, and he didn't object, did he? (If it's used as an argument that Elonka "didn't object", you know...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just go to his talk page, and ask him if in the future he could change things. He's quite responsisve - I personally see no reason for him to change his ways, but if such a minor thing will make you feel happier about things then I see no reason why he won't use different wording in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He didn't seem too much interested in continuing the discussion this morning, in fact he said he was "dropping" it. I'm sure he can follow up on our discussion on WT:RFC, and I'll take it up with him again should there be another occasion for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is, he's under no obligation to do as you say - it would simply be a kind gesture of him to accept that your not happy with the way he does it and change to a way you're happier about. He has consensus firmly behind him with his current way of doing things. Please - just ask him kindly on his talk page to change the words he uses and I'm sure he'll respond positively. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman doesn't own the RfC format, just because he's the one who does it most often doesn't mean it's for him to decide how to do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm off to bed in a second so please don't think I'm being ignorant if I don't reply. Enjoy the rest of you day. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No prob, I should be off to bed too, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your move of Germans

Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't it be moved to be consistent with French people, Spanish people, Japanese people, Taiwanese people, Gagauz people, Basque people, etc.? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, that's fair enough. The Transhumanist seemed to indicated that these moves are primarily uncontroversial, but I apologize for the inconvenience/hasty move. Would it be best for me to move German people back to Germans for now? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Would you like to give me your opinion for [[21]]. Thanks.Vlatko ^T 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me see - editing logging in and off is considered sockpuppeteering. + comments like this one -> I can see where this is going. Fut.Perf, I have troubles filling a case at WP:SSP - is it necessary for such a clear case? --Laveol ^T 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, whats up to me Fut.Perf, as long as the infobox stays that way. Laveol just leave it, I'm not at the point of mind condition to play with you. Stop bothering me. Vlatko ^T 22:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Danger

Penguin Eater known here as Wikinger is really dangerous to you and can make much trouble to you outside Wikipedia, as he declares here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A79.162.31.154&diff=251542399&oldid=251542262 and did here: http://pingwinojad.blog.pl/komentarze/index.php?nid=12717425 He never ever will obey any of Wikipedia rulers who is against him and he destroys you outside Wikipedia so you will be ostracized outside it. 91.94.237.7 (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aromanians

Hi fur perf. If you had any time to spare with your inkscape skills would you be able to make a linguistic/ethnic map of the Aromanians in Albania based on this [22] source with the major areas labelled, (Muzachia, Moscopole.....). If you would do this it would be greatly appreciated. I would do it myself but your skills are better. PMK1 (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to do something about this user User:John3334, inregards to his reverts on Florina prefecture. PMK1 (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My english

No offense taken, I do admit that re-writing this article was a hasty task as I did at a work break. I uploaded in order to have a point to start. If we go deeper I will be more...careful with my greek-thinking-english-writing.

I have uploaded my ideas in discussion and I haven't got any replies yet. Please check.

Dkace (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories of names

[23] [24] [25] all these exist in many languages. can there be an agreed way of adding categories? cause it's getting really stupid. really. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem too much sense in these kinds of categorisations either, but I guess that's a matter for some centralised content discussion. Is there a Wikiproject on personal names where you could bring it up perhaps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

dunno. but i'm tired of the nationalists wanting to see their nation's name where it is irrelevant. apparently from the 537 languages that the name Anna exists in, only Bulgarian, Swiss, Macedonski, Italian and Japanese are worthy of being categorized, excluding Hebrew, the language of origin... same with Latin Emil where worthy are only Macedonski, Romanian and Bulgarian lol. and the Hebrew Emil where only Macedonski category is worthy... i say let them be so i can laugh at their despair, but it's bad for wikipedia. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

First Occurrence

As per your comment and inquiry at AN/I, are you asking for the first instance of him commenting on my academic background, or when the numerous (and baseless) AN/I's started appearing? Or are you, I ask (with held breath) when the original harassment actually began in the Fitna and Scarlet Pimpernel articles?
Here is the information I provided to William M. Connolly at his request, showing the rang of IPs that have intersected with my edits. If there are other IPs (or accounts), I haven't encountered them. As you know, if the anon claims the IPS being reported at RfCU, it disconnects the check-user process before a full run can be made (to see if the anon is actually a former indef blocked or banned user). All of the IPs below have been claimed by the anon at one RfCU or another. I am unsure as to which ones (s)he is (now) claiming is not theirs. The blocks and warnings indicated below are in fact those of the anon (currently editing under the IP: 75.49.223.52) and are listed in bold. The AN/I links will indicate the opinions of other admins who consider this harassment, stalking and general trolling:

William, a lot of the issue seems to stem from arguments in Fitna, back in March of this year (though perhaps even earlier, as this dusty old AN/I would seem to indicate).

After the initial incidents, the anon started following my edits around, and pounced upon my educational background, calling it (and by association, me) false. He used it [ ([26] to post] to WikiProject Oxford and my own talk page, and anywhere else he could, using an IP SPA devoted to attacking me (he was blocked for this).

My understanding is that blocking a user is supposed to not only protect the article or the wiki from the blockable behavior, but also (at least attempt) to educate and reform the user, so as to prevent a revisiting of the behavior:

The anon has used brand new IP accounts to attack me and my edits.

75.142.63.108 (talk · contribs) - 3/15 ([27])

75.58.62.44 (talk · contribs) - 4/03 - 4/04 advised by Scarian to stop making uncivil posts in Fitna discussion

75.57.200.103 (talk · contribs) - 4/03 - 4/04 - Fitna, Scarlet Pimpernel

75.57.201.254 (talk · contribs) - 2/27 - 7/03 AN/I: "(groan) Dispute getting nasty..." contribution

75.58.36.51 (talk · contribs) - 4/05-4/06 incivility warning

75.58.39.148 (talk · contribs) - 4/05 - 4/06

75.58.57.10 (talk · contribs) - 4/06

75.58.34.144 (talk · contribs) - 4/06-4/07 - Wikiquette Alert: "User:Arcayne" contributions

75.57.165.180 (talk · contribs) - 4/7 - 4/10 Fitna

75.57.186.159 (talk · contribs) - 4/11 Fitna AN/I: User:Arcayne

75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs) - 4/16

75.57.196.81 (talk · contribs) 4/16 blocked 1 week for disruptive and disputative editing by JzG

75.57.205.163 (talk · contribs) - 7/02 - 7/03

75.57.205.135 (talk · contribs) 7/03 - 7/06 blocked 48 hours by Mastcell for PA and harassment (of me)

75.57.160.195 (talk · contribs) - 8/21 - 8/28 Fitna

75.57.178.160 (talk · contribs) - 8/14 - AN/I:Arcayne RE: Civility & Good Faith (result: anon was indeed trolling)

75.57.171.204 (talk · contribs) - 8/19

75.46.31.151 (talk · contribs) - 9/30

75.57.181.83 (talk · contribs) - 7/2 Dr. Who

75.57.198.129 (talk · contribs) - 8/17-8/18 Urolagnia, Jail

75.57.201.254 (talk · contribs) - 2/27 - 7/03 AN/I: "(groan) Dispute getting nasty..." contribution

75.58.49.50 (talk · contribs) - 8/19

75.104.172.179 (talk · contribs) - 9/30 - 10/7

75.82.12.177 (talk · contribs) - 10/01 Sylar

76.202.249.62 (talk · contribs) - 10/10 - 10/12 I'm a PC

76.217.93.176 (talk · contribs) - 10/10 - 10/08 I'm a PC

76.224.68.237 (talk · contribs) - 10/07 - 10/06 I'm a PC (blocked by Bjelleklang for 3RR and edit-warring in the article)

75.3.133.232 (talk · contribs) - 10/23 - 10/24 (31-hour block by Seresin for "vandalism and incivility")

75.49.223.52 (talk · contribs) - 11/7 - Current (1, fraudulent 3RR report; advised by Wiliam M. Connelly to "get an account") Fitna

The user has been advised (or outright ordered) on at least five different occasions to start an account; the user still prefers not to, and that begs the suspicious question of 'why' the anon doesn't.

The anon has been told in no uncertain terms to stop posting incivility.

He has wasted space AN/I noticeboard's time in having filed or contributed substantially to no less than nine frivolous AN/I complaints ( there are more, but here is the rogues' gallery of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - the last three of which were specifically pointed out as evidence of a vendetta by the anon) since April, and all of them are attacks towards me (maybe origination in this dusty old AN/I). Of course, the anon has pointedly avoided notifying me of any AN/I posting, presumably in the hopes that a lack of response on my part would imply guilt amd I would be blocked before even knowing of the posting.

Luvasfbr also noted that a wikiquette alert was also filed by the anon a few months ago, though I was never notified of its existence (again) and cannot find it in the archives.

He has disrupted Wikipedia with his multiple attack accounts, including going to wikiprojects where I have never made a single contribution ([28]) (he was correctly named as a troll there) and then further disrupting wikipedia by point-style adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox.

He appears to be seeking personal information about my educational background by questioning it (ie, calling my earned degrees "advanced" degrees knowing that the correction of noting they are undergraduate degrees). Because of this, I am very concerned that the attacking of my educational credentials is a subtle attempt to gain personal information about me.

These attempts are additional nuking expeditions by the anonymous user to poison the well of wiki opinion by calling me a liar, an "aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander, etc. For the most part, the users here have suggested the venue of DR or simply walking away. To date, the anon has never pursued any avenue of DR, instead following me to articles and discussions where they have never contributed before, and then only to contribute stale arguments.

It was previously suggested I simply ignore the anon's effort, which, until recently, I have. However, I should not have to overlook the continuous, bad-faith efforts by an anon who pointedly refuses to set up a public face to his edits. He has argued in the past that as a public editor, he is doing this for ideological reasons (a reasoning strongly criticized by both Ed Fitzgerald and Bzuk in the previous AN/I's) or is encountering ISP problems. However, a careful look at his contributions notes that he only switches IP addresses to avoid restrictions placed upon his editing behavior. Despite the "ISP problem", he has managed to contribute with the same ISP here for the past few days - following exactly the same pattern his previous times at AN/I. The user can maintain a single IP address - he simply chooses not to. It is in this way that he is able to escape admin scrutiny and oversight and continue his attacks largely unabated.

I feel that even though range blocks are a fairly blunt instrument, it is required here. The user has used their post-block period to do little but attack another user. As the focus of that user, I find myself a little concerned for my personal safety, as the user appears to be seeking personal info about me. I am also concerned that the user has tried five different times to have the noticeboard, never once having notified me; a clear indication that the user is attempted to have me back-door blocked. It cannot be confirmed, but is reasonable to suspect, that this renewed attempt by the anon was inspired by Edokter's retracted block of a few days ago.

In conclusion, the anon user is not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia; they are interested in attacking me and having me removed from Wikipedia. Almost all of the anon's contributions have been personal attacks. This doesn't represent the goals that we set for our editors. The anon should not be allowed to continue harassing me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

William's recent block was in response to the anon bringing up my educational background again, and calling it all some "utter lie". If you wish, I can explain it via email. I don't usually give the specifics of my background, as it can be used to track down and harass me in real life. However, I have not overstated my educational background, and though I once or twice did use it as a component in a discussion, I was properly chastised for it, and have not done so since, and certainly not in the last four months or so.
Let me know what else you might need. My presence in the wiki-en will be spotty this weekend, but I will follow up when I can. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the detailed explanation, and sorry if you felt I put you to all this trouble (actually, I had struck out my request for links at ANI, seeing as you had already provided a couple.) I now remember some episodes of this clearly enough, I think. Still not sure if I ever got myself involved or not, but I was following it on one or two occasions. As I said, we should treat him as banned for good. Count me among the admins you can notify if you need any new incarnation blocked unbureaucratically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, FutPerf. As the anon was claiming that some of the IPs aren't his/hers, I decided to file a RfCU for all the IPs listed in the WMC post and elsewhere. There were actually a few more to add that the anon has claimed as theirs. I've bolded the ones he's claimed (with citation as to the admittance), so as to make connection a lot easier for the checkuser. I am also concerned that the anon will step in and suddenly admit that they are all his/hers, again preventing a full checkuser that would reveal if the user is a formerly indef-blocked or banned user. It isn't so much a fishing expedition as it is a confirmation. If some of them aren't connected, then I want to make sure that the anon doesn't get painted with their contributions, nor they his/hers. The anon is bad, but its like accusing Hitler of urolagnia - bad can still be bad without piling on unprovable claims. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

IP requesting unblock, need additional information

See: [29]. You mention that the IP is being used by a banned editor, but you do not indicate which editor. Of course, I trust that you know who this is, but by not naming who the ban has been applied to, it is impossible for me to respond to his latest unblock request intelligently. Yes, I am sure you are right, but if you could indicate which account's sockdrawer this particular IP belongs in, it would go a long way to helping others respond intelligently to his request. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It never was an account, sorry if my block message wasn't quite clear. It's a person who has used a long series of IPs for harassment/trolling against User:Arcayne, see documentation by Arcayne two sections above here, and my recent post at WP:ANI [30]. I'm not aware there ever was a formal ban decision by the community, though it is quite obvious (to me, at least) that this is a thoroughly disruptive, malicious user; what I meant by my block summary was more that I, at this moment, would have handed out an indef block on my own responsibility, if only I had an account to stick it to. So I verbally declared him indef, while technically just handing out the usual IP block. I would certainly maintain this intention and strongly advise against unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. After spending time working though this case, I fully concur with your assessment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have to say that your solution to the problem is certainly an innovative one, FutPerf; it works a lot better and is less intrusive than a range block/ban. It also has the virtue of forcing the anon to get an account and edit elsewhere for a while. I wish I had thought of it. Again, nice solution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy is back

Sorry to bother you again, but it's something only you can deal with it. As you remember User:MacedonianBoy was banned for 4 months from all Balkan-related articles strating from July 14th. His ban-time is hardly passed and he's on it again. Moving-pages with no proper discussion or anything prior to that. He's on a killing-spree on Vlado Chernozemski (mind you the guy is a terrorist and is not even born in Macedonia (region)). I've asked MacBoy to stop, but I've got the feeling this won't be the case. --Laveol ^T 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you seem to have created a cut-and-paste move when trying to deal with him there. And it's not even Caturday. But I'll see what I can do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, that's what I was writing in the first place (or what I was gonna write anyway). I misspelled the name the first time I moved it and then had to do it again, but I wasn't allowed to. I suppose it might've worked if I just had erased the redirect at the original article and then tried to move it there. Is this the case (so I know for next time) - it would have allowed me to move the page back to Vlado Chernozemski if I had just blanked the page? Or not? --Laveol ^T 17:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that he didn't really serve his ban at all...--Avg (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Hi, a discussion is going on regarding a German to English translation in Talk:Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany#Consensus_for_translation_of_the_word_.22Genussgifte.22. Since you are involved in the article, I am notifying you. Please join the discussion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Page Macedonia recent edit wars

Even if generally you are somewhat of an unexpressed Greek supporter, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter: since the last consensus from 12:10, 12 November 2008 was interrupted with the POV edit "term mainly used by Republic of Macedonia"[31], with no evidence/sources submitted, this page has been a target of several disruptive editors and revert wars [32]; Despite the fact that we have submitted evidence that this is not a "term mainly used by Republic of Macedonia": Britannica [33], And many other international sources from Google Scholar "Aegean+Macedonia"&btnG=Search and there is not a single source or evidence that conferms this "mainly used by Republic of Macedonia" this disruptive revert editors have continued to push this POV. What is your opinion on the matter? Alex Makedon (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha you old dog, I see you have confirmed my suspects, [34], do you get money for this kind of support or you do it for nationalistic reasons? (btw your nationality is not revealed anywhere, not even by accident, thats smart) Alex Makedon (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, all my confusingly objective surprise maneuvres (such as, first reporting you for 3RR [35], and then agreeing with you on the content [36]) are only done to prevent you from finding out my true identity. What if you all knew that in reality I'm a telerobotic mutant teddybear from Neptune? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Smart moves indeed, 1) you reported me for 3RR, 2) did nothing for the main disruptive editors, 3) you agreed with me on the talk page for an off topic discussion, 4) expressed an ambigous generally pro-pov on the main issue"Aegean Macedonia" pretty much all is used over the place (ndr Republic of Macedonia)", 5) casually forgot to delete the Greek POV from the page. [37] Something tells me that you are not exactly from Neptune and not as impartial as a teddybear.Alex Makedon (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure your Greek is not, lets say native? Alex Makedon (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

el	Αυτός ο χρήστης μιλά ως μητρική γλώσσα την ελληνική.

Unfortunately not. In some of the fluffier moments of my teddy bear brain I get all the past imperfectives wrong. Not to mention the mediopassive future perfects, especially early in the morning. But I'll let you know if I should ever manage to fool one of our Greek friends into taking me for native. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Evidently they all feel they can take liberties when they think I'm not watching. Well, they're all blocked now, and I don't suppose I can blame them for trying :) Moreschi (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

^ (I'm very partial to halva, for one thing, and partially stitched together too.)

User:Alex contributing from L.A.

Winona Gone Shopping (talk · contribs) was blocked last year following death threats and unconstructive behavior. He's apparently returned as Alex contributing from L.A. (talk · contribs). A user filed a complaint about his incivility and I remembered the previous accounts. After researching it and seeing that one of his accounts had been blocked, I blocked the new account due to evasion. He says he had asked you about starting a new account and you have given him permission. Can you shed any light on this matter? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I'm familiar with this user, although I haven't followed him lately and haven't checked the recent charges of incivility yet. This was an excellent editor back in 2005 (as "Decius" and during the earlier days of the account subsequently renamed to "Winona"). As "Winona", (s)he went through a phase of trolling. The trolling was mostly harmless in my view, "unconstructive" yes, but the "death threats" were never anything serious. Anyway, for a while they evidently had no interest in contributing seriously any longer. Then I noticed him/her returning at some point as "Lisa", again making constructive contributions, so I welcomed them back. (I don't clearly remember if I ever spelled out any rules or conditions of a comeback arrangement explicitly to them, but it was understood I knew who they were.) My impression is that even though this user may still occasionally show a slightly trollish sense of humour, whatever it was that got them banned in 2006 is safely a thing of the past and no longer relevant to their present editing, and as far as I am aware they have constructively edited for the past year. So, I would recommend at this point to just treat them as a user in good standing and deal with the civility complaints on their own merit, whatever those are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I never would have even noticed this user if there weren't a fresh complaint. OTOH, that complaint alone isn't sufficient for a block. However I'm concerned that this user seems to resort to what you call "trollish" behavior in conflicts. I'm also worried at the number of accounts he's had and the implication of sharing accounts. All things considered I'm inclined to unblock, but I'd feel more comfortable if there was a mentor watching out to minimize the trolling. I'll post a notice on ANI and see if anyone has a different perspective. Hopefully we can resolve this quickly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, mentoring might work. I guess I'd be available for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From reading his various comments, it appears that some of his problems are related to "editing under the influence". Anyway, I've posted it at WP:ANI#User:Alex contributing from L.A. If there's no objection I'll unblock the account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the matter in your hands from here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

. Palatschinken‎

Yes, that is a much better formulated sentence, the way you wrote it. Much less confusing and easy to follow. Great! Thank you.

Warrington (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. So let's all go and have apple pancakes now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Enjoy your meal!

Warrington (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Conquests of the Balkans

Is there anyway you can send/give me a copy of this article? I'd like to do a major re-write. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it's still in the Google cache: [38]. But you can just as well just get Hupchick from your library, it's literally his text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

lol!

As if these were original [39]! He knows how to type, though. One has to give him that at least!--77.49.70.246 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)...Oh, forgot "his" masterpiece [40]--77.49.70.246 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please log in when you want to address user issues, or you'll be counted as an harassment troll. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Hi, a user that you recently blocked, VivaNorthCyprus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be evading his block under a new account (VivaNorthCypruss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). At least I'm pretty sure it's the same person, he's editing the same pages with the same strange edit summaries. However, I'm not sure where to report this (does it belong at WP:SSP)? Thanks for your assistance. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 13:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not reacting sooner, seems this has been dealt with now, right? I think WP:AIV or WP:ANI are both okay for reporting, in obvious cases like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess whose back? LogicalSolution (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Future. I reported LogicalSolution to WP:SSP several hours ago, but it looks like things move pretty slowly over there. I'll go with AIV or ANI in the future. Thanks for responding. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 01:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And he's back again! Laxia2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cukiger again

As I've already mentioned it the user in question is on the same 1r/48 hours as me. He has broken it once again at Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia as obvious by the diffs [[41]] and [[42]]. Two reverts for half an hour. I'd bother Moreschi with if he wasn't on a wikibrake or something at the moment. --Laveol ^T 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrrmphf. Now, does this discussion make me "involved"? Perhaps you could make a quick report at WP:AE?

Watching the Balkans isn't fun when Moreschi isn't around. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I go to checkuser to deal with this or wait till something happens? You know, I get the distinct impression that this guy is someone's reincarnation - I'm sure I've seen the same comments and the same patterns. --Laveol ^T 10:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed this and two other socks - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cukiger. --Laveol ^T 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hola Future, I've got a question for you. I've puted this map [43] on the net a long time ago. Some inaccuracies were reported (and I puted that info onto it's main page). 2 years after another user (Laz17) says he's got a correct map and that existent one was changed. Ok, I instruct him how to put new map onto the net, but now he has begun accusing me for nationalistic POV and fraud with maps. I gave him some links to NPOV and assumsion of good faith, but to no avail. Can you advise me onto some of my future actions ?
--Čeha (razgovor) 16:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Tenks for intervention, we needed someone to give a little bit of order there...
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope you did not forget about the page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Bih_1991.jpg . We need to delete two more maps, that are directly based off of Ceha's fraud 1991 map. In fact they are worse than the ones that you deleted already. (LAz17 (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).

Hope you have not forgetten about deleting those bad maps. By the way, there is a correct map for 1991, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BH1991.jpg. (LAz17 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).

That map is now sourced to deletion on commons, due to the lack of source...
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Her Ladyship

I was reading your comments about Her ladyship and The Troubles at ANI. What is probably not clear, is that much of the biography on her userpage at that time was a not-so-subtle jibe at a number of editors involved in the Troubles (for reasons that was never clear to me, Giano has a grudge against a few of them). I'm not going to identify specific examples, because a number of them slyly reveal personal information only obvious to those that are already familiar with the people in question. If you would like to know more, you can email me.

Moreover, while it seemed obvious to me that Giano was behind this account, CdB did deny being a sockpuppet of Giano numerous times. While that was all part of the joke, of course, there is WP:AGF to consider. An account denies being a joke sock-puppet, then gets involved in an ongoing feud that has many banned users, its hardly surprising that a CU may be enacted. Especially as the joke is not so funny when you are the one being mocked from the safety of a sockpuppet account.

To be clear, I was not involved in any requests for checkuser personally, but I don't think there was anything suspect in that a request was made at that time. I think, if you want to play that game in that environment, you don't have much to complain about when you get CU'd. Its particularly rich to be bleating about the privacy of your personal information when you used a sockpuppet to reveal someone else's. Rockpocket 18:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ford Probe copyright violation ?

Why did you remove and delete the image I created and uploaded to WP under GFDL from the above article? --Gene_poole (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because, as I clearly stated in the deletion log, it is an obvious copyright violation from [44]. It's clearly a photoshopped version of the same photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a substantially modified version of an existing work - close to 50% of the image is original; I have long been under the impression that the act of substantially modifying a graphic image in this manner results in the creation of a new and distinct work, for which separate copyright exists and may be assigned. Is this not, in fact, the case?

If so, presumably there would be no issue with upoading it again, providing appropriate fair use tagging was applied. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are mistaken, it's a derived work and as such still under the original copyright. Especially since the part of the photograph that is actually significant, the car, is 100% taken over - the only thing you did was to retouche away the backgrounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarifying that. Can the derived image be tagged for fair use on WP in your opinion? ...and just for the record substantial parts of the vehicle were modified as well - specifically the RH side of bonnet, much of the windscreen, the entire rear window and the upper half of the rear panel - not merely the background. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, because (a) we are not using the photograph in order to support critical commentary on the creative work of its photographer, and (b) it's replaceable, since such cars still exist and can be photographed (in fact, there are already several free photographs on the same article, at least one of them of the same generation/model, Image:Ford.probe.thornbury.arp.750pix.jpg). Why don't you just move that one into the infobox? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I've only worked with fair use in relation to stamps, coins, banknotes, flags and logos previously, so this is new territory. The existing images are of very poor quality. I was trying to avoid the bother of having to photograph my own car - but it seems I'm just going to have to do that. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comfort women

I noticed you reverted edits made by a banned user - fair enough. I think your revert changes lots of things, some good, some bad and some debatable.

I think your revert goes back to a version for example that has spelling errors - that is simple and will not cause any controversy if I change them but there are some issues that might cause problems, I think I will outline them in the talk page but if I get the usual response from users who seem to have biased anti-Japanese opinions, then I will be changing the article.

Discussion is good, however it also wastes a lot of time when dealing with stubborn editors. I don't really want a long drawn out pain in the ass, over things that could take about 30 seconds and a little common sense.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

bosnia1991map

We need your help here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Bih_1991.jpg The problem has not finished, as we see a few more maps. (LAz17 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).

Okay, as far as I can see, from the copyright perspective all that had to be done here has been done. One more scanned map is at commons and will have to be deleted there, I suppose; all the others are a matter not of copyright but of factual correctness, and issue that I can't easily judge. Sorry I didn't find time to read through the whole talk page discussion – is there a specific dispute going on at this point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue on that two maps. However there are on [45] and [46] which are on the commons and now listed for deletion. As for [47] I'm still trying to find all the errors on it. User Laz has given me some possible sorces, as reason to delete it, however I found it difficult to trust him. I would like to change that map, which means to fix errors and not to delete it. Copywrith status of that map is clear. I would be gratefull if you could give some advice (anyways sorry for bothering you about it).
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ceha claims that there are copywrite problems for [48] and [49] but I believe that the author released them. At any rate, I will see to it that these images get fixed up with better status. Anyways, I think that it is best to discuss this in the topic and not on here. Ceha feels threatened by these maps as they do not portray his propaganda maps. Lets continue this discussion at the 1991 map talk page where the discussion began. (LAz17 (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).

Yes, there is a major dispute going on over there. We need your help to delete what should not be there. Apparently more maps were created based off of the ones that you deleted, so we need to have those removed. (LAz17 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).

Problem with those two maps is that it's 'author' (which was banned from wikipedia) did not list a credible source on his 'maps'.

--Čeha (razgovor) 08:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys, if you see problems with factual accuracy of maps, this is not an issue I can handle through simple deletion as a single administrator. You will first need to develop a consensus about using or not using the map at the article talk pages, and then take it to WP:IFD. If the issue is about lack of explicitly declared sources, in the case of those by PaxEquilibrium, it ought to be possible to compare them with the published sources you know, because those must be ultimately the source, and see if there are significant divergences. And please, can you all avoid throwing accusations of "propaganda" around? As far as I'm concerned, this is still a common effort by all of us as responsible good-faith wikipedians to get together the best factually correct maps of this confusing topic area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my primary itention. [50], [51], [52] and [53] are probably going to be deleted anyways due to copywrith issues. As for changes on [54] I hope to fix errors as soon I find time and valid sources for it.

All in all, Future sorry to bother you with it, but due to language spoken by Laz I found it difficult to cooperate with him. Anyways, thanks for advices and help in solving this situation.

--Čeha (razgovor) 14:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, the problem is that we have already determined and agreed that Ceha's maps are bad maps that portray wrong things. Could you give me the permission to reupload that 1991 belgrade map and have it up for a few days so that his severely inaccurate maps could be deleted? He is defending his maps very much, yet we have already seen that they are very wrong. We have the correct one up and he wants to delete them. Please help out. We do not need 6 versions of maps up for 1991. We need to delete his several maps which portray wrong information. His maps are based off of the ones that you already deleted, so they must go. This is of most importance for the community here. (LAz17 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).

You have deleted the map from 1991 which was from an agreed upon good source. Why did you do that? You could have waited until we used that good source to delete further inaccurate maps that ceha has uploaded. THe maps that were deleted which were proven to be wrong maps have other maps that were based off of it. My goal is to delete those maps because they are outright lies on this site. We have correct maps and Ceha does not want to accept them. (LAz17 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).

It has gotten worse... please help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Bih_1991.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

On ANI I am asking short block of both users [55]. User LAz17 is guilty of incivility (word fuck and others), but in trying to calm situation maybe it is best that both are blocked for short time period.--Rjecina (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

email

Hey Future, I sent you an email, check it out. Adios and havva good weekend

Mactruth (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: what ever happened with this?

User:Alex Makedon, again

Do we really need any more of this, straight off a decidedly calm 48 hours? Haven't we seen enough already?[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mactruth again

This time you're not involved ;) - see Makedonsko Devojče. Two reverts, no talkpage activity, no nothing. That's the "n"-th time he has done this and I think Moreschi is not active again - I tried to explain to Mactruth that he has to participate on the talkpage, but I don't think it's working. --Laveol ^T 12:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's see. I'm not entirely sure in what sense his first set of edits is a revert, and it was indeed the first attempt to source anything at all in that article [65]. On the other hand, the reverting was started by you, you too violated the terms of the revert parole, by not waiting to leave time for discussion before your revert (remember?); also, your actual talk page contribution doesn't strike me as particularly constructive, if you wanted to reject his sources it would have been your task to explain why, and not just generally tell him to go and read WP:RS [66]. So much for revert paroles.

As for the content issue, would you agree with the following:

If it can be reliably sourced that the song was composed by a Macedonian guy in 1964, it will be legitimate for us to treat it as a Macedonian song only, so for instance the Bulgarian translation will be superfluous?
At the same time, if it was composed, the Macedonian text itself may be copyrighted, so that text might have to go out too?
If, on the other hand, this piece of information can not be sourced, that means we have absolutely no encyclopedic information about the song whatsoever, apart from the fact that it exists, after more than a year of editing?
In that case, wouldn't it be better to just delete the article?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree; all it does is fuel what is arguably one of the project's lamest edit wars. Get rid of it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The same revert (or the same version) existed some time ago so in this sense it is also a revert. As per all the talkpage activity, it can't be sourced (according to numerous editors) who was the composer of the song. Someone had heard that some guy was the composer, but I've heard the song was sung by people in the Balkans prior to 1964 when it was allegedly composed. On the other hand if there is a composer all the other people that have put this in their albums should be sewed. Since there's not a single lawsuit on the issue, then this must be a folk song. As for the sources I was waiting for Mactruth to actually comment (I can't possibly know what kind of e-mail he sent you) and then start giving my thorough opinion on the issue. Cause one of the sources was a paper from RoM and the other was an interesting website, which if taken as a RS would provide tons of materials for other articles as well (it has been commented previously as welll and found not a RS by at least one neutral editor - User:AWN2 who's not that active now) As for encyclopaedic information, I do not believe most songs have any. The song was already up for deletion, but the result was no consensus - the simple fact was this and a couple of other song articles were created to promote a certain notion, agenda or whatever. It only attracts one edit-warrior after the other. Oh, and one more thing - the previous version of the article was actually a result of a consensus between me, BalkanFever and AWN2, which was time and time attacked by different warriors (I emphasise on different). So in that sense the very first edit of Mactruth was a revert. --Laveol ^T 13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, having just listened to a recording online [67], I find it immediately compelling that this must be a 1960s composed song. Never in a million years could this be traditional folk music. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It could just be that particular instrumental arrangement, or the song itself could be based on an older folk tune, but whatever. What's so good about it, anyway? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The melody is 100% Western European major-minor harmonic tonality. Nothing Balkanian about it. Just like Greek laika of the 60s, which are a world apart from the authentic folk demotika. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably because the laika are based on the folk traditions of Asia Minor rather than continental Greece. Unless you mean the ελαφρολαϊκά, which are definitely more Western-inspired. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You simply have to watch Whose is this song?. It will tell you a lot on the issue. --Laveol ^T 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you've already seen it ;) But you know what's gonna happen don't you? Just wait till MacedonianBoy and Raso sniff what's going on - I can see 7-8 keep votes (including some from editors that haven't been around since the last vote of that kind. --Laveol ^T 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because Sandstein will probably close it and discount such votes. Balkan Fever 09:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem Future, for some reason Bulgarians and Greeks (why Kekrops is here I have no idea, I guess he teamworks) flock to any Macedonia related issue and use biased sources to "convert" to their liking, and if they cannot do that they try to have it deleted. This has happened with "ethnic Macedonian refugees of Greece", "Aegean Macedonians", "Jovanko Jovance" and now this, to name a few. I'm sorry that the sources may not suit Laveols taste, but he has not even showed ANY sources, yet keeps reverting to include the Bulgarian translation of the song, among other things. So its quite ironic that while he does not need any sources to put something up, I need "top of the line" sources to prove my case. I hope these double standards and strategies are noted. Mactruth (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your presence is required...

...at User talk:G2bambino, as you were the blocking Administrator. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (dis page)

Hello Future, I have tried to revert the Macedonia page several times to its original version before the edit wars. I have tried to make it as neutral as possible, but again and again it is reverted by Greek users, even though I posted why I changed it in the discussion, and if anyone wants to change it to state their case. What now? Mactruth (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are talking to the wrong person here. This wasn't an edit war until you came in and messed things up. And the version you reverted away from was my version. I had worked hard to get things in what I thought was a usable, intuitive shape, and I'm rather pissed you messed it up again. The version we now have is much worse than even before I started editing it.

Obviously, I won't be acting in an administrative capacity in trying to get this back on track. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And since I'm pissed, I've reported you for breach of your revert parole. Expect another block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From what you said above, doesn't Laveol warrant a report too? Balkan Fever 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, trying to kill the opposition, eh? What for? Btw I already reported Cukiger when he allegedly broke his and nothing happened. Am I missing something on what's a revert and what is not part? --Laveol ^T 10:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Deca Begalci

Fut Perfect, would you be able to have a look a the Political refugees of the Greek Civil War article. User Kekrops, is insistent on his reverts to a stub article, with very little information which is badly written. He is completely against any incorporation of any of the sourced text from the former article: Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians. Some intervention would be appreciated to help resolve the unecessary reverting. PMK1 (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not against the incorporation of sourced text, I am against the wholesale pasting of the obsolete article almost in its entirety, resulting in an article that is overwhelmingly skewed towards a single minority POV. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently admins don't help out with that kind of thing. Balkan Fever 10:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can't you just rewrite the thing from scratch? I don't know anything about the contents and have no access to most of the literature, so I really can't judge anything, but PMK's text just looks poorly written. I wrote you the stub/lead, I'm afraid that's where it ends for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I've tried cleaning up the stub so we can start afresh, but PMK1 seems determined to salvage his old ethnic exodus article almost intact. Is that permissible? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Permissible? I'd say it's a normal content issue like all others. In theory, his text is as legitimate as yours (but as I said, I personally agree it's poor quality.) By the way, you are at 4rv/28hrs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems to contradict what you wrote on the relevant talk page, but then again that was a whole two weeks ago. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Was schert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern? – but really, what did I write on the relevant talk page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, luv. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BCB5/UN111

Hello. You have recently blocked User:BBC5 and User:UN111. It is true they are the same user, self-admitted, see User talk:Avraham#Request. However, I do not think that they are troll socks of any other user; rather a relatively new user who is unwise as to the ways of wikipedia. The user had been in contact with me more than once prior to your blocking, and subsequent to your block asked me for an unblock. I did not, as I do not want to undo your admin action without talking with you, but I can say I do not think that both ID's should be blocked, and per checkuser, those two ID's shared the same IP and no other, and no trolls shared the IP with them, which supports the claim. Please reconsider unblocking one of the two identities. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I just re-checked his contributions and I still find this is clearly a troll. His only contributions are stirring the pot in discussions of other banned trolls. No sign of any constructive editing anywhere. Obviously knows Wikipedia from earlier and can precisely target the right trolling-prone areas. By the way, "relatively new user"? In his "retirement" posting as UN111 he seemed to be admitting he had edited earlier. I just can't bring myself to assuming good faith here, sorry. Unblock if you strongly feel it's right, but I don't think I can change my opinion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Фала

Дали виде ги предупреди и другите што ревертираа и дали виде дека бришат референци? -- MacedonianBoy ^Oui? 15:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you say something to the user Bozhinov? He was deleting the flags although they were supported with references. I reverted it because of that. There were references but he did it anyway (he is happy because of that reward as Hero that's why he is so rude these days). I expect you to do the same thing as you did with me. Put him on that list of ARBMAC.Thanks.-- MacedonianBoy ^Oui? 16:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to pop an orange bar on Future's page, but I only made one edit and then one revert back to it, and I posted on talk before I made the edit. Also, the references have nothing to do with supporting the claim those flags are "flags of the Republic of Macedonia"—in fact, they're disclaimers that those flags are actually Bulgarian flags. You said "Please do not remove flags that have references", but those references actually prove why those flags should be out.

Don't try to bring me to your level, MacedonianBoy, I don't think I'll ever be stupid enough to violate 3RR. And I salute Future's decision to put you back on parole, your reversion sprees have had a negative impact on Macedonia-related articles. I'll gladly monitor your activity and report any reverts so you can get what you deserve.

Oh, and happiness doesn't make a person rude, on the contrary. But awards don't affect my behaviour anyway: I have principles to stand on. Todor →Bozhinov 16:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alex again

I've just noticed that Alex is posting inappropriate comments on another user's talk page.[68][69][70] I will reblock the account if I see any more negative personal comments from this user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi Fut., can you please edit the Template:Lang-sq. It is the only such template which provides the names in italic. Can you edit: from Albanian: [{{{1}}}] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) to:Albanian: {{{1}}}Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No way. No, it is not the only one, though, probably, the only one in the narrow region. The convention is that foreign words written in Roman letters should be italicized, while the others, including Cyrillic and Greek, shouldn't, because visually they are already sufficiently different from the rest of the English text. Colchicum (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

See Turkish: {{{1}}}, Italian: {{{1}}}, Finnish: {{{1}}}, French: {{{1}}}. Colchicum (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Book Cover

Can I get a bit of advice, are book covers OK under fair use? This one (Image:UNEF TFW comic.jpg) is also used on a user page. The article was nominated for deletion yesterday. Cheers. Justin talk 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A book cover thumbnail is generally accepted in the infobox of an article about the book itself. In the case you link to, I don't see that: it's not really a book cover, it's not used to identify the book, but instead claims to "[h]elp the reader identify an element of the United Nations Exploratory Force", according to the FUR, but then, I don't see much value in that claim either, because nothing in the understanding of the article depends on knowing the exact shape of the spacecraft used by that fictional military force, and the article mostly seems to be talking about quite different things.

Of course, if the article is deleted, the image will have to go too anyway, and in any case it must be removed from the user space page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for that, do you think its best to wait and see how the nom turns out? Justin talk 22:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, that makes sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Unsurprisingly the article was deleted and I've nominated that image for deletion as a speedy candidate. Justin talk 15:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quickie, looking at other image uploads from that user, what is the FUR policy on images in computer games? Justin talk 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Messy. I don't think there's special policy for those cases. It's just our old favourite game of Interpret-The-NFCC-And-Be-Happy. I guess that overall consensus would be that one image, typically a cover or title screent but perhaps also a screenshot, would be okay for the infobox, to illustrate the overall "look and feel" of the game. Over and above that, my take would be that one should show that the image is fulfilling a crucial purpose in illustrating a substantial, non-trivial point of analysis that is actually discussed in the text and would be difficult to fully understand without visual support. And the FUR ought to explain this, individual and in concrete terms, about the specific image and the specific topic it illustrates. Once you go beyond the routine cases of cover art and the like, FURs really only make sense if they are individual and concrete, a fact that is sadly all too often ignored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Thanks for that, I wasn't convinced the FUR held water but wanted to check with someone more experienced. I've nominated the image in question for speedy deletion. Image:Halo3ODST.jpg. Justin talk 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

One more point of wiew

I am sorry to bother you but I saw what Alex was stating on his talk page about me. He obviously doesn't like me, and I sort of understand his reactions (blaming me about his own reactions, it is a rather common thing in conflicts). He wrote to you:

Alright, yet look [6], I saw him asking an admin about why some editors are "impolite", and I wanted to remind him that he should check his own editing as well.

But that was not a recent message, that happened on 5 november, way back, before the trouble with Alex, I just keept it on my talk page.

He is currently in more disputes than I am. His m.o. is already becoming clear, perhaps a psychological problem. A from L.A. (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2008

And I do not agree with this either. Some of my images and some of my contributions I added has been deleted, but that happens all the time to everybody, no big deal.

And Alex was not showing you the whole discussion he had iniciated with me either, [71] here is a copy on that:

[edit] Alex

Also be mindful of how you edit. Aggresive, obstinate and/or sloppy editing can aggravate other editors. In many cases, there would have been no incivility had the other editor been more mindful and polite. A from L.A. (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?

Warrington (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. I was talking about your editing at Palatschinken and the phrases you used when you reported my incivility. There is a section on this talk page right above my post that is titled Re:Polite (see above). What did you think I was talking about? A from L.A. (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That re polite in not about me, being unpolite, but others, User:Wikid77, Mountolive and JBsupreme. I was NOT unpolite. I simply added again what an other editor, Bogdangiusca [1] added before and which happened to be left out from the new (quite well formutated) version. And I added "sprinkled with sugar". I do not think any of these things were sloppy or unpolite.

And there was nobody complaining about my words on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, which probably woulh happened right there. Warrington (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Warrington (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit history of Palatschinken will show why I refer to your edits there as aggresive, obstinate, and sloppy, not very polite. I don't know why you linked that diff, when there are many more: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Your phrasing at Wikiquette alerts was rude, aggravating, incorrect, and misleading. If you don't want incivilities, you should also try being more civil. A from L.A. (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you were understanding it this way. I wanted that the article should be easy to read and not confusing, and to have a logical begining and and a red line to follow. Sometimes edits do not fit in into the whole article, as a logical part of it. But your personal attacks was not making things easier, either. Warrington (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it now, but regardless of your intentions your manner of editing in that case provoked me, you were too aggresive. I was also in a bad mood because of previous occurances not involving you. I read what you posted on that admin's page about impoliteness and incivility in Wikipedia (section titled: Polite(. Well obviously you are interacting with human beings and we all should know by now how things can get when human beings interact. Wikipedia is not edited by bots; you can report incivility and you can also try to prevent it by being more mindful of whether you are provoking editors or whether your manner of interacting is thorny. I'll be improving my editing as well, take care, A from L.A. (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you had personal problems in your life. Warrington (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are sorry to hear. Sorry to hear you are User:Warrington]. A from L.A. (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seems that we can have a normal discussin tone about the past events.

Maybe it would be better to just drop the whole thing and move on, instead of continuing the accusations back and forward about what happened.

Warrington (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely, please, if you can at all, it would definitely be better to just drop it. This was such a minor little issue at first, and I have no idea why it keeps dragging on like that. You are both intelligent well-intentioned people, at least I think I know enough of Alex to know he (she?) means well, it just seems he can't easily let go of an issue when he feels he's personally affected or something, and this episode with the block threat hanging over his head seems to have got him upset. Sorry you've had so much trouble with it all, and thanks for your patience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you are very kind.

Warrington (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image advice

What would the most appropriate approach to this image be?

Cheers

ALR (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrible photograph, don't know why we would actually want it, but I don't think it's much of a problem copyright-wise, if that's what you mean. The logo on the sign would be {{PD-USGov}}, the rest of the signage would be {{PD-ineligible}}, and the photograph itself doesn't look as if it couldn't be easily self-made by the uploader, so all should be okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I should have been clearer. Is there any way to easily get rid of it? Uploader insists on using it so it can't go as an orphan.

ALR (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Future Perfect at Sunrise, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Sounds familiar?

Hmmm... 77.28.19.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... could it be that someone you blocked for a week was a little too anxious to get back? Niko Silver 10:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Alex M., you mean? Difficult to say, do we have recent IP information for him? We once did have an IP he used, but it was in a different country. This one is from R.o.M., so it could be just about anybody there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, "just about anybody" is obviously limited to "just about anybody who is aware of that discussion and/or has rv'd before". I'm sure the list is limited to 2-3 users involved. Do you think a checkuser is in order? Niko Silver 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You could try, although I'm not too sure they'd take the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Naah, wouldn't dare go against your gut feeling. Unless you had the time to do a little ~~espionage~~ research with your ~~ultra-powerful mind-reading tools~~ valued experience on the field and dig up some data. Niko Silver 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, wait a moment, ποιος από μας ήταν ο καλτσέμπορας εδώ, για πες μου? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's Alex, it's much more probable that it is someone who was editing at the same time, lives in the Republic and is still on revert parole...--Avg (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not expect it from you

On Janina page: Who said that the "demoteke" is reflected in neiborghoud languages. Unreferenced...
Aromanian is spoken in the town and so it should be added.
Albanian per WP:NCGN should be added, as was Greek in Vlora...
I did not expect such a POV edit from you...
And most of all, why do you edit a page, while we are discussing it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool down please. This was a good-faith attempt at breaking the stalemate by just introducing a third, different solution. I'm not sure I understand what your problem is, and I get the impression you didn't understand what my point was either. Can you explain what "POV" you feel I'm "pushing" with my edit? It's just about putting things in a reasonable context, where they actually provide some value for the outside reader. Albanians and Aromanians already know what the place is called in their languages, they don't need Wikipedia to tell them, we aren't writing these things for them, you know.

Or are you actually disputing the factual correctness of that factbite I put in, that the other name forms derive from the demotic Greek one? Dude, that one is plain obvious to anybody with half a clue about these languages. Okay, I admit I haven't directly got sources right here and now; got an etymological dictionary of Albanian place names handy somewhere? But as I said, it's really just plain obvious and common sense; I won't want to go to the trouble of actually researching it unless you have some serious informed argument why it might be otherwise.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

His main problem i guess is that you removed them from the lead. All the names deserve a place in the article i think, as part of its notable history. In a sense you're right, we were giving rather sterile intepretations to the naming convention, myself included, although i stated they deserve to be mentioned regardless of that and didn't care where.--Zakronian (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, reading your lines your POV is obvious. Just citing you: First: Can you explain what "POV" you feel I'm "pushing" with my edit? ... Then: Okay, I admit I haven't directly got sources right here and now; ... And finally, you say about people with another POV they don't have any common sense, as your POV is like: But as I said, it's really just plain obvious and common sense; ... 82.113.121.17 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image of a living person

Hi mate, got a living soldier article here that has only 1 non-free image on it, being used in the infobox. Seems a a pretty open n shut case similar to that Chris Clayton article, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Thunderer

This editor has now removed most of the images from the USC article here this is just blatant disruption and is leaving comments on the talk page that are in breach of WP:TPG here thanks. BigDunc^Talk 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gah, when I answered him on the AE page I wasn't even aware he was already beyond 3RR. And the talk page comment also shows he's a political POV-pusher (something I totally kept out of what I said about the image.) And then the recent block log. Sigh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks do you want comment on this or will I remove it. BigDunc^Talk 16:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No need sorted now. BigDunc^Talk 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request of Raso_mk (talk · contribs)

Hello. If you can spare the time, could you please briefly address the concerns I have raised about your block of this user on this talk page? Also, if you do not intend to unblock him (which is what I would currently recommend), could you please provide a translation of the contributions that you blocked him for? Thanks, Sandstein 22:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

request

Dear WP administrator

I am a Chinese Doctoral candidate, working on a subject which was in a page of WP.

I noticed this page was deleted despite being concordant with WP notability rules (as presented in WP notability page) Can you tell me how to proceed in order to restore this page in respect to WP standards and rules? Please answer in my wp page and to my email : guozhangluo@yahoo.cn Thank you.

I'd first need to know what the page title was. I can find nothing you contributed to; did you previously work under a different user name? Let me first have a look at it informally, so I can see if I can just restore it unbureaucratically or if I should advise you to go through a formal channel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a new user, I want just information on procedure... could you just help me by giving the cretaeria for notability of special function in WP? Thanks.

Thank you for help; just tell me the creteria for notability of special function in WP It seems to be somewhere but I acn not find it. Thanks

Republic of Macedonia

Do you have the time to have a look at this [72]. I've tried to explain reason to the user (futile, I know) but all he does is to keep reverting, changing notes to editors and deleting my comments from the talk page and the warnings I've left on his discussion page. JdeJ (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The rant he just posted on the talk page ~~is one that was previously used (equally persistently) by Crossthets (talk · contribs)~~. Likely sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, actually it seems to be a different rant after all (or at least I'm not finding right now where C. posted the same), but it's a copyright violation anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletions

I think that your action to delete the images without posting a relevant warning beforehand was rather harsh. I will refrain from calling my friends on you like jdej did. Anyway the NPOV stays because the proposal has failed. from Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#failed A failed proposal is one for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch and start in a different direction. I think it is quite clear. Please undo your edit and reinstate the NPOV, unless you can provide otherwise. φιλικά Historikos (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Images that are blatant copyright violations are subject to speedy deletion with no prior warning. As for the others (where it's pretty obvious that they are not self-made, but I have no immediate proof of the source), I expect prompt and active cooperation on your part in clarifying the sources, or you'll be blocked for obstructive behaviour.

As for the POV tag, there is no active discussion, so there's no need for a tag, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The images you challenge are all my personal work. I will tag them as such within the next 24 hours, since I am unable at the moment. With regards to the name dispute the discussion is quite active here WT:MOSMAC and I would really like to see your comments as well. I will not point to the obvious that there has not been a legal diplomatic solutions yet either so that hinders any validity of the article all together. Historikos (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rassmguy block.

Seems to me, rather than a random vandal that he is a published writer who is rather ham-fistedly trying to have copyright violations acknowledged. [COI note: I think I know this guy from other online forums. I know that makes it seem like I'm sticking up for a friend, but I figured in interests of full disclosure I should note it.] Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see him making edits to that effect, only thing I saw was his first account spamming links to that book (his book?) all over the place, and the second account wildly reverting to the other account's versions (or indeed to some random older versions). Where would the copyvio be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A fair while ago I removed the speculation/OR aspects from the timeline on the Planet of the Apes (TV series) page. At that time the link in question was to a page that had the exact same timeline (without the removals I made obviously). Since then, it seems, that page has become part of a book and so what was a supporting link is now promotion... however... the copyright violation remains. I honestly can't comment on any of his behaviour outside that page, though. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Syriac stuff

thanks. You may want to look at AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) who keeps recreating his deleted cfork at Syriac people in spite of patient admonitions. The others are generally behaving rather constructively atm. --dab (𒁳) 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

re-request

Thank you for hints. Please, can you just give me an extract of the written rules of Wikepedia concerning the NOTABILITY of special functions This extract is said to be in WP pages under the subtitle " Notability of special functions" , but my Chinese browser makes it diffucult to fetch. please can you paste it here and/or email it to me (guozhangluo@yahoo.cn) Thank you for teh help Luoguozhang (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

re-request, thanks

Thanks sir !!! 4 Rules

  1. Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?
  2. Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ?
  3. Are they cited in in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?
  4. Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?

a last question

How to proceed if we want to re-set a page which despite fulfilling all these 4 rules, it was deleted for not notability?? just tell us how to proceed. Thanks Luoguozhang (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In reality, i am not used to the terms "administrator" and "deleted page" and WP:AFD and so...

but I have a subject to study, i would have some time to learn this WP vocabulary.

Can I come back to you after a while, with the certainty you will help me? Luoguozhang (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC) thank you in advance

Cukiger

I had already added the IP ranges used by Cukiger to my records, but I'll also add the full CU data for the check I performed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for your input

Hi Fut.Perf. Roux (talk · contribs) had initially brought up the idea of a topic ban on Shutterbug (talk · contribs) and related accounts, in a WP:ANI thread that was later moved to WP:AE. As a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS, all Scientology-related articles are under Article probation, so technically according to Wikipedia:Article_probation#Types_of_sanctions any administrator may carry out the topic ban. However WP:BAN is clear this should be decided by uninvolved administrator(s): The Arbitration Committee may delegate the authority to ban a user, such as by authorizing discretionary sanctions in certain topic areas, which can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator. You are one of the only uninvolved administrators that weighed in at the WP:AE Topic Ban thread. Would appreciate your further input in this matter. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Veda Slovena

From the article and the sources provided, I think, although I'm not completely sure, that it can be concluded that the publication was a hoax. My question is, should it be portrayed as such (or not even mentioned) in articles like Slavic dialects of Greece and Theodosius of Skopje? Balkan Fever 10:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Results page

Per [73] - there's an editnotice on the page (see here) to remind people that the bot is a bot and can't hear you ;o) Gurch modified the bot to put the audio link in. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, saw the edit notice after I clicked save, and then my connection got so sluggish I couldn't edit for a while. I was confused because I thought the bot had actually obeyed Privatemusing when he put it in, but wasn't obeying us other folks when taking it out... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi Fut. We have a problem on Epirus (region) and Vlora about the name, I want to know your opinion about them.
On Epirus (region), I think that albanian name come first, because it is official, along with greek, and its first alphabetically. Am I right per WP:NCGN?
On Vlora there was created a name section, and according to WP:NCGN, no other name should be moved back to the lead after this, but there is are opinions that the ancient greek name, should be in the lead and in the name section. What do you think? Regards.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple album covers

I've recently IFDed some album covers where there were two or more different covers in the article. I think that this violates NFCC3a/8, but would like some further opinions. Could you check out today's IFD? (Search for my name.) Stifle (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group)

I changed "a modern Slavic ethnic group" with "Persons from Republic of Macedonia or of Macedonian ancestry" as it is appropriate and all other nations are on Wiki are labeled like that. Besides it's wrong to say Slavic ethnic group for a nation, because there is no 100% ethnic nation. All nations have dwelled with many tribes that make the nation, so Slavic is wrong. There seems to be a political agenda for some that want to label everything about Macedonia with Slavic, because it's the spoken language. I hope you can change it to the appropriate. You can see from history page, that I tried to reason with them, but they are very stubborn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians Nicoliani (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not strictly accurate. Persons from the Republic of Macedonia include Albanians, Serbs and other ethnic groups - they're not members of the Macedonian ethnic group. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So does it for any nation, Sweden, USA, Germany, Poland.. Don't you agree that there is other ethnic groups and minorities in those nations? Your respond is not valid and still political. If wiki want to use Slavic for Macedonia then all other nations should change. For exampel for Sweden there should be Viking or Germanic, for England there should be Anglo-Saxon, for Ireland there should be Celtic.. Nicoliani (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Tirane

you removed it, somewhat legit, but do you think all of them are completely random? not one of them standing a chance to be true? do you know the etymology then? or possible ones? i'm just curious about etymologies --150.140.226.7 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I have no idea what the real etymology might be. Among the ones that were listed, the Albanian phrases (te ranat, të rânë, tri ane and po tir an) are obvious folk etymologies; these kinds of accounts are quite frequent in many parts of the world, and always wrong. Tyros is almost as dubious. Tehran seems to be flatly contradicted by the temporal facts. Theranda and Tirkan could be relevant, at least they seem to be attested as actual names, if what is claimed is true, but unfortunately not even that is sourced. Without good references, speculation is really moot here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A Greek map

Yes, a Greek one, not a Macedonian one; so, don't throw your hands up in horror. There's a typo on Image:Map Greece expansion 1832-1947-en.svg: in the key, "East Thrace ceded by Bulgaria (1923)" should read "West Thrace ceded by Bulgaria (1923)". I'm told you have the tools to correct this, and you're a more active editor than the uploader. If you could, would you mind altering the file? Thanks either way, DrKiernan (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can do that. By the way, JFYI, as long as it's an SVG file and it's just a matter of changing a simple bit of text, you don't even need any special software. You can actually open the SVG file in a simple plaintext editor, search for the string and edit it. SVG's are humanly readable XML files, similar to HTML code. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That's extremely useful to know. (I always wondered why I could never edit them!...) DrKiernan (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've taken the freedom of tweaking a few other captions too, hope you don't mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

More non-free's!

Hi again, I'm concerned about the number of non-free pictures on this article in our supposedly "free" encyclopaedia. Is there a limit/rough guide to how many there can be on an article? Or does it depend on the nature of the article i.e. military or film etc? I just find it hard to believe that there aren't any free equivalents for this event, especially as it was an American operation. Cheers, Ryan4314 (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm not really happy with one of the fair use rationales on this screenshot of a spaceship. I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me, so I wont even say which one I disagree with and we'll see if we're on the same wavelength lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deletions

Thanks for deleting the images I listed at ANI. I was about to go and mass-nominate them on IfD :) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Re this user's contribs today - what would be the most appropriate action to take? I don't normally work with general image uploads (other than ensuring my own are within policy and trying to save the odd Australian one :)) but this one hit my watchlist. Orderinchaos 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, tag the images with {{npd}}, warn him not to make unsubstantiated claims about copyright status, and perhaps explain "replaceability/living people" to them just in case they might later try to pass it off as FU. It seems to still fall under "n00b making a few uninformed uploads once", not "serial copyright offender after warnings", right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd concluded the person simply assumed they could grab photos off a website and put them up here, rather than any sort of ill intent - was more just a practical concern that we're now hosting a bunch of dubiously-licenced images. :) Thanks for the reply, I'll do that. Orderinchaos 23:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Information

Hello Future. How are you? I just wanted to attract you attention to a minor issue connected with the NOF article. There is this new colleague Dkace who seems like a nice fellow, but I have the impression that he imposes by all means his own view on the subject. Although I have given him 4 sources and also photos and text from books written by British, Greek and American researchers that I found on internet and also photos from a book that I have in my possession, he still has some difficulties in accepting facts backed by references enforced by photos of the books proving the facts. Sorry for bothering but could you please take a quick look at this short section of the discussion (from this place down) so you can be informed about the discussion just in case something goes wrong. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

Will you please do something with User:Nicoliani here? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI the football club is actually referred to simply as "Makedonija". Balkan Fever 13:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To TC&tO: I can't really do much more than argue against what he's doing, and reverting it (within the usual limits), which I've done. It's not like he's vandalising or anything. To BF: yep, I figured as much. Though there's still the issue of how to handle things that aren't really called Macedonia (English), but only by their native forms with -k-, -ij- and so on. The dab linking system isn't currently dealing with those ecplicitly. Makedonija redirects somewhere else and has no link back to the dab page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So does Makedonia though. Balkan Fever 13:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

True. Strictly speaking, the target article those terms are redirected to should have a hat note saying "Makedonia links here. For other uses...". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"For other uses, see Macedonia" instead of "X (dab)"? Balkan Fever 14:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You comments re Caspian blue

Banned user's comments snipped

Lucy, you're really not getting my point. I know Caspian's editing is problematic. If we finally had some time and energy left after dealing with you, we might even get around to dealing with him some day. By your continued activity here, you are in effect only protecting him. Because as long as you keep us busy blocking your socks, no admin will be inclined to actually look closer into his behaviour. You are giving him the convenient excuse of presenting himself as the victim, and you are tiring the whole admin community, thus preventing them from doing anything.

Yes, he edit-wars. But why would anyone sanction him for edit-warring once we've got used to the idea that in 80% of all cases, his opponent in the edit war is your sock? Yes, he tires people with complaints. But who is going to sanction him for it, if in 80% of all his complaints he turns out to be right?

However legitimate your initial point may have been: you blew it. At this point, the best thing and the only thing you can do, in the interest of your own cause, is to leave this project alone and let others deal with the issue. Once Caspian edits in a climate of a bit more normalcy, people will soon see his editing behaviour for what it is.

I know you are intelligent enough to understand such a simple point, so I really wonder why you keep ignoring it.

This is honest and well-meant advice, please take it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slavic dialects of Greece

An article that you have been involved in editing, Slavic dialects of Greece, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic dialects of Greece. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a silly question

Why aren't all the AN boards automatically move protected? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

State of the (As)syrian issue

if you're still interested in following this particular line of hilarity, please see my summary of the current status quo on Moreschi's talkpage [74]. regards, --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Bih 1991.jpg

Future, seeing at how you were somewhat involved with Image talk:Bih 1991.jpg (then went to Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Image discussion Bih 1991.jpg and now for some reasons is continuing at User:Rjecina/Bosnian census), do you have anything you add to the ANI discussion? (other than to stay away) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory usebox

Hi !

Since you have insisted on deletion of templates [75] and about Operation Storm made by myself... I think that this userbox is inappropriate accordingto such criteria: here

This user is a supporter of the heroic Bosnian army who defended Bosnia (with minimal weapon capacity) for three years against the well armed aggressors of Serbia and Croats in Bosnia.

Don't you think so??? --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So???--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

comfort women

nice edit.

seems fine to me.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion from 2008 Greek riots

I have already cited (citation 14) the web site that's discussing this issue and publishing the image: [76] The specific website isn't "another independent" news site. Its director Stelios Kouloglou had a special programm at the greek national TV (Reportaz xoris synora) but the channel directors decided to cut it off. It's all about a series of censorship incidents going on in Greece. That's why we need to inform people about what is happening. The photographer of the picture, Kostas Tsironis (friend of mine since 1998) was fired from the newspaper that he was working for. It is a picture that at these moments is very important to be seen as there are many issues about the police authority abuse. I am investigating right now to find more sourses that are publishing the picture. The photograph was originally published at the greek newspaper "Eleutheros Typos". Please consider undoing the deletion. Thank you--Biris (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things. First, the image is copyrighted (non-free), so unless you provide proof the photographer has released it under a free license it cannot stay on commons, where you uploaded it. You could conceivably upload it here on en-wiki under "fair use", but then for a proper justification you'd need to show that the image as such is a major topic of public debate in reputable news media. A single website will not be enough. Also, this will only work if we then get a completely neutral text to go with it, summarising what is known about the scene it shows and how reliable sources have interpreted its significance. You personally seem to be editing with a clear political agenda here, and I must strongly ask you to set that aside. However important you may consider your political concern here, promoting those is not what Wikipedia is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting in contact with the photographer so that he can upload the picture properly. There is no political agenda here. The respect of human rights is above any political orientation. This is what is happening in Greece right now. About the concept of reputable news media; Here there are more sources: [Yahoo news|http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//081208/481/04bcda866abc43299c870224816cd5f8/]Yahoo News! [Indymedia|http://athens.indymedia.org/] the known independent news media. [Cosmo.gr|http://www.cosmo.gr/News/Hellas/223582.html] this news online channel has an 15.000 Alexa Ranking. It is a popular news source. Additionally the impact of the image at the blogs is important too. [77] [78] The facebook group [79] that supports the director of TVXS has 37.000 members Thank you--Biris (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that the one who decided one day to criticise Vladimir?--Michael X the White (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

gia poion milas? poios katekrine ton Poutin? about who are you talking about? who critisisez Putin? Probably this is another story--Biris (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Putin aside, okay, that's a couple of news outlets that have carried the photograph, but mostly just as a random general illustration of the situation. The only source I've seen that specifically discusses the scene and the image is the cosmo.gr one. And that isn't really claiming the scene is of some special significance for the riots as a whole either. It's nowhere close to justify us saying something in our article like: "A photograph showing a policeman pointing a gun at demonstrators made the rounds of the media on 11 December, sparking further public outrage..." It just doesn't seem to have reached that degree of importance within the overall scheme of things (yet). As for the story about the sacking of the photographer, no notable coverage whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The photograph is also commented at Yahoo news (associated press) and at the rest of sources cited above as related to the riots. Visit Indymedia. The photograph has been managed and published by international news agencies. What provoced the whole situation on Sunday was that a policeman killed (we don't know yet if it was by accident or if it happend on purpose) the 15 year old boy with his service gun. At Cosmo.gr we can see how the specific photograph is related with these events; the guns are still present and i think that this is more than significant. We are talking about a democratic country!!( the country that invented democracy). The object of the picture is the policeman with his gun. This describes the reasons that people are fighting against and reports the authority abuse as a core issue of the current situation. I agree to change the descriptive text in the article. But i think it's crucial to include the photograph.--Biris (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered yet and i insist that the picture is demonstrating a very important aspect of what is happening in Greece right now. I'll also like to ask if you consider that the rest of the pictures that already are in the page have reached that degree of importance within the overall scheme of things. Actually the picture of the policeman aiming his gun at the demonstrators explains a lot the reasons why the people's rage is amplified. These days the main target of the demonstrators were the police stations all over Greece.--Biris (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I need to explain a bit more, I see. The big difference is that the photograph you are proposing is "non-free", which makes it a problem for us. Please see WP:NFC for our policies on this. A photograph that is copyrighted and not licensed for free re-use by anyone and for any purpose can only be used in Wikipedia under very special conditions (many of them self-imposed and more restrictive than required even by copyright law itself), in order to ensure that our project's content remains maximally unencumbered by copyright problems. Part of those rules is that we would use a photograph only if we have something substantial to discuss about the image itself, as a piece of news in its own right, and its presence is indispensable for understanding the topic; also, that discussion of course is then subject to our usual principles of NPOV, good sourcing, not giving undue weight to marginal issues and opinions, and so on. That's why I insisted we should consider it only if there is some very substantial amount of explicit discussion of this photograph in the mainstream press, something I'm still not seeing. – As for the other images we are now using, they are different because they are all freely licensed. That means we can just use them at will, for mere illustration, as many as we like, showing whatever topic we find interesting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule

Good work.

Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your deletation about war crime is not. You know there are many Korean Army officers and Bureaucrats. They were volunteer. During WW2, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs was a Korean. and he was sentenced as crimes against peace by allies. Korean had Japanses nationality and they had civil right same as Japanse. There were Korean politicians in Japanse Parliament. Most Koreans cooporated with Japanse at the time. Korean was assailant same as Japanse for Chinese. Present article seems weighted.--Bukubku (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We could discuss to what extent that may be relevant to the article (personally, I don't quite see how it is, it's just another case of the rather obvious Japanese POV tactics here at Wikipedia, of trying to somehow deflect from Japan's problematic past by sharing the blame on the Koreans) - but be that as it may, I mainly reverted your edit because the English was too poor. I would ask you to generally reconsider what you are doing in this project. It's the English wikipedia. We do generally welcome people with a less than perfect command of English, there's a lot of useful stuff a person like you can fruitfully do here. But negotiating the intricacies of making a contentious article NPOV is not really one of them. My impression is your overall contribution to this project has not been helpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my too poor English. This is true, sorry. And I understand your opinion. However I don't think so. Before I edit, the article was written as "political figures engaged in modernization with foreign diplomacy were assassinated by the Japanese"[80] This is big not. If someone wrote as all European were killed by German, you must feel not good. It is same.

However I appreciate to your edition of Infobox. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Empress Myeongseong

Hey, you are misusing your admin privileges

Wait a minute. We haven't finished improving Anti-Bosniak sentiment article and you deleted it. Bosniak (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a valid AfD against this article, and the page you recreated was still recognisably the same article as the one that got deleted. Such articles get speedy-deleted. If you want to propose an improved new article, I recommend you prepare it in a user space subpage of yours, and then open a WP:DRV to overturn the AfD and allow recreation. But you will need to show you have understood and met the concerns that were brought against the article at the AfD and which caused its deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Recognizably the same? Show me how? Bring the evidence. PS: I filed the complaint against you here [81] but they will probably do nothing, because you are administrator. You guys are running the show here on Wikipedia and censoring articles you don't like. Bosniak (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Rollback Status

Hi. I've been doing some heavy New Page Patrolling, and would like to become more active with Vandalism Patrolling. I would also like to be able to use Huggle. Would you consider granting me Rollback privileges to be able to more effectively maintain articles? Thanks for your consideration. --OliverTwisted (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I suppose you are aware of the rules, right? (Like, using it only for obvious vandalism. If in doubt, better not to use it.) But you seem a reasonable and trustworthy editor, so I expect you'll use it well. Have fun, and thanks for helping with the vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I plan on only using it only for obvious vandalism. I'd rather avoid having to edit the URL to provide an edit summary. Better to have and not need, than vice versa. Cheers. --OliverTwisted (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. By the way, do you know this:

//rollback test
importScript('User:Ilmari Karonen/rollbacksummary.js');

It combines rollback with custom edit summaries – using that, you could in principle even use rollback for normal reverts, you just need to enter an individual summary, but it's still just as fast as normal rollback. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Installed the script, and will test it safely tomorrow. Thanks for the ultra-quick response. --OliverTwisted (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New Vandal User 78.157.9.88

Please, look here: [82] Jingby (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

How to transmit large file

Hi, I would like to send you a pdf file of a publication that is not available electronically, on ethnicity and migration in Greece. Is there any protected page or email address to which I can post it to you? It is copyright, so it has to be a personal transmission. Xenos2008 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Xenos2008 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Interesting stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Danke

Danke fuer deine Hinweisse, aber kannst du helfen, der neutrale Standpunkt diesen Artikel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Greek_riots) zu schildern.

Prospatho, file, prospatho. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

you were right about the account my ip changed like that....

User:D Yankov

Hi, Katze. This gay has predominantly disruptive edits on Bulgarians. Any sources or references, only blind reverts in his POV-pushing and constant deleting of well sourced info. Also any comments or explaintions. Please, look here: Revision history of Bulgarians, User contributions of D Yankov , User talk:D Yankov. Danke. Jingby (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"This gay"? Hmmm. I guess you meant "guy". Anyway, I'll have a look later, not much time right now, but thanks for the notification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I apologise. My English language is not the best. This was really mistake. Jingby (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse mе, but he did it again in the same insolent manner. [83] Jingby (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse mе, but he did it again whithout any explaination. Jingby (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ivailo82

Hi again Katze. This posible sockpuppet of User:D Yankov is doing the same on Bulgarians. I do not know how to talk to him. Any sources or references, only reverts in his POV-pushing. Also constant deleting of well sourced info. His personal viw is the most important source. Jingby (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

local Slavic vs. Slavic Macedonian vs. Macedonian.

Hello Future Perfect. I would like to seek your advice regarding the classification of "local Slavic" and what it actually means. It seems that the only purpose of the article "Slavic dialects of Greece" was to create a "pseudo-language" making the "local" language seem dissimilar and unrelated to the linguistic term for the language and a term used by many speakers of the language. Their are reverts such as this one, which is unlike wikipedia protocol and has actually gone to extreme lengths just so that the word "Macedonian" does not appear in the area for secondary names. It seems that some users such as User:157.228.x.x are so desperate that no other name apart from the Greek one appears to have reverted every single second name on the territory of Greek Macedonia by "local Slavic" and removing the Aromanian names completely. See [84], [85] etc. The "Slavic dialects of Greece" have focused solely on Macedonia dispute, as Bulgarian is freely used in sections where "local Slavic" should also be, according to the claims of Greek wikipedians, see: Xanthi, Myki, Greece, Kotyli etc. What are your comment on this? Would we be able to create a protocol on the subject? Or will this very Strong POV continue to dominate this encyclopedia? PMK1 (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see this "strong" POV ? When we were trying to explain to you why it's the most neutral term you kept claiming that "we're talking about linguistics", to my understanding there's not much linguistics in this to discuss. The local Slavic dialect is first and foremost a dialect and has been just that long before its modern classification following a convenient point of reference set by politics. From a pure lingustics POV i don't think there's much scientific weight to that decision (not that they could be called Chinese dialects). "local Slavic" links to a very informative article that includes the modern ethno/socio/["i'm a linguist, why should i give a shit"]-linguistic approach, makes a historical description and talks about the groups that use the dialects. POV pushing would be to link the names only with a language that emerged from and played a leading role to your nation's building process. The names are there because they are notable, and why is that ? cause the region was and still is inhabited by Slavic-speaking populations, Greeks, Macedonian Slavs and Bulgarians, simple. If you were really that much into the linguistic view one should expect from you to propose linking each name with the specific dialect's article.--Zakronian (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes i agree with you. I have tried on a number of occasions of linking the title to pages such as this, this and this one but have been reverted. Users will not accept this change either. What are you essentially talking about, the Macedonian dialects in greece form a major part of the Macedonian language. The POV is classifying the "dialect" which is one of the dialects of the macedonian language as something other than what it is. We do not link the Ohrid page to the Ohrid dialect for example, nor do we link tetovo to the polog dialect. We link to the Macedonian language, this process should be not different in greece in areas where Macedonian is spoken. It is strong POV to classify the names anti not-Macedonian when they in fact are. Do not forget that one of the dialects upon which the macedonian language is based can be found in Greece, the Prilep-Bitola dialect. This is also spoken in Greece, in this case would the dialect also not be Macedonian? This is what the rest of the world knows and believes, it is a linguistic fact. Wikipedia should be based on upon facts found in this world, not the propoganda which the Greek government and agencies have led many people to believe. PMK1 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(Well user talk pages are not intended for lengthy debates...) I just want to say that you shouldn't rush to tell who did propaganda to who and who lives with it and by it. Unless if you have got a number of reliable sources supporting that the Greek government actually did propaganda. The Balkans are anyway filled with only dialects of Slavic.--Michael X the White (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is one issue where I'm really not sure what best to do. The issue should really be not so much the ideological baggage of the terms, but finding the most accessible and simple term for outside non-initiated readers. The problem is, most common terms are either too wide or too narrow in scope. If you say "Local Slavic" (no matter where you link to), you are implying that it's a specific dialect form, linguistically different from the nearest standard language. Which with most of these names won't be the case. That term is factually too narrow. The names that we end up citing, in most cases I guess, are not really dialectal forms, they are the forms of standard Macedonian/Bulgarian, in the standard Macedonian/Bulgarian ortography. The local dialect as such has no orthography at all, so it would be difficult to quote a name in it. -- On the other side, if you say just "Slavic", you have the reverse, it's too wide. "South Slavic" is pedentic, and opaque for the non-linguist reader. "Macedonian/Bulgarian" would be okay, but is still a bit cumbersome. In many cases, I personally have no doubt that "Macedonian" would in fact be the most relevant language name to assign, being the closest existing standard language with any claim of relevance to the people/locations involved; certainly in the Western Macedonian areas (Florina etc.) But then of course, we'll get all the furious resistance of the Greek POV team (and personally, I am rather convinced it is just that: purely POV-driven stonewalling, with very little actual merit.) I could live with a compromise of [[Macedonian language|Macedonian Slavic]]: the link target is the standard language article, where interested readers will actually get the relevant linguistic info; the display text has the advantage of being sufficiently vague that one can read it either as a language name or just as a descriptive phrase ("Macedonian Slavic" = "the varieties of Slavic languages spoken in geographical Macedonia"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Fut Perf. Are users happy with the suggestion? PMK1 (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No.--Zakronian (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with Macedonian Slavic, as I think "Macedonian language" is not as nuanced as the complex ethnolinguistic situation in Greece demands. The article dedicated to the Slavic dialects of Greece, on the other hand, while explicitly classifying them as "Macedonian" or Bulgarian from a linguistic perspective, provides the context necessary for a more complete understanding of the reality on the ground. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Macedonian Slavic" understood as "Slavic dialects spoken in the part of the region of Macedonia included in the territory of Greece" is incomplete to describe all Slavic dialects of Greece, because it excludes "Thracian Slavic" - "Slavic dialects spoken in the part of the region of Thrace included in the territory of Greece". Historically and linguistically, all these dialects are part of the Bulgarian dialect continuum but politically, Greece makes everything possible to go around or hide this fact while Macedonia claims these dialects as a part of its nationalistic aspirations and vehemently denies all historic and linguistic evidence for the Bulgarian nature of these dialects. Greeks themselves throughout the centuries (Byzantine chroniclers, etc.) have referred to these dialects as "Βουλγαρικά". I think that "Macedonian and Thracian Slavic dialects in Greece" would be a reasonable compromise between all these opposing claims, as it is more specific than simply "Slavic dialects" because "Slavic dialects of Greece" are also the Russian and Serbian of Chalkidiki monks. --Lantonov (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To Lantonov: D'oh. Whoever said we need to use the same formula for all the locations in Greece? Those in the east should of course use "Bulgarian"; nobody seriously claims any different linguistic affiliation for those areas. The thing about Russian monks is of course a red herring, that's just wikilawyerish nitpicking; nobody is seriously going to be confused by those. And "Macedonian and Thracian Slavic dialects in Greece" is so ridiculously unwieldy it's not worth further comment. Dude, we are talking about a language tag in the alternative-names bracket of a lead sentence here. Seriously. Anything longer than two words is out.

To Kekrops: If the Macedonian language article is not "nuanced" enough for the "complex ethnolinguistic situation", then the solution is to make the article more nuanced. That the (western) Greek Macedonian varieties can be subsumed under that language label, despite the affiliation not being a totally straightforward matter, is a sufficiently solid majority position in the literature (as documented here a million times). The Macedonian language article already does include coverage of them, as it rightly should. If it doesn't do so with all the appropriate nuance, then let's improve it. There's no reason why that article couldn't contain a sufficiently detailed discussion of how the description of the Greek varieties is somehow problematic. That doesn't change the fact that the outside uninitiated reader needs a simple, easy to understand handle for the language tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Those in the east should of course use "Bulgarian". East from where? There is no sharp border between Macedonian and Thracian dialects. Both of these regions followed the linguistic trends of the rest of Bulgarian dialects. The protocols of the commission that invented "Macedonian language" at the end of 1944 do not change this fact. And there are typically Eastern, Thracian and Moesian dialects in Macedonia, even in the Western part (Ohrid, Debar, Korca in Albania). From a strictly linguistic point of view Macedonian can be called a Bulgarian dialect, as structurally it is most similar to Bulgarian. Indeed, Bulgarian scholars reject Macedonian as an individual language, but since it now has the status of a literary language most other scholars accept its independent existence. [86] Is this Bulgarian propaganda, too? --Lantonov (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Man, do you seriously believe you are telling me anything new? Get a grip. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any illusions that this will be a surprise to you. I wanted only to help reaching a compromise. --Lantonov (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but it i think everyone that is even bothered to comment here already knows. :). I guess in the first chapter of the article the identification is explain, along with this article which could be expanded. I guess that basically that [[Macedonian language|Macedonian Slavic]], could be implemented in Florina, Pella, Kastoria, Kozani and Imathia prefectures. With Bulgarian bieng used in Serres, Drama, Xanthi, Evros and Rhodope prefectures. With a name yet to be agreed on for certain toponyms in Kilkis and Salonica prefectures. Would this kind of a split (reflecting the real life situation) be acceptable? PMK1 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Athough such division of a dialect continuum is highly artificial, and to some extent subjective, it has certain linguistic basis if one compares the principal dialect traits. Kilkis, and especially Thessaloniki are hard to classify because they have specifics not found in other (even close geographically) dialects. --Lantonov (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is to have a package that reflects the past and present reality from which the names draw their notability. If we can't cite the names per a [linguistic identity-local dialect-local name] priority perspective than everything else is discussable only in a case by case direction, depending on the provided sources. Linking them with standard Macedonian Slavic collectively is more exclusive than the current solution, in terms of what it can imply. And i haven't understood yet, how and why we make the transition to the standard language form, either (ethno/socio)linguistically or purely by ethnic account (or, can it be just because of the available sources ? but then we point out only to the notable use where the standard language is spoken), it's arbitrary, it really depends on where you give more weight, what makes a name more "Macedonian" than "Bulgarian" or "local" in every sense ?--Zakronian (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that the division is artificial, but i believe it is the closest that we can possibly get (linguistically). I am sure that you agree to Lantonov. The Standard languages are used across the Balkans, but in most cases dialects are more widely spoken. It is the classificiation of a dialect as bieng one step below a language, not the dialect bieng above the language. I agree with Zakronian, for example Lechovo does not require Macedonian Slavic in the title as only ever Arvanitika speakers and Aromanian speakers have inhabitated the village, while a place such as Meliti would require Macedonian Slavic. In most cases the "local" name is paralel to a name found in the Standard varieties of a language, this is also the case across the ROM for example, we do not give secondary names based on dialectial forms. For Example, the village of Mislesevo, local Macedonian: Misleso. This practise is not used on wikipedia leaving the above suggest appropriate and fitting to the problem at hand. PMK1 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Zakronian: sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you try to be a bit less opaque please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's my outdated attempt to clarify, if it's of any use.

It would be easier for me if i knew your position on what i had expressed in my first comment, for instance should we care that your formula can imply the names are used exclusively by ethnic Macedonians ? that there are no other ethnicity using any of these dialects for that matter ? In my view the only reason we should care weather "local Slavic" implies a distinct form from the relevant standard one it's because of what you said which i had given little notice, the local dialects have no orthography, which means we can usually quote a name as it is attributed in the related standard languages, or maybe by a third source containing a documentation effort. So, although their notability is connected with the dialect it's inaccurate to imply that we derive the written form from there. Also, to that extent most sources used refer to the notable connection of a specific ethnic group with the place/name, but that is only a part of its notability (if of any relevance at all today), they are there to source a name, but not to explain the most important reason it is added in the first place. We mention the names mainly because there are people still living in these places, a linguistic minority of mixed ethnicity and with a complicated history. Macedonian language would be the common practice tag-link if it wasn't so hard to include a fair description of the situation there.

Another point is that the political decree enacting "Macedonian language" is limited in space and time, namely, on the territory of Socialist Federative Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia after December 31, 1944. Anything else is moot and subject to all kinds of arbitrary interpretation. This includes dialects outside the above territory, and also dialects before the above date. Attaching to those the name "Macedonian" is without any historical, linguistic, as well as political basis. For political reasons, for instance, one cannot claim that "the language is such as its speakers call it" because, in one village you will have people who say they speak Bulgarian, other people who say they speak Macedonian, and third group who say they speak Greek Slavic and all of them refer to the same language. --Lantonov (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The language is what linguists call it, period. There is an overwhelming consensus in the relevant literature (outside Bulgaria) that the dialects are covered by the language. Live with it. Your opinion pieces are unwelcome here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, to PMK and Kekrops: If "Macedonian Slavic", as a display text, is approaching consensus as a reasonable compromise, let me say just this: Macedonian Slavic is currently a redirect. We can just write [[Macedonian Slavic]] in the articles directly, we don't need to pipe it. Then, what it should ultimately link to can be settled centrally by tweaking the redirect. Currently it goes to Macedonian language, but it could just as well go to, say, a specialised section in that article. This way, we'd avoid continuing edit wars on all the location articles in parallel, and can settle the issue centrally. (I've also checked, Macedonian Slavic is currently orphaned, so whatever we decide to do with it, we aren't breaking anything existing.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for PMK1 to halt his toponymic crusade as a courtesy until a consensus is ironed out? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny. Fut Perf. Where do you suggest that we link it to?, as in which section of the [[Macedonian language]] article? I guess we could as well redirect it to the chapter Alternative names, perhaps? PMK1 (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we put together a special section dealing with Macedonian in Greece, in the "Macedonian language" article, sort of a brief summary of the "Slavic dialects of Greece" and "Macedonian language naming dispute" ones? something like:

"Macedonian Slavic in Greece

{{main|Slavic dialects of Greece}} The varieties spoken by the Slavophone minority in parts of northern Greece, especially those in the northwest of Greek Macedonia, are today usually regarded as part of the Macedonian language,<ref>Trudgill, Ethnologue, other refs, bla bla</ref> even though this identification is not undisputed. The codification of standard Macedonian has been in effect only in the Republic of Macedonia, and the varieties Greece are thus practically "roofless", with their speakers having little access to standard or written Macedonian. <ref>There's a discussion of this in Trudgill and probably elsewhere too.</ref> Also, not all members of the Slavic-speaking minority identify ethnically as Macedonians, with many prefering a Greek or, in some cases, Bulgarian ethnic identity. Such speakers may continue to prefer to think of their language as Bulgarian [...] the simple term "Macedonian" as a name for the Slavic language is often avoided in the Greek context, and vehemently rejected by most Greeks. Alternative names for the Macedonian language in the Greek minority context include "Slavomacedonian", "Macedonian Slavic" and similar terms. By its own speakers, it is often called Dopia [...yada yada yada] [add other attested language names...] In dialectological terms, the varieties spoken in Greece form a continuum connected to the Macedonian dialects of [....bla bla bla]. Numbers of speakers are not known exactly, with estimates ranging from [...] to [... bla bla bla].

(very rough quick draft, don't stone me if you don't like the details.) This way, our location article language tags could link directly to this section, through the Macedonian Slavic redirect, and the reader gets the best of both worlds: they are on the "Macedonian language" page, where all the rest of the info is, and they have the special political context information that Kekrops is concerned about, and can easily get to the detail article to get more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If something like that can survive there then it's a viable compromise i guess. Although "Macedonian Slavic" can have the same potential for exclusion to the reader, but in an ethnic sense, which you are not concerned so much obviously. A problem might be that we "lock" the target article's content partially, and i'm sure PMK1 didn't have that in mind when raising the issue.--Zakronian (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good proposal Fut Perf. with the heading being '"Macedonian language in Greece" or something to that effect, with your rough draft bieng put into actual terms? Would that seem appropriate to everyone? PMK1 (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have created a section entitled "macedonian language in Greece". I hope that is what people were after. It is alright if the agreed redirect, Macedonian Slavic is implemented on the relevant pages? PMK1 (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

When you want to achieve a consensus, you'd first want to make sure that all sides are involved. When you're making unacceptable choices on important decisions, do at least drop by to say "Hi, the guys wih the other POV have reached a consensus that we should erase all Bulgarian history of Macedonia. Anyways, it's over now so just wanted you to know."

A consensus is null and void if it doesn't include the other side. More on [[Talk:Florina#[edit] Why "Macedonian Slavic" is unacceptable]]. And please don't cite this "consensus" as a reason to revert any of my edits because you've all made enough of a mess here :P Todor →Bozhinov 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Issue on the link of the article 2008 Greek riots

I have given a response to your argument about the link. I don't feel everything is clear and I would like to have a response from you. I don't see how I stepped in a circular logic in my line of thinking and I didn't repeat myself in my answers to you, so I don't understand how you feel you could abstain from the debate without having to give any more explanations. If you refuse to continue the debate I would like a third opinion, so that this actions can be explained to me. Maziotis (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I, in contrast, feel this has been explained enough. Just because you are unwilling to take no for an answer doesn't mean I'm obliged to keep debating you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I don't accept that I am unwilling to take "no" for an answer. You are not an authority on the subject, and I have the right to edit the article if the new concerns I brought into discussion are not challenged. Maziotis (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

MFD

You don't need to be an admin to close a keep discussion at xFD.
Stating "non-admin closure" (like that's somehow bad compared to an "admin closure") is troubling.
MFD isn't the appropriate venue for deciding whether or not a process or proposal has consensus (that place is the talk page via discussion or, heaven help us, a poll).

I won't re-close it, I'll leave that to someone else equally uninvolved, but your reasoning and language are dangerous if accepted as a precedent. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Standard procedure. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ("Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator"), as well as Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Which discussions should a non-admin close or not close?. ("Inappropriate early closes will [...] be summarily reverted by any administrator"). I also recommend studying the recommendations on when a "snowball close" is or isn't appropriate:

"Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. Recommended criteria to use: (a) six or more participants have supported keeping the page; (b) no editor other than the nominator has opposed keeping the page or even supported another outcome, left a comment, or asked a question which could be interpreted as hesitation to support keeping the article; (c) the process has gone on for at least a full day; and (d) the nominator has not added a lot of comments and is not still attempting to make his/her case."

Obviously, this was not such a case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not close it via WP:SNOW, I speedy closed it as inappropriate: we don't decide whether a policy or proposed process is valid at xFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have no such policy, so your closure was inappropriate. SNOW would have been the only legitimate case for such a closure, and it didn't apply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:MFD:

Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.

—Locke Cole • t • c 21:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Frowned upon" is not the same thing as abusive and out of process. This may well be a reasonable argument to bring forward in a !vote at the MfD. It might possibly be a reason for a closing administrator to tip the scales towards keep at closure time if the outcome is close. It is certainly not a valid reason for a WP:Speedy keep. And most certainly not a reason for a speedy keep that is so obvious and uncontroversial that a non-admin should do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Frowned upon indicates to me that MFD isn't the process for this kind of discussion. An RFC or other dispute resolution mechanism makes much more sense and isn't quite as inflammatory as "I'm trying to delete your proposal"... Obviously I disagree with your assessment that this isn't a criteria to speedy close a deletion discussion or I wouldn't have. As for the "non-admin" spiel, you're not a member of some exclusive club with extra clout over regular editors. You're a janitor with a mop, not a judge/jury/executioner. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please spare us your political rhetorics. Administrators are those that have an explicit mandate to make such decisions, earned through hard work and after extensive scrutiny, in that the community has shown to trust their judgment and knowledge of policy to make the right calls. Others don't have that certified level of trust. Yes, where deletion discussions are concerned it has always been the rule that admins have a privileged role. That's why we have the institution of admins in the first place. If you think the community has the same level of trust in your decisions as in mine, go for RfA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios

FPS, here is some problem. Albnaian (talk · contribs) is a fairly useful contributor, who has created a number of articles about Kosovo mountains, lakes and so on, but I am concerned with the images he use in his articles. They were all concurrently uploaded on Commons as PD-self by commons:user:Sazan (who may be the same person, but I don't know and I hope this is irrelevant here). However, they don't look like PD-self, some of them, like this, are with obvious copyright notices. I don't know where they are taken from, probably some site like http://www.summitpost.org. Could you please investigate the issue? I hope you will not punish Albnaian on English Wikipedia, because he is really needed here, and at the same time stop copyvio uploads. Colchicum (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I've brought it up on commons, they'll have to delete them there. You are quite right, they look very much like copyvios. I have some vague feeling I've had some business with some of the same images here earlier, as if I had already deleted some of them, but I can't remember with any certainty. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for looking into the issue regarding Traumatised (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Maziotis on 2008 Greek riots

Fut.Perf: following your 3rr warning of Maziotis, he reverted the same text 4 times. I warned him a second time. He then reinserted the same piece of text; I have since blocked him for a period of 24 hours. Could you help take a look at the other IPs? It seems like they are involved too. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I would appreciate your input/view on the issue I have raised [87]. Thanks, Polibiush (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Hellenism

I have marked your redirect from Anti-Hellenism to Hellenism for SPEEDY deletion. There is nothing wrong with redirecting and guiding Wikipedia users, but the problem here is all the backlinks. It seems that Anti-Hellenism is included in some {{Discrimination}} template. (I could not find where.) These kinds of links are an invitation to start yet more baseless -phobia articles. These again are an invitation to include all kinds of nationalistic POV pushing, even hate speech (Your county occupied/raped my country...) For the latest, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainophobia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bomac

Hey there, and happy holidays :)

Sorry to bother you with anything, but has that been taken into account anywhere? I just saw it while responding to the topic below, and it seems to be a classic personal attack by my definition, with some ethnic hatred added in.

It's not an important issue and it can wait until you're ready to return to Wikipedia, so enjoy your vacation :) Best, Todor →Bozhinov 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:AP1929 rides again

Hi FPaS, I wonder if you'd be interested in the latest exploits of our mutual Ustaše-loving friend? Please have a look at WP:AN/I. (Happy Holidays :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Anti-Hellenism

In fact I found {{Racism topics}} after some looking, and removed the link. I was however almost immediately reverted. There is some kind of pushing going on here, I just do not know what. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also

We could use some feedback from an admin on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece in general and especially on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece#Question_2. Thanks!--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture ban

I really do not understand User:Mike Babic. He is in my thinking more or less OK user, but he is refusing to stop creation of "his" pictures. --Rjecina (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Verangen

I'm Wikinger berserker warrior from Virgengaard Tirien and my name is Valhar Sventhor, while my planet is Verangen: http://www.kuzbass.ru/moshkow/lat/RAZNOE/fantakrimmega1.txt Sigge Heilsa! Ingareth Assatur! I have Aerskjoll mighty sword and I defend Verangen against Harane and their Krankaars from Ice Space outside planet Verangen! 87.96.48.69 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

AP1929

Hello FPaS, further to this, just to keep you appraised, you may be interested that AP1929 has today been posting some fairly belligerent "The NDH was not fascist" stuff at Talk:Ante Pavelić. Best regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs)

Hi there; you have blocked this editor, and he has posted at {{unblock}}. there appears to be some controversy as to whether he is, or is not, editing via open proxy. Would you care to review the position? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Hi Future Perfect. I just thought that i should bring to your attention recent events here and in 50 or so other villages across Greek Macedonia. I am sure that you can work out what the problem is, apparently [[Macedonian Slavic]] was not satisfactory enough for some people. There are apparently more slavic language spoken in certain areas. Thanks. PMK1 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aegean POV

This user Happy recognition (talk · contribs) continues to add and create Aegean POV articles. For example Gauda,Turkey and Turkish Gray Zone Islands. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not POV. You know International Permanent Court of Arbitration referenced Lausanne Agreement between Turkey and Greece 79 times to solve Eritrea - Yemen dispute and drawed sovereignity line between these two states. Also, In Aegean Dispute page, when all of your requests are satisfied then you blocked the user with "sock" reason. So, wikipedia is not your diary. Wikipedia belongs to all. Be respectful to the other peoples' documents. HappyRecognition (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The new user LilaSailor (talk · contribs) recreated Turkish Gray Zone Islands a couple of hours after you deleted it. It now redirects to Aegean Islands. Just so's you know. Aramgar (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dodona

Could you please consider reapplying for release of my ban account User:Dodona , I think I have taken the lesson ..

No. This [88] edit clearly shows that you haven't. Your are still behaving in exactly the same way as you were earlier. You will remain banned. Please just forget this project, it is not for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My edit does not in any way shows any break of wiki rules …!!

The time is over when someone could be ban for his ideas and this is against Freedom of thought and it will make Internet censorship and freedom of thought, if I was more “quite” contributor I would be of no problem for you…

I know that you are faire to some degree..so let us make a case in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is listed under Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

If this edit of mine in Talk:Greece [[89]] indicate enough reasons that I should be continuously ban and this is the opinion of admin board , I will just walkout …

Who the hell do you think you are Fut. Perf that can decide who is suitable for this project. Better deflate your head and ease on the rank pulling, you're not as good as you think.87.203.99.194 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly is not as good as he thinks and is just misusing his power and his authority

Fut.Perf could you reconsider again, i am not vandale or ordinary user ,propably we do not need to pass again through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and you could just unban me and that is it, no one in wiki deserve so long prohibit period Dodona

Never was any wide consensus to ban me! Dodona

Aetos, Florina et al.

After watching the constant edit warfare over place names in northern Greece, I located a reliable source that includes much verifiable historical information on the small places of Macedonia. The source takes no stand on linguistic issues but is a collation and presentation of primary source information. It seemed to me an excellent resource for providing citations for otherwise citationless articles. Nevertheless, several editors have objected to my handling of this source. Would you be willing to mediate this dispute or at least add an opinion? The relevant discussion may be found at Talk:Aetos,_Florina and in edit summaries at Meliti (village) and Variko. Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Icsunonove

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise
I saw you tried to mediate between Icsunonove and some other editors... well, he hasn't learned from that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 and he is getting more insulting by the minute: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#user:Icsunonove. As you have dealt with him before, could you chip in with your opinion about what to do? thanks, --noclador (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Noclador, your behavior has made me decide to no longer edit on Wikipedia. You accusing me of Italianization and fascism, is the straw the breaks the camel's back. I am Italian and German ethnically, and I've always tried to push for the neutral point of view. I've been at the forefront of always including as many of the multilingual names as possible. If Future Perfect at Sunrise looks at how you were blindly reverting one edit after another on the page of that bridge, calling it "vandalism", I think he'll see why people would get upset. I'm outta here.. you have fun Noclador bringing BZ politics into the encyclopedia. Icsunonove (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New edit in Macedon

now this is new edit of mine, based on this source,what is wrong with it : “Probably less is known of Albania than of any other country in Europe, though Albania is the home of the oldest people of the Balkan Peninsula . In spite of many centuries under foreign rule, they have kept a national feeling and also a language and customs quite different from the people in the neighboring countries. They call their country Shqypnie, or Shqiperia, meaning the Land of the Eagles…So early was their beginning that history and even legend does not tell when they arrived…The Albanian language, which has survived so many centuries, has ever been a puzzle to philologists. Unlike the Greek or Slav of the neighboring countries, it is thought to have come from the primitive Illyrian, the language of Macedonia in the time of Alexander the Great. All attempts of the Serb, Greek and Turk have failed to destroy the Albanians’ love for it. Once, in southern Albania , where some of the people are Albanian Orthodox Christians, the priests taught that it was useless to pray in Albanian for God could not understand it. The Turks forbade giving instruction or printing books in the language…”Source From ‘Peaks of Shala’, by R. Lane (1923): Dodona

Sorry, but if you can't see for yourself what's wrong with this, it only confirms my opinion that it's no use even trying to explain it to you again. This is still the same old type of editing you were banned for. If you can't see this, I really don't know what to say. I'm afraid I'm firmly convinced you are not suited for this project. I and several others have spent months and months explaining to you how to edit productively. I've seen no improvement. Please, Dodona, I'm tired of you. Sorry to be so blunt, but please have the courtesy to accept that I have run out of patience and simply don't wont to be bothered by you again. I'm most certainly not going to take any initiative to have your ban lifted. If you must, you can appeal to the arbitration committee (by e-mail), but don't expect too much from them. For the time being, you still are banned and will remain so. Please don't try editing as you've done during the last few days. Renewed block evasion will destroy even the last chance of return. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite of your opinions this is just a source giving another view ,it is just a secondary source , come on I am sorry to have disappointed you but if this project is not for me then it is not for anyone else ..you are not better and you know it..So since you banned me for just for giving a source no vandalism or any other violation then you just could relieve the ban …and let us make a new start …I feel then despite anything we could have understanding and I remind that you were teacher of mine for some period, I never forget when any one does sth good to me but this can last for ever,please take the effort and release me .. Dodona

i will stop the edits to other places now until we desolve this matter ...Dodona

Glad to hear you'll stop editing, but other than that, there's nothing more to resolve. You've got your answer. It is "no". Do you understand? "No". I don't wish to talk to you further. Talk to the Arbitration Committee if you think your ban is unjust. Until then, please be so kind and not post on this page either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the matter with you…?! The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking,there is no any serious rule breaking ! Let us try some Mediation,will you ?...Dodona

You really don't take "no" for an answer, do you? We don't do mediation with banned users. Banned users get to appeal, yes, and the channel for that is the Arbitration Committee. Now, for the third and hopefully last time, please leave me alone. We can meet for a coffee next time I'm down in the Balkans if you like, but don't contact me on Wikipedia. Have a nice life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a beer!

Whitewashing, attempts at hiding info

Attempts to hide sourced information in the following articles by Slavomacedonian users

Reverts without discussing at talk.

--Xenovatis (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Future. Does this guy have issues or what? I don't know what he's trying to prove with the images, but they sure as hell don't belong on that article. One of the images claims the "pro-Nazi" demonstrations taking place in Sofia are of ethnic Macedonians, even. I also think he uses the word "whitewash" way too much, but that's just me. Köbra | Könverse 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It takes place in Sofia by the "Mazedoiner Befreiungskundgebund", some might consider this an important detail which for some reason kobra neglected to mention. The OHrana must be mentioned in this article since its collaboration unites joined the NOF en masse once the axis withdrew and SNOF continued its policy of attempting to secede. This is amply demonstrated by the several citations and accompanying quotes I suuplied, from books by university presses. The article has multiple issues, including un-encyclopedic language and pov presentation, which is not surprising since it uses mainly partisan, foreign language, sources when there are abundant WP:RS in English. This last point will not go away no matter how muchuser:Köbra and his tag-team reverting buddy user:local_hero would like it to. --Xenovatis (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian symbols

Hello Future, I wanted to discuss a few issues on my mind regarding the Macedonian symbols. At the ethnic Macedonian template, added a symbol used by the Macedonians such as the Macedonian lion or the ancient Macedonian sun is not allowed, using the argument that it is only unofficially used and there is no source proclaiming the amount of its use. At the same time, at the article Macedonia (Greece) there is a flag entitled "Macedonian flag" , even though at the article of Flag of Macedonia (Greece), it states itself that the flag is official with no source, yet at the article of List of Greek Flags it clearly SOURCES that the flag is UNOFFICIAL!

Not only do you have false POV-pushing being allowed at the article Flag of Macedonia (Greece) with no sources, but a double standard is created in which Greeks get to post and make articles for their unofficial symbols, yet Macedonians cannot. Please explain why this is occurring... Mactruth (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not care!!

In case that you feel no shame for keeping me ban without any apparent worth reason , I will not care for you …

If you intention is to insult me and call me what ever only because I give a source more and you in fact should appreciated …why not ?! I do not care and I will continue my role ..! If you use me as reasons to suppress certain ideas and argument, I will remind you the time you could hide a truth is only temporary …You people as conclusion are a waste of time, especially for Albanians..! user:dodona

Dodona, I don't think Future cares what you have to say at this point. As far as I know, he will never ever lift the ban on your account as long as you prove to him with your outbursts that you'll never change your editing habits. Deucalionite (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Slavic diachronic

I know I'm being insolent and I wish I couldn't bother you that much, but we're having a dispute over at Template talk:Slavic diachronic about that controversial graphic in the Slavic languages article. The evolution of the Macedonian language is what's caused the dispute essentially, and we'd use a linguist's opinion on that matter, really. Thanks in advance. Todor →Bozhinov 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, ugly. I remember I saw that page some time ago, shook my head and turned my back on it. Sorry I won't be of much help, but I find the whole basic idea of that template rather problematic, so much so that I'm afraid whatever perceived inconsistencies are currently the focus of debate may well be irredeemable within the framework of assumptions implicit in the overall design. The template implies that there is such a thing as a well-defined historical cutoff point in language history when something becomes a "separate language". Worse, it seems to be inflating two very different notions, that of the historical-linguistic family tree of common descent, and that of the (entirely modern) sociolinguistic notion of "separate-language" status. Bad. Language history (certainly in Europe) simply doesn't work like that. The template is trying to do too many things at once, and both its current wording and, I presume, the objections of those who rail against it are stuck with the perspective of that prime old vice of the Wikipedian approach to history: an utterly naive stance of reification of modern social constructs. This naive reification is the way teenage nerds who get their history knowledge from second-rate nationalistic discourse think about history. It never works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing. The template is bound to fail the way it is. Perhaps the best move would be to remove it outright, preferably delete it entirely and just forget about it. It's meant to be illustrative and explanative, but instead it's confusing and impossible to get right.

If you decide to retire it from use or delete it, you have my support. And thanks again. Todor →Bozhinov 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unmerge Macedonia and Macedonians

Fut. what are you doing? Considering that it is you who merged the Macedonians (Greek) article to the regional one I find it bad form that you claim it is "the same" article. I'm guessing then that you have no issue now of a proper Macedonians (Greek) article since we cannot have two links to the same article? You can't have it both ways you know.--Avg (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. We had a looooong discussion of this just a few weeks ago. What's the point in reviving this now? I have nothing else to say about it at this point: A separate article can be written if there is content for one (which there never was). Writing one just as a pretext for having more links to it is the height of stupidity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just expecting then that you will not revert when I start adding content to the article. I actually have two books by my side about Greek Macedonians, which I just got from Amazon.--Avg (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I reserve judgment on whether that will indeed be the exercise in futility I was describing or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you

Could you look over User:Dc76's edits at Moldovenism: diff including also minor bot edits? Despite the fact that the AfD established that this term is used only by a minority and only to refer to a certain attitude in post-Soviet Moldova, Dc76 has transformed the article in yet another personal essay about how Moldovans are a diabolic creation of the Soviets to deprive the Romanians of their historical fate. This is not the only non-NPOV work he has done here (which goes as far as creating articles about ad-hoc relief superunits, nonexistent in geographical literature, just to prove a point, as he did at Moldavian Plateau), so somebody acquainted with this subject, but neutral, should look into it.Xasha (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

Could you please take a look at 1, 2 and 3? Balkan Fever 16:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me one second to save the Fair Use rationale and re-upload and then go ahead and delete.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize that. The third one is from a daily newspaper Apogevmatini, Saturday 15 March 2008. 1 I will look for the others, untill then I am only re-uploading the third. The fair use rationale is in line with other non-free historic images. The pictures, at least some of them, should be used in both the Ohrana and NOF articles as many members of the former joined the later and fought with the same nationalist and secessionist objectives. Please take a moment to look at the plentiful academic citations provided to that effect on the NOF article.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-uploaded 3 with source. Feel free to remove the others and I will get back to you if and when I locate the sources. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any problem with this one?--Xenovatis (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This explains a lot

This explains a lot.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While this probably doesn't help neighbourly relations.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A favor please?

Hi Future, would you mind doing me a favor? When you block one of the ever-persistent VivaNorthCyprus socks, would you mind putting the {{sockpuppetProven|VivanNorthCyprus}} tags on the user page? That will help me continue compiling this user's edit patterns so that detection will be easier. Many thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

Hi!

I know I bothered you before with this and I apologize if I haven't taken your hesitation to respond as a clear sign that you're not interested in dealing with crap like this. GriffinSB is someone who pops into Wikipedia every few days or so and, in my opinion, tries to inflame an already volatile political situation with polemical soapboxing. Others may disagree with me but I believe that his contributions to this website contain zero valuable additions of any kind and lots of crap like this that he did today after his last hiatus. This is not an attempt to improve anything nor to start a helpful discussion.

Again, I apologize if this is something you want nothing to do with but I'm just following up because I messaged you about the same problem with this editor several months ago and little has changed.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

about warrning

all my contributions are well sourced.i don't know what are you talking about.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

the map

I don`t know how to edit it, but i can explain it:-)
The rivers: The one in the south is Vjosa/Aoos, the second one in the middle, is Devoll and the third one, which is straight ahead Lake Ohrid is Shkumbin river.
On mountains, there is only one that should be mentioned, Mount Korab, the highest in ALbania, 2571m, which is located in the albanian side of the border, in the opposite of Debar, and maybe also Mount Gramoz, which is in the border with Greece.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

cham dance

How can be an argument for being "the english version", when the results on google, showed that every page was not-english, or translated-to-english? Discuss, before removing the pages.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Muhamet Kycyku

I haven`t used anywhere else, but I saw, that Elsie has given permission about his work here. Is it still a copyviolation?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on Cham Albanians, but please on Muhamet Kycyku, is it a copyviolation, since Elsie has given permission?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, difficult. On the Scribd website where I found it, he is releasing it only under cc-nc, (non-commercial), which wouldn't be good enough for us. I can see that his e-mail (GFDL for the articles, though not for the books) does seem to cover this article. On the other hand, though, the article was first published in an academic journal in 1992, so most likely the author isn't actually free to give away such licenses - normally, the economic rights are given to the publisher of the journal on publication. (Here's the publisher's website on this issue: [90]). So, I appreciate you were actually careful to do the right thing here, but I'd still say, it'll be safer if you can re-work the material in such a way that your text becomes an independent work and just cite Elsie as a source. In any case, you should of course cite the publication correctly. (In your article, I think you only had a "further reading" entry, naming a different publication.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, restore the page, with the first 2 sentences and I`ll try to rewritte it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

Your map is marvellous. Is that chap's tutorial available in English, par chance ? Hxseek (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not yet, I'm afraid. And it's quite a bit of stuff to explain, so rewriting it in English will be a bit of work. If you want a particular map, I might be able to help and do the topographical background for you. (One thing that would be easy at this point would be an enlarged part of the present map just focussing on the R.o.M., if that's something you have a need for.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kiss in the cheek

Somebody recommended me, to give you an award for your wonderful work.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for the history of Macedonian towns and villages

Future Perfect, would you be willing to comment on a dispute about a source I have used for the history of several Macedonian places? One user has objected to my handling of Vassiliki Kravari's Villes et villages de Macédoine occidentale, a reliable source published in Paris as part of the series Réalités byzantines. The book uses primary sources, in most cases documents from monastic and Ottoman archives, to establish the history of Macedonian settlements prior to 1500. The objection seems to stem from Ms. Kravari's transliteration of the names written in these documents.

As an example I can offer the following two version of the same line, first mine and then his:

First mentioned in an Ottoman defter of 1481, the village, then known as Ajtos, had fifty-nine households and produced vines and walnuts.<ref> [91]

A village is first mentioned in an 1481 Ottoman defter and its name is transliterated in a modern 1989 study as Ajtos, a settlement of fifty-nine households which produced vines and walnuts.<ref> [92]

I believe the latter is a highly unorthodox way of dealing with a secondary source on Wikipedia and constitutes a sophistic trivialization of Kravari's work, subtly implying that the name recorded in the defter somehow differs from her transliteration.

The dispute has escalated to the point of personal attacks and unfounded allegations of bad faith [93] [94] [95]. The relevant discussion may be found at Talk:Aetos,_Florina and in edit summaries at Meliti (village), Variko, Kato Kleines, Perasma, and Olymbias. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a conversation

At first, I was fulled with anger for you. Now I recovered myself. And I think this is a good opportunity for me to look back on myself. I think I was very very childish.

We need conversations, and I think we should have talks. Now the blocked issue is my version more than 4 days, and talk page too. It seems not good for you, but it doesn't become good for me. So I propose to talk about mutual misunderstanding. I know you dislike me well. So I want to talk with you. Wikipedia is good place to meet different view persons, like you and me.

Please, reply. --Bukubku (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you want. This is not about different points of view. It's about me trying to make sure that people who have nothing else in mind here on Wikipedia but to push their national points of view don't spoil our articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, now I read this page. I said about you other pages. Now I'm buzy. My reply is next time.--Bukubku (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your contributions. I know you try as hard as you can do as Admin. Now you did good work related Europe. However there are some misunderstanding related Asia.

Misunderstanding

For example,

1.Comfort women: I provided some sources

Ex-Prostitutes Say South Korea and U.S. Enabled Sex Trade Near Bases New York times
Mini-interview 'Korean army comfort women' issue raised by Dr. gimgwiok "We know some of the puzzle" South Korean News Paper Ilyosisa (Google Translate)
South Korean researchers announced the Korean military comfort women system during the Korean War Japanes News Paper Asahi Shimbun (Google Translate).

2. Korea under Japanese rule: I deleted unsourced false content[96], and added sourced reliable contents(the source is Marius B. Jansen (April 1989). The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 5 The Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521223563)[97]. This is very bad case, this is similar to say Great Purge was commited by Germans. Political figures engaged in modernization with foreign diplomacy were assassinated by Koreans. OK? I don't deny Japanese killed many Koreans, but they are not political figures engaged in modernization. They were killed by Koreans.
3. Yaeko Taguchi. One user told like that rv by John Smith's (talk) the woman is almost unknown in South Korea and reverted.[98] However, look the page Yaeko Taguchi, most sources are South Korean News Paper Chosun Ilbo.

Japanese Abduction Victim Still Alive, Says KAL Bomber South Korean News Paper Chosun Ilbo
"내 일어(日語)선생 이은혜가 다구치 맞다" 조선일보

(Google Translate)[99] South Korean News Paper Chosun Ilbo Korean version

金贤姬：我日语老师是被北韩绑架的田口八重子朝鲜日报中文网

(Google Translate)[100] South Korean News Paper Chosun Ilbo Chinese version

「母を紡ぐ」息子の思い産経新聞

(Google Translate)[101] Japanese News Paper Sankei Shinbun

Suspected Abduction Cases by North Korea "Lee Un Hae" Case National Police Agency

And she was abducted by North Koreans, not South Koreans.

They are not my POV.

harassment

I was harassed by banned socks Lakshmix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[102] and unknow IP user the IP location is South Korea.[103] Sorry, I don't know in full about the word "Nazi". Is undesirable word in common?

additional sources

1.Comfort women:

Former sex workers in fight for compensation South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 30, 2008
Openly revealing a secret life South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily July 31, 2005

These source supports NYtimes.

2.Yaeko Taguchi:

Spy could shed light on fate of abducted Japanese South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily January 30, 2009.
Japan seeks S. Korea's help in confirming fate of woman abducted by Pyongyang South Korean News Paper Yonhap News Agency 2009/01/30
Fmr. Agent May Meet Abductee Family South Korean KBS WORLD
Don't betray abductees, Tokyo warned United Kingdom News Paper Guardian
List of Kidnapped Japanese Japan’s List of Citizens Officially Suspected Kidnapped by North Korea United States ABC News
Koichiro Iizaka, son of Yaeko Taguchi United States USA TODAY
Ouders van gekidnapte Japanners voelen zich bedot Dutch AD Nieuwsmedia April 10, 2002

(Google Translate)[104]

Eine Nation in Tränen German Die Weltwoche September 26, 2002

(Google Translate)[105]

Cases of Abduction recognised by the Government of Japan Secretariat, Headquarters for the Abduction Issue, Government of Japan

These sources shows she is well-known person and her abduction is Diplomatic issue.

New York Times (January 8 2009) Ex-Prostitutes Say South Korea and U.S. Enabled Sex Trade Near Bases

My edition [106]

“

Now women who were coerced into prostitution for the United States military by South Korean or American officials, accuse successive Korean governments of hypocrisy in calling for reparations from Japan while refusing to take a hard look at South Korea’s own history.

”

New York Times

“

Now, a group of former prostitutes in South Korea have accused some of their country’s former leaders of a different kind of abuse: encouraging them to have sex with the American soldiers who protected South Korea from North Korea. They also accuse past South Korean governments, and the United States military, of taking a direct hand in the sex trade from the 1960s through the 1980s, working together to build a testing and treatment system to ensure that prostitutes were disease-free for American troops.

While the women have made no claims that they were coerced into prostitution by South Korean or American officials during those years, they accuse successive Korean governments of hypocrisy in calling for reparations from Japan while refusing to take a hard look at South Korea’s own history.

”

“

In one of the most incendiary claims, some women say that the American military police and South Korean officials regularly raided clubs from the 1960s through the 1980s looking for women who were thought to be spreading the diseases. They picked out the women using the number tags the women say the brothels forced them to wear so the soldiers could more easily identify their sex partners.

The Korean police would then detain the prostitutes who were thought to be ill, the women said, locking them up under guard in so-called monkey houses, where the windows had bars. There, the prostitutes were forced to take medications until they were well.

The women, who are seeking compensation and an apology, have compared themselves to the so-called comfort women who have won widespread public sympathy for being forced into prostitution by the Japanese during World War II. Whether prostitutes by choice, need or coercion, the women say, they were all victims of government policies.

”

Die Weltwoche (September 26, 2002) Eine Nation in Tränen

“

Die aus Saitama entführte Yaeko Taguchi verstarb 1986, 30-jährig. Sie soll jener Agentin Japanisch beigebracht haben, die am Attentat gegen ein südkoreanisches Verkehrsflugzeug beteiligt war und in Seoul dafür verurteilt wurde. In ihrem Prozess identifizierte die Agentin Taguchi als ihre Lehrerin auf der Spionageakademie in Pjöngjang. Hatte Taguchi ihre Aufgabe erfüllt? Wurde sie nicht mehr gebraucht?

”

This source shows us she is also known in German.
This source is bit old.

Please don't stick German old imformation, please read English latest sources.--Bukubku (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

In some cases, I made mistakes, sorry. However, I tryed not to push my POV as possible as I could. Please watch me, if you find my mistakes, please notice me and talk with me on the article Talk page.--Bukubku (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I learned from my block, edition warring issues should not revert 2 times in a day. My action was very disruptive. Your block teach me lot. Please release topic ban. --Bukubku (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you seem to live in Europe, so you are not familiar with Asia. There is nothing wrong. I am not familiar with Europe in like wise. Our misunderstanding come from our living place.--Bukubku (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read, there is only a misunderstanding between you and me.--Bukubku (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Free blocks for everyone...

I hope you're feeling generous. I've lost count of how many times the 3RR has been violated here. Köbra | Könverse 04:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Church in Korçë.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Church in Korçë.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoring an article deleted by PROD

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, what should I do to try to get Illyrian words with Albanian cognates restored? I don't have the text and I don't have any notes from that article. I think the article should be recreated as an actual valuable addition to Wikipedia. A from L.A. (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of why I think we need the article [107]. It's too much for Albanian language and I suppose it could be worked into Illyrian languages, but what's so bad about a specific little article? A from L.A. (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, I've restored and userfied it to User:Alex contributing/Illyrian words with Albanian cognates. Since it was indeed not properly sourced, I think it may in fact not be suitable for mainspace in its present form, but there's no harm in you having it around somewhere where you can work on it if you like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't even have any notes from that article. I plan on getting that article back together soon. I want it to be expanded to the point where it would be too unweildy for Illyrian languages. A from L.A. (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hasan Tahsini

You`re probably right, about the photo. I just noticed that they have the same photo. I will have to find a public domain photo of Hasan Tahsin, when he was aged, in order to make e clear difference. The photo I had used was of Hasan Tahsini, the albanian guy, according to the references I had, but the references may be wrong. Thanks, for the clarification.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Question:Albanian law on author rights says that "materials from newspapers and periodicals are not protected by the law". Does this mean that they are public domain?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I searched in my archive and i found this photo, which was taken a few moments after the Cham march.JPG photo. But, I do not like this one, and i prefer Cham march.JPG. Can you restore it, or you are still not conviced that it is my photo.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, can you answer to me, on the two issues above. And also, can you have a look on Cham Albanians article, and give me an opinion, on what the article needs, what should be expanded, what section contains more info than it needs, and what else should I add or edit? Thanks!Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

About your questions: I can't find that specific statement in the English translation of Albanian copyright law here [108]. To be sure, that translation is very poor, and in some parts hardly readable English, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. There is a passage about "free use" of some press material for certain purposes, in a section dealing with what is basically the local equivalent of US Fair use, but its exact meaning remains rather opaque to me. It does seem to be rather similar to the corresponding articles in the copyright laws of many other Eastern European countries adopted after 1990 that I've looked at. Those generally do not amount to anything like "public domain" status though, so I don't think we can assume it here.

About the Cham march photo, okay, I'll restore it, on the evidence that it does seem to be your camera. (You got the same model as your friend?) But do keep in mind what I told you about not declaring historic photographs and other stuff as self-made.

About Hasan Tahsini, if the one you mean is the guy who lived 1821-1883 or thereabouts, I'm pretty sure the guy in the photograph can't be him – that's early 20th-century garb he's wearing, not mid-19th century. Seems more like the Turkish guy. There are some old photographs of the Albanian guy, apparently, showing him as an old man with a beard and oriental clothes.

About the Cham article, I haven't read it carefully. First thing is, I think it needs a good bit of copyediting for proper English and style, and probably a few touches on NPOV too. I already mentioned my pet peeve about over-linking, right? Please don't mechanically link every instance of "Albanian" or "Greece" or whatever. One link to each target article, when it's first mentioned, is usually quite enough.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Violotta and such

Hi, thanks for your note. Unfortunately, for File:Violotta.jpg, I cannot prove that there is no other free alternative for this instrument. As for the other photos, I uploaded them before I had any idea about how image licensing worked, and it is unlikely that they are actually GFDL licensed. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

R.o.Macedonia_topography.svg

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. I briefly checked your draft map, and here are my notes so far:

Towns and Cities to be added: Negotino, Demir Kapija, Kavadarci, Berovo, Kratovo, Probištip, Kočani, Vinica, Dojran, Resen, Struga, Kičevo, Makedonski Brod, Demir Hisar, Bogdanci, Novo Selo (near Strumica), Makedonska Kamenica.
Highway Kumanovo-Skopje-Veles-Negotino-Demir Kapija-Gevgelija-Greece
Highway Skopje-Tetovo-Gostivar, which continues as a normal motorway to Ohrid

I think my father has information on all roads in R.M., including length of road, type, designation etc. Send me an e-mail, I'll forward it to you as soon as possible. --Misos (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found something online [109] --Misos (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll collect the comments and work them in as soon as I find time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Pov pushing

Your edits in the Greek genocide article are unhelpfull and encourage the single pov pusher that is disrupting long-standing consensus. Please desist from this disruptive behavior and consult the article's talk page. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with that article and its talkpage, thank you very much. The article is in such an ugly state that I avoid touching it. The "long-standing consensus" is itself the consensus of notorious POV-pushers, and about the problematic nature of the title, that other "single pov pusher" is simply right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV

Hi Fut Perf, been a while since we interacted. I hadn't seen that you had closed the NC DRV when I wiped it and for some reason didn't get an edit conflict. My apologies for riding over your action but it was inadvertent.Given their behaviour I haven't reverted because I don't want to reward this bloke but feel free to undo my action if you prefer to keep the DRV as closed opposed to never was. Best wishes Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, obviously :-) Just keep him out some way or other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thyamis translations

Hi, what would be the practice with mentioning the Albanian, Aromanian, Slavic dialects of Greece, and Turkish names of Thyamis in the Thyamis article? I think local variations (within Greek or from neighboring languages) are relevant enough to be mentioned. So far I know of Thyamis (Greek), Kalamas (Greek), and Çam (Albanian and Albanian dialects). A Turkish name for the river would not be as relevant but of historical interest. For all I know the Albanian "Çam" relfects a transmission through a Slavic or Vlach language rather than directly from Greek. I was wondering whether the Greek θ-->Albanian ç correspondance was common, but it may be rare: I haven't found another case yet but I've just begun searching. In Romanian I know of only one case, cimbru/thymbra, and it is an obscure case. A from L.A. (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A job for you

Since you love putting tags on Wikipedias that are completely unknown for you, take a look here and here. And explain to us this template that is used and this category. Have a fun while putting tags. -- MacedonianBoy ^Oui? 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[1] (I'm very partial to halva, for one thing, and partially stitched together too.)

[1]