User talk:NikoSilver/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Weak analogy

How we refer to ourselves and how we refer to others are quite different issues. Pointing like this is likely to inflame, rather than resolve. I'm not going to push it with you, but I think you are usually more careful. You might consider (I won't fuss if you don't) removing the edit from AN. You might also consider reminding Kekrops to be more careful with his words; he is more likely to listen to you than to others. But that's up to you. I've raised it - I'll leave you to decide what you will or will not do. Jd2718 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate why it is weak. In my view, the two reasons in this case are not at all different: They both regard self-identification. Just like ethnic Macedonians, the Macedonians (Greek) are offended when "their"/their name is not used for them. NikoSilver 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One activity is interpreted as name-calling. The other is not. That makes the analogy weak. Jd2718 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Name calling? "New Yorker"? Oh, come on! PS: the other activity is interpreted as "impersonation". How about the analogy now? NikoSilver 22:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And regardless, the reason why someone may be offended is irrelevant to the (well cited) fact that he actually is. And the Greeks are. Are you making judgment on this? (I'm not making on them). NikoSilver 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW if Kekrops is offended, he is not in any way entitled to offend. However, I see no intended offense by Kekrops. He is merely using the prevailing terminology in his country (just like the others are doing without him complaining). To give you a recent example of the vast usage of Skopje/an in Greece, see this latest article from the accredited Greek News site "SKAI News".[1] I can furnish thousands more, and I can quote hundreds of Greek officials as well. NikoSilver 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a peak in Greek governmental sites: [2] (helpful translation by Google). Are you accusing an entire nation of being blasphemous? NikoSilver 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting blocked (at work) from these, but I see the opening line on Google. In the English translations, they are using "Skopje" in place of FYROM. It's ugly (just my opinion) but probably not offensive. Especially in diplomatic affairs, a capital is often used in place of the country's name. I got a happy handful of hits with the phrase "Bonn declined," making sure my memory wasn't faulty. I think "skopian" is quite a different story. Do the translations use that as well? Jd2718 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly that's why I'm saying that it simply can't be offensive. But Greeks use that both for the city, and for the state. We do so in everyday speech, we do so in the media, our government uses it everywhere, etc. See fourth link: "Ultimately not adjacent USA Skopje, but Greece with Skopje." (that should have been translated as "Ultimately, it's not the USA that borders Skopje, but Greece that borders Skopje.") I am not aware of the exact magnitude of the Skopje municipality, but I assure you it doesn't go all the way across the whole country. :-) It is simply the least ugly option that us poor Greeks can use to describe that nation. And the other side always tries to exploit the alleged "offense" issue to promote its (partly irredentist, partly falsifying, partly unhistoric) agenda of "only Macedonia". Please don't bite. NikoSilver 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But there's a world of difference between using the capital as the name of the country, which is common, and using the adjective form to name the people, which is different, and which sounds perjorative. Jd2718 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not intended to sound pejorative. It is intended to sound different from the the common one in Greece. It is the "politically correct" term in Greece, and the most frequent, because of the exact reason that it cannot possibly offend. See this official search (transl.) and this huge unofficial one (transl.) . As I said, everything else than "Macedonians" will be labeled "offensive" so as to promote an un-disambiguated solution. By analogy, if Greeks did the same for their own (which they do not -see this ref), then I'm sure you would support them too. But then what would you mean if you said "Macedonians"? Who would understand you? NikoSilver 10:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll post these at AN too. NikoSilver 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cretan Turks

Being a devoted Wikipedian...could use this link...on Cunda Cretans...

http://www.sfakia-crete.com/forum/read.php?1,1341 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gospe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Γεια, Νίκο! Την πηγή την αφαίρεσα γιατί υπάρχουν ήδη δύο από ιστορικούς και εκείνη φαίνεται να εστιάζει περισσότερο στο Σκοπιανό και διάφορες αντιλήψεις σχετικά με την αρχαία Μακεδονική ιστορία, αλλά επίσης δεν είμαι σίγουρος αν είναι και από έγκριτο ιστορικό. Θα σε πειράξει πολύ αν την αφαιρέσουμε απ'το άρθρο; 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Όχι, δεν θα με πειράξει (τα φασόλια πειράζουν). Όμως, o άνθρωπος αναφέρει για την Ελληνικότητα των Αρχαίων Μακεδόνων, και της γλώσσας τους, που είναι άλλη μια πτυχή του θέματος. Δηλαδή, οι δύο επικρατούσες θεωρίες είναι οτι (α) οι ηγεμόνες της Αρχαίας Μακεδονίας ήταν Έλληνες, και (β) όλοι οι Αρχαίοι Μακεδόνες ήταν Έλληνες. Ο Τέμπλαρ είναι από αυτούς που υποστηρίζουν τη δεύτερη θεωρία. Δεν γνωρίζω το πόσο έγκριτος είναι, οπότε εκεί μπορεί να βρίσκεται ένας λόγος αφαίρεσής του, παρά το ότι τον βρήκα στο Γκούγκλ Σκόλαρ. Αλλά μέχρι να βρούμε οτι δεν είναι έγκριτος ή μέχρι να βρούμε κάποιον περισσότερο έγκριτο, θεωρώ οτι πρέπει να παραμείνει για να παρουσιάζεται και αυτή η εκδοχή στο άρθρο. Τι λές? NikoSilver 14:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Μπα, προπαγάνδα των Αλέκων (1ου και 3ου) τα περί Ελληνικότητας των Αργεάδων =P. Εντάξει, ας τ'αφήσουμε, δεν τρέχει τίποτα. Απλά επειδή έχουμε ήδη δύο ιστορικούς που αναφέρονται σε Ελληνικότητα και το Templar άρθρο ασχολείται αρκετά -και- με σύγρονα πολιτικά ζητήματα το αφαίρεσα μια και μπορεί να θεωρηθεί ως -Ελληνική- προπαγάνδα περί του Σκοπιανού. Χαζομάρα ίσως αλλά δε θέλουν και πολλά οι γείτονες στη wiki για ν'αρπαχτούν (τι βλέπουν τα μάτια του ανθρώπου). Όμως, δε φαίνεται να του δίνουν σημασία. ΥΓ: πφτ κρυάδες. σουβλακοφάγε. =P 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Γεια και χαρα!

Επανερχομενος υστερα απο μηνες απουσιας παρατηρησα οτι ο administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise εχει κανει revert edit στο talk page μου σ'ενα σχολιο ενος αλλου χρηστη προς εμενα...:[3] Ειναι θεμιτο αυτο?Helladios (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Όχι μόνον θεμιτό, αλλά και επιβεβλημένο. Δες τις συν(εισ)φορές του χρήστη που στο άφησε, και θα καταλάβεις ότι είναι κραυγαλέα παραβίαση του WP:SPAM. Το δε περιεχόμενο του μηνύματος περί "συστράτευσης" κλπ, απαγορεύεται ρητά από το WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND και άλλες πολιτικές. Τέλος, ο χρήστης που σου το άφησε, ήταν μπλοκαρισμένος (όπως ομολογεί στο μήνυμά του) και σου έγραψε παραβιάζοντας το WP:SOCK και το WP:BAN, οπότε, το μοναδικό που μπορούσε να κάνει ο Fut.Perf. ήταν να κάνει εφαρμογή του Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion and enforcement. NikoSilver 19:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Πλήρως κατανοητό, ευχαριστώ. Και κάτι ακόμη, πως μπορώ να αλλάξω το user name μου? Helladios (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Εύκολα στο WP:CHU. Διάβασε τις οδηγίες εκεί. NikoSilver 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Γειά κι απο μενα -ειμαι καινουργιος- και μπράβο για τις συνεισφορές σου στα Ελληνικά θέματα.. αν και σε βρισκω λιγο αμυντικο/μαλθακο ως προς το Σκοπιανό. Παντως πιστευω οτι ξερεις απο που προερχεται η προπαγανδα και η ψευδοεπιστημη. Μπορεις να με βρεις κι εκει >http://www.youtube.com/user/FygeApoDoReVromokole

> http://www.myspace.com/280304981 DefendEurope (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Μαλθακός ή απλώς διπλωμάτης; ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TSQUAD.

Not sure if you want to join or not, seeing as you're busy. · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slavomacedonian

An editor has nominated Slavomacedonian, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavomacedonian and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

replied there. Anton Tudor (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Slavic toponyms for Greek places

Please have a look and advise in the article Slavic toponyms for Greek places. I have requested it’s deletion and it is up for voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places#Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places I have detailed reasons of the problems of this article and why I request its deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places#Request_for_Deletion If you like advise and participate. Your opinion is welcomed Seleukosa (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To fellow Macedonian (either) stalkers (and other concerned friends)...

I'm really tired of foolish debates in article talk-pages, and I think they are unproductive for the articles themselves. I suffer from insomnia right now, I'm a little bit drunk, and have to wake up early tomorrow, so I'll post this and then drop dead until tomorrow when I'll find your comments here. Don't take the following quiz as a personal proposal or something, I just want to feel the psych of each side (and thirds)...

• Q1: Would you accept a solution to the Macedonia naming dispute of the form:
  • Macedonia, for the country (pronounced MaSedonia)
  • Makedonia, for the Greek province (pronounced MaKedonia)

• Q2: Would you feel the K/S sound difference would be enough for the disambiguation concerns?

To the fellow Greeks who will jump to kill me, to my awareness, the Greek letter "κ", in "Μακεδονία", has never and could have never been pronounced as "s". A linguist may correct me if I'm wrong (and add the correct IPA symbols above while at it). (Clarification: not for WP but for RL) NikoSilver 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The short answers are no and no. The long answer is that your proposal is problematic because it is Anglocentric. The name is pronounced with a palatalised [kʲ] sound in both Greek and Slavic, so your proposed Makedonia for the Greek region is actually much closer to the Slavic Makedonija than the English Macedonia is. Furthermore, the Latinised form Macedonia was used for an indisputably Greek region for several centuries before the arrival of the Slavs, so why should the Greeks be the ones who have to give it up and not the other side? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One, probably. Two,probably not. As to a Hellenocentric pronunciation - Μακεδονία and Μακεντονία. Still trying to figure out a Macedonian language phonetic disambiguation. And Kekrops, the word "Macedonia" was pronounced with a /k/ sound in Latin - so you are arguing based on aesthetics, not phonetics. "Macedonia" in English can only be pronounced one way - /s/. We could also have Makedonia versus Makethonia for the closest pronunciations. One last thing :), it is simply a /k/ in Slavic. Otherwise it would be Маќедонија. BalkanFever 10:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the Greek transcription of Македонија would be Μακεντόνια or the even uglier Μακεντόνιγια. Your point about the Latin pronunciation of Macedonia suggests you agree with me that phonetics is entirely arbitrary, ergo unsatisfactory as a medium of disambiguation. Nikos's proposal could only apply to English, unless you're going to change your constitutional name to Република Маседонија accordingly. And how would you transliterate the Greek Makedonia to Cyrillic? Македонија is the only conceivable option, and that is exactly how the name entered the Slavic languages. As for th, it is only the English rendition of the voiced dental fricative; in Spanish it is simply d. Then again, Spanish lacks intervocalic [d] altogether; it is always fricated to [ð] (or the corresponding approximant if you want to be really technical). And I don't see how you can pronounce [k] before [e] without palatalisation. Would Македонија and Маќедонија really sound any different, apart from the dialects in which the latter would be pronounced with a ch sound? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A Hispanocentric version would be again based on the "C" - Macedonia [maθeðonija] or [maseðonija] for the country and Makedonia IPA: [makeðonija] for the Greek region. Sorry for my crappy Greek transcription, I merely changed δ to ντ. In regards to the name change, that would mean the correct romanisation, in any language, would be an "s", not a "c", so no, because then Macedonia and Masedonia are pronounced the same. And in Macedonian language phonology there is a tendency for [kʲ] to become[jkʲ] as in куќа [kujkʲa]. Even without that, there is slight difference, which most speakers can pick up on. To transliterate the Greek to Cyrillic, one could use "Македониа" which does not follow orthographic conventions or "Македоња" (if the νι is the palatalised /ɲ/) - actually, since you mentioned it - "Маќедонија" can also work. BalkanFever 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All this is of course purely hypothetical, as Greece has made quite clear that it won't accept Macedonia in any form without some degree of disambiguation. If the argument was merely over the linguistic variant of the name, the matter would have been settled in 2001 when the International Crisis Group suggested that Republika Makedonija be used internationally in its untranslated form, along the lines of Belarus (rather than Byelorussia) and Moldova (rather than Moldavia). Greece rejected the proposal out of hand. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And no, νι is not palatalised because the stress falls on the penultimate syllable (Μακεδονία). Μακεντόνια could, however, end up being pronounced Македоња in Greek if the self-identifying Slavic form becomes part of the internationally established term for the country, e.g. Република Нова Македонија > Ρεπούμπλικα Νόβα Μακεντόνια, pronounced Репу(м)блика Нова Маке(н)доња. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's hypothetical, I'm just illustrating that it is possible to set up phonetic conventions for such a disambiguation, which can probably be specifically tailored to most languages. Anyway, this discussion has improved my Greek phonology, which is a good thing. BalkanFever 09:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Greek Godfather wannabees, please forget about "giving", "agreeing" or "accepting" how Macedonians call themselves and their country. It is none of your business. The time of political blackmails and briberies is in the past, and gone. If you want to avoid the humilliation and misery you imposed on yourselves by raising the name issue, be smart enough to have it closed ASAP. And, it was not about the name anyway, it was about the very existence of the country and the people of MACEDONIA. Cheers, Crnorizec (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a Godfather. OK, if it's none of our business, then why are you so itchy about it? Let it be as it already is. Right? I don't think so... NikoSilver 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Think twice! You are on the wrong side. You're next on that map!Crnorizec (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to think twice; we are already in. Well, ok, if you insist, then let's leave it as it is. No change. OK? NikoSilver 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could have left it as it was 15 years ago.....BalkanFever 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bah... Idiotic Greek nationalism! I saw General Gryllakis yesterday in a political talk show on ANT1. He said that under his capacity of special adviser to PM Mitsotakis, he had agreed with Kiro Gligorov on the term "Slavomacedonia" back then, "which they very much wanted". Too bad all other political parties back then chose the hard stance of "no Macedonia in the title". (so maybe I should say "idiotic Greek exploitation of nationalism for political gains"...) Is that what you meant BF? NikoSilver 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The sad state of events is that now we think nostalgically of the old generation of Slavic Macedonian leaders as Kiro Gligorov, the very same one we were denouncing with our nationalist cries back in 1992. This new generation of 30 somethings does not understand diplomacy.--   Avg    23:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is, anything applicable/considerable back then is useless today. BalkanFever 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the name is non-negotiable. Do you really think your strategy will fly? Or do you think that these and these and these guys care about who-came-where 1000 or so years ago? A thought: How about calling Greece Dinosaurland, because they were there first? And, talking about diplomacy, you are playing for the wrong side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crnorizec (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you skipped the news Crnorizec, the name IS negotiable and your government has entered the negotiations.--   Avg    00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec): It is the very name that is under negotiation. Those others indeed care to create as much trouble as possible in the neighborhood. That should worry you more. (And no, on Kosovo Greece is not taking sides yet. I bet your stance will play a role. We'll see.) NikoSilver 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And for the very illustrative "Dinasaurland", Greece wouldn't do that, because the whole planet was. Greece would call itself Grecodinosaurlandia. Nobody disputes you are Macedonians. You just aren't the only ones. But you seem to ignore the others around you. Why not go name yourselves Balkania and therefore claim a wider region? :-) NikoSilver 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same. But it should be done step by step. _{And it should be a secret}. But they were all of them deceived ... a master ring was forged :)--Laveol ^T 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It was news in 1992 Avg, now it's an old dull story and you are in the way with it. NATO is not about you or us being beautiful, it is about these guys spending money and spreading democracy. And Nikos, we don't name ourselves otherwise because it's our name.Crnorizec (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a point Crno... I really don't know who's better off: Us that belong in this "spreading of democracy" (aka "international anarchy"), or you that is going to stay out of it. NikoSilver 11:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing Balkanians are good at is Balkanizing. BalkanFever 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it isn't only self-inflicted. NikoSilver 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... Do you see a new non-self-inflicted PM of Greece in the works here? (It wouldn't be the first time for Greece...)Crnorizec (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bre priatelio Crno! Why can't you admit the same for your own PM who refuses to negotiate it completely and goes back to his original position, despite Nimetz's proposal? I mean, now that Greece has retreated from the original (indeed unfair IMO) position of "no Macedonia in the title", and now that she accepts a "composite name", bre how the hell do you expect to convince the international community that you do not accept a solution of the form of e.g. "New Macedonia"? Who the hell is going to believe that it is "offensive"? Don't you feel the pressure from the Americans and from the Europeans? NikoSilver 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I shout: YOU ARE MACEDONIANS! Please admit that YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY MACEDONIANS and let's be friends for ever! We need each other dammit! NikoSilver 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference Niko, is that we use this name to describe the ethnicity and from there our country, and you don't. If you want to call yourself Macedonian, I have no problem with that. It's the same case with the Americans, they are not the only ones in America, are they? Furhermore, the word Macedonia in any context could only be whispered in Greece until 1989-1990. Since when is the SKG airport called MAKEDONIA? And the ministry, and..... Crnorizec (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard so many times this story about Macedonia not used as a name before 1990. Did you guys read that in any of your objective schoolbooks? I can't understand how this keeps surfacing because it is beyond ridiculous. Macedonia was an integral part of Greece and an official province from the first time it was liberated in 1913 and Northern Greeks were calling themselves Macedonians for centuries. Regarding the two examples you mention, the ministry was renamed in 1985 just after PASOK won the elections for the second time in order to promote decentralisation and it's only the airport that was renamed in 1993, after your provocations. --Avg (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Crno I can confirm the above 100%. The (Greek) Macedonia existed in all schoolbook maps since my father's time. Venizelos expanded Greece by incorporating Macedonia. Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia is all my parents and grandparents heard and what they called that freaking province since ages. Why would we have "whispered" it? What is the crazy reason behind this? Do you want maps linked here? Do you want me to show you freakin' Greek newspapers by the name "Macedonia" that existed even before 1913 and continue to exist? Who says this unbelievable bull? Read regions of Greece, to see that, in fact, the Greek Macedonia as an administrative division was combined with Thrace in 1987! Which means that it was separate and alone, precisely UNTIL the time you say we were "whispering" it! NikoSilver 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And, no, Crno. "Americans" call their country officially the "United States". Not "America". Nor do the Swedish call their country "Scandinavia". Neither do the Portuguese call their country "Iberia". NikoSilver 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The closest example that ever existed is the Republic of Ireland. But then again, the Republic has the most (5/6ths) of the island, while you have the least of the region. And it is those who call themselves Irish; the Northern ones are British. And also, I'm not particularly fond of the example they set in terms of precious stability and peace. See The Troubles, see British Isles (terminology), see the intro of Northern Ireland, see Template:IRAs. Do we need to go through all that? For a freakin' "New" before your name? NikoSilver 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it United States of North America, or United States of New America, or United States of Upper America? You know what is the conceptual difference between the names of United States of America and Republic of Macedonia? The later cannot make you do this :). Re. Ireland, they have Irish on both sides on the border. This is where it maybe itches you... You are the new ones using the name, at least since 2000 year ago. I am (unfortunately) not a New Macedonian :) Crnorizec (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the "United States" part that differentiates America from America. Nobody lists an "America" in a list of countries and you know it (unlike possibly "Macedonia"). Irish are the Irish people, not the British living in Ireland. We are not "new" in using the name lol, see above. We just never ceased using it, and we just never used it in the ethnic sense (like you). We only use it in the regional sense (unlike you). Nothing itches. And the "latter" is pressing you, not us.^[4] And it is not the only one who is pressing you.^[5][6] We backed up already for our part. Your turn. NikoSilver 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Something that maybe I should have said upfront Niko: you are nice and friendly people, you have a crazy language that nobody understands, you have a beautiful country. People like you (except the mega-lady Dora :)), and your allies are trying to go your way in this. But I think you are really stretching it, because the name comes from the very basic individual right of self-determination in a democracy (which you invented, after all). People in R.Macedonia are astonished and feel violated with the request to change the name. We are willing to forgive and forget the past, but that's the bottom line for us.Crnorizec (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Crno. I've been mamy times in Skopje (the city I mean :-)). The feelings are mutual. But the self-determination thing you say, is a double-edged knife. The Greek Macedonians determine themselves as Macedonians also. That's what they want, that's what they like, and that's what people call them. I am the first who says "you are Macedonians". And I'd add the "Greek" qualifier before our Macedonians, if you accepted to add whichever qualifier you wish before yours. Just to know who the hell we're talking about. Why do you make such a big deal about it (unlike us -who would add it)? Bad people say it is because you claim the whole region and the history. Show them they are wrong. NikoSilver 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a big deal for us because people have been struggling to establish this country under its name, because it is our nation's and state's name chosen by the people based on their self-determination, and because bad people will not become good if we showed them something. To change the name for us means to break our nation's pride and violate the basic civil rights. It is an established system of education-ideology-tradition-patriotism which are needed for a modern state to work. I have no problem if you use Macedonians or any derivative in Greece, so why not keep on living side by side like we already have for 60 years till now? You can keep on naming your airports Makedonia, we will keep on naming ours Alexander, the Americans will keep on kicking both our asses, and maybe we will live to laugh at all this one day... I will have to sign off soon... Crnorizec (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, priatelio Crno, it is a big deal for us too. This self-determination happens to exist in both sides of the border. Personally I'm not asking for "change" (I think this was unfair). I'm asking for a clarifying addition. You pick which. (and I'm laughing already) :-) NikoSilver 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But Niko, the original position from your side was not disambig, it was "WE ARE THE ONLY MACEDONIANS. MACEDONIA IS GREEK." There was no "please clarify..." from anybody: hoi polloi, government, whoever. Unfortunately (kind of) for the Republic, your people (at least the government) have the ability to evolve their stances and views quite quickly (maybe not that quick, but still). The ethnic group are attached to that name, that is who they are, that is how they called themselves when they fought in the National Liberation War of Macedonia (it's even how they called themselves in the NOF). Same for the Greek regional group - they are attached to that name. But the only thing that ever came from them was "YOU ARE NOT MACEDONIANS". BalkanFever 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is still the position of the majority of Greeks. And this is why it's called compromise. Most Greeks POV is that Macedonia is Greek and only Greek, however, the government compromises and accepts that FYROM be named <geographical qualifier> Macedonia. The Greek people may be willing to accept this compromise, since they want this to be over as soon as possible. When polls are asking "are you willing to accept a composite name" they ask just that, they don't ask "what do you believe". So this is what we mean we did our part and we wait for your part. We are willing to accept something we don't like, are you? --Avg (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I couldn't put it better than Avg. "Sadly" because my fellow countrymen adapted so slowly (come on! how could you say "quick"?), and because it may be already too late for a compromise. You are now used to that name for another 15 years. Kiro Gligorov had indeed accepted "Slavomacedonia" when he negotiated with General Gryllakis, PM Mitsotakis's special counsel (Gryllakis even says "they wanted that name more than anything"). But the Greek party-leaders-council rejected the Mitsotakis' solution. It's all in Gryllakis' book. BTW, back then, "Slavomacedonia" was attainable because the Albanian minority had not woken up yet. That name would have "given" the whole country to you, and now you cannot use it... :-( NikoSilver 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then the question is, who fucked up the country. One could (and many do) argue that the citizens (all) and government are doing it now, but there is a pretty definite answer as to who did it 15 years ago. I don't understand what you mean by "given". The Albanians would have still "woken up", and what kind of argument would "This is Slavomacedonia, not Albanomacedonia" be anyway? One question though, if the country were to apply for NATO under "FYROM", wouldn't Greece veto it anyway because the dispute hasn't been resolved? BalkanFever 08:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, "given" was an exaggeration, and the whole idea of marginalizing 25.4% of the population strikes me as racist too, so sorry for mentioning it in the first place. I guess it would be some kind of an argument that the country is the country of the Slavomacedonians, and the rest would feel as guests, but apart from being wrong I understand that it wouldn't eventually help much. BTW, now Albania will enter NATO, and you won't. I don't know if this is a wishful development for the Macedonian Slavs. NikoSilver 08:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The country did apply to NATO under the name FYROM. Greece wants a permanent solution and that's why she vetoes. Greece says that she objects about the nationalist and irredentist logic of FYROM's government which is also tied with naming issue. So Greece does not veto for the naming issue alone (at least that's what she says). Greece vetoes because (FY)ROM has nationalistic and irredentist aspirations, which are helped through the semantic ambiguity of the name. I'm sure Dora found many examples of that by official sources (hell, if we can find them for WP, I imagine it won't be that hard for the... Epsilon Team), and that's why most allies seem to not reject Greece's objections and seem to pressure (FY)ROM's government for a solution. I'm sure you agree that the latter (irredentism and nationalism) are a reason of its own for a veto, regardless of the naming dispute. But I'm afraid that Dora is right when she shouts that the naming issue is tightly connected with that propaganda, simply because it allows the mental expansion of the country. NikoSilver 08:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing. Most of your early fellow countrymen, did use a qualifier to disambiguate themselves from the other Macedonians. Krste Misirkov used "Macedonian Slavs" or "the Slavs of Macedonia" in his early "raboti" (see the search here in his original text). Same, they identified "not as Serbs, nor as Bulgarians, neither as Greeks, but as 'Makedon Ortodox'". The latter, actually, is from the famous Greek writer Stratis Mirivillis in the early 20s! See the full text in the Greek version of the article on FYROM (here). The Greeks did not object to your "Macedonicity" back then, neither should they ever object, that was a big big mistake. But I really don't understand this tit for tat anymore. Now that Greece says "yes, you are too", why do you seem to keep saying "no, we are the only"? NikoSilver 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't. We seriously don't. It's just that red and blue don't usually come up in the same context, so why should we disambiguate? Nationality: Macedonian = one meaning. Ethnicity: Macedonian = one meaning. Country: Macedonia = one meaning. Language (you and FT had this argument): Macedonian = one meaning. BalkanFever 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I said "you seem". See semantics. In my view neither of these has one meaning, unless you add the qualifiers "nationality", "ethnicity", "country", and "language", which are not added in normal speech (and which by the way you did add yourself!). But what happens when in normal speech one says Macedonia or Macedonians or Macedonian? Jesus, is it so difficult? Just click on the links, and you'll get dab-pages for all of them! Why are we even talking about it? NikoSilver 11:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If only I had a euro every time an ex-Yugoslav asked "What do you mean you're Macedonian? Aren't you Greek?" That is the problem. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant if someone asks "What nationality are you?" or "What language do/are you speak/ing?" or "What country are you from?". BTW I plan to be "from" 5 countries. BalkanFever 11:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that someone knows I'm from Greece, and proceeds to ask which part of Greece, and I answer Macedonian. Nine times out of the ten, that will elicit bemusement, or the mistaken belief that I vote for Виножито. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr! Why does there have to be such a question in normal speech? Is it impossible that people will just say "X speaks Macedonian" or "Y is from Macedonia" without ever being asked? NikoSilver 11:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael is from Luxembourg. And how often does anybody mention the Macedonian dialect of Greek? Or XMK? BalkanFever 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! NikoSilver 14:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. BalkanFever 00:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An English guy told me yesterday here he's going to Macedonia for the weekend. I asked him where to, Thessaloniki? He seemed baffled. This and only this is enough for me and I guess all Greeks to never succumb to the monopolisation attempted by FYROM.--Avg (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My Australian friend said he's going to Azerbaijan. My Iranian friend understood. He did not have a tantrum about the "Former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan" and the oh so intricate plan by that government. There is no monopolisation. That is bullshit, plain and simple. BalkanFever 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Avg, Thessaloniki has never promoted itself as part of Macedonia, but rather as part of Greece BECAUSE: - the territory of southern Macedonia was only annexed by Greece in 1913, so they had better things to do than promote "macedonia" - the slavic Macedonian population that was kicked out of Greece after WWII gathered around the new Macedonian state and as integral part of the Macedonian nation - Greece only started promoting this "macedonia" dispute since 15 year or so, before that it was a geographic region and nothing more to Greece. so don't be surprised if in the collective memory of the English Macedonia is the Republic, and Thessaloniki is Greece. What is wo surprising about that, except that you ignore the past 60 years? Crnorizec (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the false either/or distinction between "Macedonia" and "Greece". Actually, Thessaloniki has not only always promoted itself as part of Macedonia, but as the capital of Macedonia. Your perennially amusing myths about Greece only "discovering" Macedonia 15-20 years ago have been comprehensively debunked throughout this project. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Crnorizec you are seriously brainwashed. Thessaloniki celebrated its 2300 years as a Macedonian city and the current capital of Macedonia in 1985. And how come there is a statue of Alexander the Great there for dozens of years before what your propapanda feeds you? Northern Greeks were saying "I'm a Macedonian" for hundreds of years. This is indisputable. The fact that some English people are clueless and have bought your propaganda that you are the only Macedonia shows exactly why it is imperative that Wikipedia disambiguates.--Avg (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, and for the final time: Macedonia has been an official administrative unit of Greece from 1913 UNTIL 1987.^{Official Statistical Service} After 1987 it split into three administrative units called West, Central, and East Macedonia and Thrace. Where did you get that we suddenly remembered it dammit?? NikoSilver 09:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thessaloniki lead

I've reopened discussion of the lead, at talk:Thessaloniki#Reopen disambiguation discussion. We reached a compromise that seemed to satisfy all, and I am proposing we return to it. Jd2718 (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Abecedar

Could you, please take a look at the article. I've placed a POV-tag, but it would need a Greek editor to take a closer look. --Laveol ^T 12:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

...and: silly things

Hi, weren't you among the people who wanted to keep that article about the most frequent male given name in your language? It seems to me as if it was being filled continually with, well, malakies. Could you have a look if it needs some cleanup? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"...and"? What do you mean "...and"? As opposed to what other issue brought up in this talkpage? :-) NikoSilver 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly

I would be very very careful in labelling both countries majority opinion as nationalist. Danforth is a single source and his book is definitely not a gospel. I mean when REALLY nationalist positions come around like United Macedonia from the reds and invasion to RoM from the blues (using Balkan's terminology), then how should we label them?--   Avg    01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it "extreme nationalist" or "ultra-nationalist"? BalkanFever 01:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And more accurately irredentist. Nationalism is not necessarily a bad thing. And for more, United Macedonia is included in Danforth's text, so is a ton of Greek bollocks about "exclusive right" and "impoverished idiom" combined. I find it hard to accept that these constitute the "majority", but if they are, then the majority is indeed extremist in our countries, as Fran noted. But it isn't. NikoSilver 09:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the opposing sides like to highlight each other's most extremist arguments, for polemic reasons. Whether or not that is really the case, I don't think a poll can give us the full picture. BalkanFever 10:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Dear NikiSilver,

I'm looking for somebody to host the User Page Design Center.

Based on the UPDC's nature, I believe it should remain in the user namespace.

You come highly recommended, and your signature shop shows your high level of commitment to helping others.

I would be honored if you would be the UPDC's new caretaker.

If you agree, I will move its pages to your userspace, for you to maintain and modify as you wish.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm honored, but I can't accept the responsibility. My contributions are very limited these last few months, and I'm working a lot. NikoSilver 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:My talk

I read them, (twice) and removed two of the five. The three that remain, explicitly say they recognise, don't they? J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The columns work well if we take 'will recognise' and 'won't recognise', but don't work when we take the third category of 'have already recognised'. If we are removing that category, then I agree with the columns. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

POV title

Please don't put that tag there- just move it! Also, please remember to fix the double redirects. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge what where? Both myself and HemlockMartini are strongly against a merge. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote request

Hi Nick, I saw your comment in talk saint cyril and wanted to ask if you could vote on the subject of merging the three poor articles into one that can be tidied up, this would also make it easier to contain drive-by edits. Thanks for your reply.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Cyril#MERGE
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Methodius#MERGE

Xenovatis (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide

I have been engaged in a dispute regarding the NPOV tag's removal with user A.Garnet. I would like to ask you since you are here longer what the next step should be. There has been a large number of sources presented that label it as such and a recognition by IAGS. I also discussed this with user Rosewounds in his talk page. I believe him to be acting in good faith and I think he and Monsieur should be involved as third parties. Would you suggest arbitration? Vote? Rosewounds is opposed to a vote which he feels would be attended mostly by Greeks. Could this be resolved via mediation in order not to give the,unfair but still, impression of mobbing. Also if the removal is endorsed by some pro-Turkish posters in the talk page this would act as a detterant to future drive-by denialists. BTW Sts Cyril and Methodius is now merged. Thanks for voting.Xenovatis (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I saw them merged and I was really happy. If you noticed User:Aldux's "first reluctance" in his vote, that was because I had proposed it well before you... NikoSilver 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war never solves things, so refrain from it or you will be blocked from both constructive editing and edit warring alike. The next step doesn't exist in the strict sense, and WP:ARBCOM is out of the question for "content disputes". You could take ideas from WP:DR. There have been numerous attempts to an WP:RFC, with various similar subjects, all failed. There was also a mediation proposal that was put on ice. You'll see them all in the talk archives, if you have the time. "Votes" don't have the same value anymore also; we now have "consensus" building. Indeed, you'll need more third parties involved in this. I'd start from a fresh RfC now that the developments are different (IAGS recognition vs WP:SYN of sources and their personal interpretations from here and there). I'll be watching closely, but I cannot run things due to real life obligations. I'll follow. See my previous RfCs in the talkpage archives for help. NikoSilver 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Niko. Take care.Xenovatis (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on use of Slav Macedonians

Where is the consensus written and what it says. Tnx. Pls, write reply on my talk page. (Toci (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Ah, now I noticed. Yes, it's all in the talk archives. There were even polls for renaming the whole article. "Macedonian Slavs" is by far the primary qualifier used by most scholars when it comes to disambiguating you from the other Macedonians around. Check it in Google scholar, for example (here). Also, if you want to do something productive that helps "your cause", I suggest you find that missing reference (where it says ) that it is supposed to be pejorative or something. NikoSilver 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your map

This discussion was moved to Talk:Macedonia (terminology)#Ancient Macedonia Map. Please post further comments there only. NikoSilver 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL

[7] hahaha. That is all. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul

I would have thought if you support someone, you would not call them a "dead horse", but hey, your pick right? I didn't actually see the notice at the top.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you hadn't seen the closing, hence my edit summary suggestion. I'm sure he has the capacity to take it as a joke. BTW, the horse is the RfA, not him, I wouldn't ever make such associations (which brings up an obvious question I'd rather let someone else pose). NikoSilver 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Got ya

BTK ADSL, ey ;) I'm on it as well. You'll have a loooot of explanation to do now --Laveol ^T 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah. Niko isn't on BTK ADSL. He probably has just bought it, that's why. :-P Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, some day I may diversify into telecommunications, but I prefer the "Bulgarian agent" label for now! NikoSilver 11:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you haven't bought BTC. How sad - I was just going to ask for some major privileges. Btw we might see each other one day - not in the next month or so, but we maybe a little later. --Laveol ^T 11:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The meeting will have to be secret. To recognize me and for disguise, I will be reading the FSB manual. NikoSilver 12:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look......

Romanization of Macedonian ;-). BalkanFever 23:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ар ју риферинг ту мај персистент сабститушон ов "к" уит "c", уич ризалтед ин миспелинг де президент'с нејм? (ов олл!!) НикоСилвер 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ιντιδ αι εμ. Ολσο "Μιλοσοσκι" ινστεδ οβ "Μιλοšοσκι". Τραιδ το φιξ ιτ, μπατ ιντερνετ ιζν'τ ωορκιγγ. ΜπαλκανΦιβερ 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Фигиурс... де латтер из бикоуз уи дон'т хав дис саунд ин Грик. Мац лаик иу конфиуз "δ/Δ" уит "Д/д"! Си Romanization of Greek! :-) НикоСилвер 00:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ωell, wι σλαβοφονζ δον'τ λαικ αυρ δενταλ φρικατιβζ... ;-). Πιτι αμπαυτ δε σαυντζ δο, δετ'σ ωαι ωι χεβ αυρ οων αζβμπουκα. Τσεκ δισ αυτ εζ ωελλ: [8] ΜπαλκανΦιβερ 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Δατ σαϊτ ολμοστ μειξ μι κραϊ. Θενκς φορ μπρινγκινγκ ιτ απ. Ιν Γκρικ γουι γιουζ Ν πλας Τ του σεϊ D, εντ Μ πλας Π του σεϊ B. Ολσο, δεαρ ιζ νο ντιστίνξιον μπιτουίν "ντ", "νd" εντ πλεϊν "d". Γουι προνάουνς δεμ χαουεβερ γουι λαϊκ εντ ιτ ις ώλγουεϊζ κορρέκτ φορ ας. NikoSilver 01:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ω, οκει. Ιτ τζαστ φιλζ γουιρντ το γιουζ "ντ" φορ "d" αντ φορ "nt" ιν δε σειμ γουωρντ... Μπαι δε γουαι, δετ σαιτ ισ δε μειν ριζον Ι λερντ δε αλφαβιτα ιν δε φιρστ πλεις. BalkanFever 01:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, truly admirable effort, though. Congrats and wow! BTW, I can understand much of it. The first article speaks about some kind of newspaper printed in Skopje by the Aromanian Scientific Society which [includes] some document on the phenomenon of unity between Roma la Armanli -lost it here- [with]...[can] Orthodox Church of Greece or Romania? What does it say? NikoSilver 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

...and with/like that the [something] of the Orthodox Church of Greece and Romania could not be built. The author of the text published in the (*ugh*Slavo-)Macedonian language Octavian Barlea, from Germany [verb, possibly "compares"] the problem of the Aromanians and Roma[?] with that of the Bulgarians and puts them in the broken persons [maybe "personalities"] which [verb, maybe "donated"] the most for making a Greek-Orthodox Aromanian church.....that is a (very) rough translation of the first part - I'm only rup-1 after all :(. But yeah, I think they want an Aromanian Catholic Church, but they don't know if it should be Roman or Byzantine or something like that.... I'll try get back to you once I read the whole thing about 10 times. BalkanFever 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Former toponymes of Greece places

Please contribute to the talk page of Former toponymes of Greece places. Especially the part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Former_toponyms_of_Greek_places#revert_to_a_previous_more_neutral_description . There is some dispute of how the article should be written! Check the version of user macrakis and mine. Your opinion is highly appreciated. Seleukosa (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the discussion there. I am not an expert, but I see no dispute. Why is there a fuss? NikoSilver 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Some streets of Belgrade were very ugly yesterday. The Balkans keep disappointing me day after day, more and more, again and again... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on that. BalkanFever 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Compared to the conflicts of the not so distant past, a few smashed windows barely register. By the way, there were similar scenes outside the Greek Liaison Office in Skopje yesterday, but of course they'd never make the international news headlines. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let us all hope that the ICJ will help the whole mess. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fruit salad

any good point a link to fruit salad is included in an article about geography/history?

• yes. --1) the only applicable Balkan-Macedonia-related term _not_ linked in the article, --2) humor (quite descriptive isn't it :-))

Ok, yes, I find it funny but I think this is not a place for humour. Besides, since the link is already in the main disambig page (Macedonia), I don't see an obvious need for include just this one in the article we talk about. Reconsider, ok? Cheers :-) --Tone 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In such a contentious article, if we can slip in humor through the keyhole while being technically correct, then I'm all for it, but I'll surely not be the one who imposes it. There were quite a few editors involved when this was first inserted and throughout the WP:FA discussion, and most decided to leave it. I think it was User:Pmanderson (aka "Septentrionalis") who enjoyed it the most. If you want, bring it up again in the talkpage. NikoSilver 23:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, it adds a lighter tone. Maybe I'll bring this to the talkpage in a couple fo days, I will see. And for today, I've had enough editing, it's a busy day tomorrow... Have a nice time. --Tone 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth.......  :)

This wasn't politically motivated or anything - I just did what Noompsy and Bojancho suggested. Right now I'm getting annoyed with talk pages for some reason. Feel free to discuss it with them for as long as you want. Cheers, BalkanFever 04:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like the naming dispute talks have gone to hell. BalkanFever 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly yes. Having solved my Macedonia and your Macedonia, only me Macedonian you Macedonian, and yours Macedonian mine Macedonian seem to continue being the problem. NikoSilver 20:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw, we need to discuss the FYROM thing again, because the sources are wrong, or we need re-wording. I really don't understand where you were going with "we all know that" because it's quite obvious that nobody knows anything, anywhere. BalkanFever 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• UN
• EU
• NATO

I see other users were ahead of me in this. (I told ya this page is being constantly spied on!) NikoSilver 11:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:D. What do you think of the new intro? BalkanFever 11:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This version is fine. NikoSilver 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (region)

The article focuses on history and ethnography (with some annoying chronological repetition, but I don't know if that can be cured). There are also more detailed articles on on recent history History of modern Macedonia and people Demographic history of Macedonia. I was thinking that article(s) or enlarged sections on the geography of Macedonia (region) and the economy of Macedonia (region) might be a positive addition? Does that make sense to you? I would hesitate if you think it will just cause problems. Jd2718 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not worried about problems. The geo section/article might be a positive addition, and we have relative stuff also at Macedonia (terminology)#In geography. We need to seriously figure out how we're gonna split/merge info from all those relative articles. NikoSilver 14:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't say the same about the economy of the region though. I haven't come across to any relevant sources that would legitimize such an article (and I don't know how a multinational region is supposed to have such sources). What do you have exactly in mind? NikoSilver 14:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just keep thinking about economy for now? There's no rush. Maybe considering separate elements (agriculture, transportation, tourism, manufacture, etc) we will find that most are impossible but that some can be integrated into the main article? But for now I am quite pleased that you like the idea of a geography article or section. I will compile something off-line, and put up a draft on a user subpage in a few days. Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like a separate article such as Geography of the region of Macedonia, or do you think it would fit nicely within the existing Macedonia (region)#Boundaries and definitions section (which btw desperately needs expansion and sources)? We must also take into account that the geography is dynamic (i.e. changes significantly with time). Check also Macedonia (terminology)#In history. NikoSilver 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For discussing Macedonia today, I'd suggest the Ottoman version (plains and littoral around Thessaloniki, extending east, mountains cut by the major rivers). I think we can produce enough for a separate article (basic geography, climate, soil, forest, water features), but we may decide that a separate article is not warranted, in which case just editing for inclusion in the existing article will be fine. In either case, there's something that can be created that's worthwhile. Jd2718 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be beside the point, but actually that is not the Ottoman version per se. The Ottomans didn't ever have an administrative subdivision by that name. It was the Western geographers that defined the region as such, and still there's debate over its exact definition. As the geo-guru H.R. Wilkinson puts it in his very first sentence: "Macedonia defies definition for a number of reasons". See Wilkinson, H. R. (1951). Maps and Politics; a review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. LCC DR701.M3 W5.. I have the book, and the maps inside for the region vary from Greece's Macedonia to a little wider than what you call the Ottoman version. NikoSilver 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently (and to my surprise) it is at my work's library (DR701 .M3 W5), and is circulating, and not checked out. I will take it home tomorrow and have a good look. In the meantime I will keep searching - I had a wonderful British-authored travelogue from a mid-19th century journey to Ottoman lands - but my books have become disorganized, and I can't find it (for now - eventually they all show up). But, coming back to the question, you'd recommend working with a broader region? Jd2718 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Νίκο, μπορείς σε παρακαλώ να δεις την τελευταία συνεισφορά μου και να βοηθήσεις. Έμπλεξα πάλι με τους εξυπνάκηδες. :-( Dexippus (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you might want to read WP:CIV as well. The sites don't belong. WP:EL is clear in what not to link to. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject, Links to blogs and personal web pages. IrishGuy ^talk 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently disagreeing with Irishguy is in itself a grave breach of civility. Νίκο, άφησέ το, δεν πειράζει. Άνοιξε και το η-μέιλ σου.--Dexippus (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How is the reading of WP:CIV coming along, Dexippus? IrishGuy ^talk 21:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks. One observation though, I think you have consistently violating civility, specifically WP:ICA.--Dexippus (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ti phges ki eftiakses re arxhge :-) --   Avg    18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New Tzatziki Squad collaboration!

Hello! I'm here to inform you that the Tzatziki Squad has begun a new collaboration, history of timekeeping devices. The goal for the article is Featured status. Please pitch in as much or as little as you can, we appreciate your help! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Please will you take a look here? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted him this time too, but I don't want to involve in an edit war. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RoM

Most of those edits were in fact bettering the article. Could you just copy-paste the intro from the history instead of reverting everything? BalkanFever 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. I checked 2-3 of the diffs, and drew a quick conclusion for all of them, especially without edit summaries that they were. Do the modifications yourself if you want, and I'll follow. Thanks. NikoSilver 13:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Abitration enforcement

Please see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Karabinier Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to

upload photos of famous Pontians in the Pontic Greek article.Can you help me cauze i don't know how to do it.The page of Armenian people shall be aguide--Eagle of Pontus (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah, too complicated and too difficult. You need to find pictures which are (a) free of copyright AND (b) you can modify freely. See WP:C and the relevant articles from there. NikoSilver 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

hello

I deleted that information as it gave a biased perception of the dispute, as i explained. So Please read WP:NPOV in future before editing in the future. I agree with you saying that territorial claims are more important than the billboard, however the 2008 NATO summit is about the 2008 NATO summit not about the Naming Dispute. A brief explanation was put on the page to explain about it, as it affected the Republic of Macedonia becoming a NATO member. Only a small explanation is needed. Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. See you in the article's talkpage to discuss how to shorten it. OK? NikoSilver 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problems with Macedonia will solve in the near future. Marc KJH (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so more than you can imagine. Thanks. NikoSilver 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clepsydra

Can you add the Greek for Clepsydra in History of timekeeping devices#Greece? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a citation for the meaning too? Or is it too much? NikoSilver 20:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found this article after having a look at Niko's contributions. Hope I didn't mess with it too much :-) --   Avg    22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Elgin Marbles

Could you please have a look in the Elgin Marbles discussion page? I am a new user and would really appreciate your view on the issues discussed--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching you making a fantastic job. Keep at it, and I'm behind you. NikoSilver 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I am afraid I may go over the top and that's why a ballanced view is always welcome. I consider you to be a very sober contributor from what I have seen so far--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is I that has had three frozen vodka shots already, but it is your judgment that must be drunk. :-D NikoSilver 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ε πες μας τι πίνεις και δε μας δίνεις τότε, βρε Νίκο. Μου βαλες το διάολο να χτυπήσω κι εγώ μία, αστεία αστεία--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Τι θείαι λέξεις άγνωσται εισήλθον εις τ' αφτιά μου?????(Dimitris Bostantzogloy, from Medea)--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

Thanks. How silly! Ty 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User pages

I'm not going to comment on the userboxes that may actually offend you, but of the two flags that my country has had as an independent state, its citizens are more than allowed to prefer one over the other. BalkanFever 10:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it too inflammatory, and I think we don't need the additional drama, but do as you please. And what is your comment about the actually offending ones? NikoSilver 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment is "no comment". And Greek users do have way more offensive shit on their userpages. I am not going to specifically point anything out, because I'd rather know who the retards are. BalkanFever 12:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I say each of us tries to clean his own yard before complaining about the neighbor's. I'd immediately support you if you had a complain of equivalent gravity. This is our difference. And it is sad. NikoSilver 12:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I don't support you, I just don't see the point. The complaining causes more trouble than the userboxes. I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm not telling you you're right. But I am not going to push for userbox removal when it doesn't make any kind of difference. BTW you have outstanding requests for signatures BalkanFever 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if we convince one nationalist moron from each side, we have made one more step in reaching a compromise. I (and others) have convinced many from my own side, to the point that a viable compromise happens to be Greece's official position now (but don't be fooled, I'm not moving one inch from that). Your turn now. And actually you should chase those idiots instead of me, because they only feed the Greek argument about your country being officially irredentist. NikoSilver 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You know very well how I feel about Greek arguments on this topic, especially political arguments. I don't trust Karamanlis or Bakoyanni as far as I can throw them, and not even the Hulk can pick them up, so........BalkanFever 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Which "arguments" do you refer to? The ones that convinced half the NATO alliance to support non-invitation? I would vehemently criticize my compatriots if they published a map with half of your country labeled as "Greek Macedonia" (let alone if they taught it at their schoolchildren). It seems though that the majority of your people -including you- think this is something normal, or something not deserving special attention. Maybe they also think that this is how it should be. After all, you elect them... I wonder what gives them the audacity to demand we accept the country in a military alliance (lol). They are joking, right? NikoSilver 14:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't elect anyone. And keep in mind that is the grave of Goce Delčev. He was an irredentist. Just like Freedom Venizelos was an irredentist. Gruevski is stupid for not realising that the Greek media would twist this and dupe your people -including you- into thinking he was paying respect to a map. Btw, if we were (officially) on the same side, which we aren't, it would be better for you because this "irredentist phenomenon" would be more closely scrutinised. But that's beside the point, because NATO for my country isn't about aligning ourselves, since we are already aligned. And Macedonian (hilariously, that is the demonym) internal affairs is not a matter I'll be discussing with you. BalkanFever 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps like that (showing "United Macedonia" as a state and not a transnational region, as evidenced by the way its "borders" are marked) is just another in a long list of irredentist and provocative actions which treat "Aegean Macedonia" as though it is (or should be) part of your country. From persistently choosing names after places or events which happened in northern Greece ("Pella" Square in Skopje, "Alexander the Great" and "St Paul" Airports...) to infamous content of your schoolbooks all give Greece a legitimate cause for concern. Yes, Gruevski's regime is no serious threat to Greece now, but in 20 or 50 years who knows. Being a banana republic is no obstacle to inducing favorable border changes (Greece's gains from the Ottoman Empire, including "Aegean Macedonia" itself, prove that). The irredentist climate in your country is remarkable in how it has entered the mainstream (it can only be rivaled in its intensity by the Albanian claims to Kosovo). Since such sentiments are actively nourished over there and are predominantly based on fiction, Greece is merely taking the necessary and morally correct measures necessary to safeguard its security. As for the demonym, you can call yourself whatever you want, however if you want to join the EU, at the very least, you'll have to agree to a euphemism with which we can refer to you.--Dexippus (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[http://bp3.blogger.com/_p8SQzbRDhRQ/R6opl4vs4XI/AAAAAAAAAXA/IHaP8tStX6c/s1600-h/megalhmakedonia.jpg SlavMacedonian ultranationalist politician, leader of far-right, racist party and Prime Minister of RoM, pays respects to map of Greater Macedonia Says it all really.Xenovatis (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW why isn't there an article on Greater Macedonia? There is one on Greater Albania.Xenovatis (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We do, we only call it United Macedonia. I created a redirect for the "Greater" version. NikoSilver 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Did you like the image title btw? Oh and Greeks just made GA. Thinking of proposing it for FA, what changes do you think are required for that?Xenovatis (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialects of Macedonian language

Do you have any reliable, both Greek and foreign, sources that describe the slavika/dopia as something other than Macedonian language? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dialects_of_Macedonian_language Xenovatis (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no, he hasn't, this has been discussed a trillion times. Unless together with a sample of the "Ancient Macedonian alphabet" Niko now has also planted such a linguistic thesis somewhere where we can soon conveniently discover it. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are enjoying this aren't you!Xenovatis (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I might, if I could get some matjan jah drigkan to accompany my little squabbles with Niko in company and in the proper style befitting a vandal like him, as I suggested yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are so sure about the doctrine that you didn't bother to check my 114 links from Google Scholar, did you? Here are the matching ones from the first page only:

1. S Skendi - Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1975 - JSTOR Language as a Factor of National Identity in the Balkans of the Nineteenth Century:
             If I have left out Macedonian Slavic from this linguistic picture of the Balkans, it is because this language is a post-World War II creation.
2. R STALLAERTS - flwi.ugent.be Historiography in the Former and New Yugoslavia:
             However, the influence of Marxism has never been as strongly felt in historiography as in the Sovjet Union and other East-European countries, as a consequence both of the rupture with Stalin and of lack of deeper knowledge a Marx i Marxism.10 In 1947 the Croatian Academy was also reorganized along these same Marxist lines. The Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts was established in 1967. Earlier, as well a result of the Socialist Revolution, there existed already a (Slavic) Macedonian Institute. It produced both the codification of the (Slavic) Macedonian language and a history of South Slav Macedonia (Istorija Makedonskog Naroda, 1967).
3. M Lumsden - bredband.no Three Zones of Social Reconstruction in War-traumatized Societies:
             It is only a few years ago that the (Slavic) Macedonian language was distinguished from its Bulgarian and Serb cousins.
4. CD Harris - The Geographical Review, 1993 - questia.com New European Countries and Their Minorities:
             A Slavic Macedonian language was recognized and encouraged.
5. HG Lunt - Slavic Review, 1986 - JSTOR On Macedonian Nationality:
             Such a declaration by Macedonians is labelled treason by Bulgarians and seems strange to outsiders who accept the "scientific" definition of Macedonian Slavic as "Bulgarian dialects".
6. BD Joseph - The Emergence of the Modern Language Sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E.F.K. Koerner, 1999 - books.google.com CHAPTER 36 Romanian and the Balkans Some comparative perspectives:
             The languages that participate to some significant extent in the Balkan Sprachbund convergences can be referred to as "Balkan languages"[4] and besides Romanian include Albanian (both major dialects: Geg (North) and Tosk (South) but especially Tosk); Bulgarian; Greek; (Slavic) Macedonian;[5] Romany (the language of the Indic Gypsies), Serbo-Croatian[6] (with the 3 I use Sprachbund as a technical term rather than any of its clumsy and infelicitous possible translations any of its clumsy and infelicitous possible translations such as "linguistic union" or "language league" ;"linguistic area" is sometimes used in English but "convergence" probably comes closest to being a suitably apt term).

There are numerous more in the following pages. I was certain that many scholars disambiguate for which language they speak to, because -unlike you- they must take into account the "ordinary reader" who may be uninformed regarding our silly argument, and will be baffled to read that a "Macedonian" language refers to something not related to Greek. BTW, I find the second passage quite illuminating regarding which agenda is being promoted right now (only having changed hands to help with a different issue now)... NikoSilver 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding. The question was a different one this time: Sources that describe the "Dopia" varieties in Greece as explicitly a different language from that in the RoM. No matter what they call it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I replied to you about the other issue you brought up. I have no idea where Dopia is classified by linguists. I only note the double standards and inconsistency of applying the self-identification principle for the language in the north, and then refusing to do so for the dialect to the south. I'm sure you know that the extreme majority of Slavophone Greeks would be highly offended if you told them they are or they speak "Macedonian" in the ethnic/moderno-libero-linguistic sense. Maybe we should send you and the others there to convince them how they should call their language? :-) NikoSilver 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Future, that is the problem caused by the appropriation of a regional name by only one of the communities resident in that region. Dopia is sometimes mentioned in Greek as Makedonitika, in the same regional sense that the Cretan dialect of Greek is called Kritika, the Epirotan Ipirotika etc. So assuming that when someone says Makedonitika they mean a dialect of Macedonian is wrong, since they mean a slavic dialect spoken in Macedonia. The argument for calling Dopia a different language is exactly as good (in fact bad) as that for calling Macedonian a different language to Bulgarian.
• Niko, you might also be interested in this from Danforth:

Loring M. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World

quote removed

Sociolinguists agree that in such situations the decision as to whether a particular variety of speech constitutes a language or a dialect is always based on political rather than linguistic criteria. A language in other words can be defined as a dialect with an army and a navy.

p.67 Before this period the different dialects of Macedonian were part of a single linguistic continuum that stretched from central Yugoslavia in the northwest, where Serbian was spoken, down into northern Greece and on to the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria in the east, where Bulgarian was spoken. At no point along this continuum could a line be drawn between mutually unintelligible dialects. People living in adjacent areas were able to understand each other, but as the distance between them increased so did the differences between dialects. While Macedonian dialects had few unique traits, they did exhibit combinations of traits that were different from both Serbian and Bulgarian (Lunt 1952:6). The new Macedonian literary language was based on the west-central Macedonian dialect for two important reasons. It was this dialect that had the most speakers and was the most different from both Serbian and Bulgarian (Palmer and King 1971:155). This was also the dialect that Krste Misirkov had suggested as the basis for a Macedonian literary language in 1903.

Not strictly related but interesting

p.64 At the end of World War I there were very few historians or ethnographers who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed. It seems most likely that at this time most of the Slays of Macedonia,especially those in rural areas, had not yet developed a firm sense of national identity at all. Of those Slays who had developed some sense of national identity the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians

p.65 By recognizing the existence of a separate Macedonian nation, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia was able to gain control of Vardar Macedonia and justify retaining it as part of the Yugoslav federation (Palmer and King 1971:199). In order to accomplish this it was necessary to eliminate the sense of Bulgarian national identity shared by many inhabitants of the area, for according to the doctrine of national self-determination, if in fact the inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia were Bulgarians, then the land they inhabited should be part of Bulgaria. Since this was clearly not in the interests of Yugoslavia, and since the previous policy of Serbianization had failed, the only alternative was to recognize the Slays of Macedonia as neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, hut as something else—as Macedonians. Recognizing the Macedonian nation and establishing the People’s Republic of Macedonia to serve as its national state was the most effective way for Yugoslav officials to integrate Vardar Macedonia securely into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Another motive behind the Communist Party of Yugoslavia’s decision to recognize the existence of a separate Macedonian nation was the desire to extend Yugoslav control over Bulgarian and Greek Macedonia as well.

Xenovatis (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Danforth is a very reputable source (he has also been described as pro-(Slav)-Macedonian), and you should include much of these in the history section of the language. Especially the one of p.41. NikoSilver 14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As Deixippus correctly points out below, parts of the quotes above, especially that from p.41, are not from Danforth's authorial voice at all, but from a passage that is intended by Danforth as a caricature of an extremist Greek position. We've had this discussion before; Niko, I thought you could have remembered it. Why is it that whenever there's a discussion touching on Macedonia, there will always be at least one Greek editor trumpeting out some alleged finding in a source that turns out to be blatantly misread, misinterpreted or otherwise falsified? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussed? Not with me, it hasn't (and if it hasn't come up with me, then I can't imagine anyone else lol). I had observed another piece by Danforth (the one in Macedonia (terminology)) where he uses the same approach, but not his book, never. Apologies for not figuring it out, though, as the quotes there should hint to it. In any case, Danforth's quote in the section below (from p.65) is a much more neutral and descriptive approach, and I think it is worth mentioning in relevant articles. NikoSilver 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Future I had allready replied to the point you are making now below long before you made it. Read the whole discussion before making personal attacks. The quote from p.41 is misleading and I lacked the information in the previous two pages which were not included in the preview untill Dexipus pointed it out. The rest are statements by Danforth himself. Happy now? And next time read the whole discussion. The quote you removed from the Demographics section is in fact attributable, but to Argyropoulos. You should have attributed it properly instead of removing it.Xenovatis (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Greeks

Thanks for making improvements to the article. Do you think that Peri alon would be enough in the Classics section or if Nice stays would it be possible to place them below the banner so that there is less blank space? Any ideas on pics for the modern vs ancient and demographics section? There is a table with Greek demographics from antiquity to present date but it doesn't cite sources. Would you know of the cuff any such sources and how would you feel about such a a table? Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do anything important; just minor format fixes. Peri and Nike look nice in all window sizes in my screen; I wouldn't move any away from context, but where's the blank? Re Demographics I'll see to it and act. BTW you've made a fantastic job so far, and congrats for the GA mark on your belt! NikoSilver 22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Niko! I agree that they should stay in the Classics section, just suggesting they be moved just below the banner, still next to text on the classics section, so that there isn't a blank collumn between the right end of the text and the right edge of the screen. At least that is how it shows on my browser. What else should be done to have a shot at FA? Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Table: See in Demographic history of Greece the two sources listed in bibliography. Can you find them? NikoSilver 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Screen: I need to shrink the window to about 800px width to notice what you mean; you obviously have a very narrow screen? I can't do that without ruining the connection with the text. I made a trick edit, but it will still show a gap in the screen-widths between yours and mine (smaller though). Good now? NikoSilver 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• FA: We have all the time in the world. Did you read the WP:FACR? Also, keep in mind it is a helluva process, and the nominator becomes the article slave for as long as there are objections by users in WP:FAC. I'd also invite User:Yannismarou (speaking about belts!) for his valuable input. NikoSilver 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I love mk media

I happened to follow one of your links and got to [9]. I somehow think you'll understand that. They just simply love us, don't day. And they never write nonsense in their papers about their neighbours - never. You know, a couple of months ago there was a material in one of their best papers which was discussing a study that showed 10% of Europeans are ... ummm, have a non-standard sexual orientation, if you know what I mean. But what was the Head of the article in the mk Paper? You'll never guess: "Every tenth Bulgarian is gay". (I don't mean to offend anyone). This tells a lot of their way of thinking (not all of them, but the majority obviously).--Laveol ^T 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account this explanation for the irrational hatered of homosexuals, how would you explain an irrational hatered of Bulgarians. ;-) Dexippus (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, that reminds me "πρωτομυριστής και πρωτοκλαστής" (=first to sniff is first to fart). NikoSilver 00:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't understand the particular one. And not because it is that different a language from Bulgarian, but because I only know a couple of catchy Bulgarian phrases. I'd appreciate a quick summary. BTW check the quotes by Loring Danforth two sections above. NikoSilver 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It discusses a Bulgarian and his goat.--Dexippus (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It says he exchanged his wife for a goat. --Laveol ^T 00:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that they're really afraid of the amount of people switching to Bulgarian nationality?--   Avg    00:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - they don't believe in this crap. Do you see one of them adding the number of former RoM citizens that reside in Bulgaria (with Bulgarian passports) nowadays in the article Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria? Btw - what luck I didn't see the discussion on Fut.Perf's talkpage in which MacedoninBoy advocated that the map should say Gorna Dzhumaya instead of Blagoevgrad and so on. His comments there (including those about the dialects in the Serbian part of United Macedonia) clearly indicate that his real intentions were far from presenting some linguistic facts. --Laveol ^T 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean you actually believe this guy is a linguist as he states? :-) --   Avg    00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All of you: See Danforth two sections above. Especially p.41. NikoSilver 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is studying English language and Literature, isn't he. What I really think (and what is most probably the case since we already figured the map is from a schoolbook) is that he (or rather they) took the info from the "Institute for Macedonian language" or whatever the name of that organization was (he says he's got permission to use the logo on wiki) and put it here for propaganda reasons. I tried to assume good faith, but there clearly isn't any. --Laveol ^T 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any political biases or ideological motivations on M.B.'s part (no other Wikipedia editors would ever let their political biases influence their choices of how to write Macedonia-related articles, right? Oh wait...), the technical dialectological information is sourced to what is apparently the best available material. The map, for instance, may have been taken directly from some schoolbook, but as I pointed out it's ultimately sourced to the work of that Vidoeski guy, who is the authority in the field. M.B. has now started working on a series of detail articles dealing with individual dialects. They are valid articles and I have no doubt they are written in good faith. Stop harassing this guy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Our army is dwindling and we have only one submarine so I guess we should settle with it beeing a language. Btw I've got a great Yugoslav source on all that happened in present-day RoM since the 40s, but I don't want to spur on even more controversy right now. Good night to all for now.--Laveol ^T 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He's studying English language and Literature in his userpage, but in his diffs [10] he's a linguist:-) --   Avg    01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a contradiction. Studying English language and literature is what made me a linguist too. Although I doubt M.B. has reached a point yet where he exercises it as his "profession". Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actully yes. I am teaching English too and also I have read more books about Macedonian language than Laveol did for Bulgarian. I am not losing my time such as he (trying to offend me whereever he can) but I am redaing, writing and making enough good articles. Tell me Laveol have you ever made an article or you just offending and anoying everyone on Wikipedia (without the Greek guys)? --MacedonianBoy (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to dissapoint anyone, but I've read the whole of Danforth's book and, if I remember correctly, those statements of his that you point to at p. 41 are not his conclusions, he is just presenting the Greek opinion in the dispute.--Dexippus (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But why would Xenovatis lie? Oh wait. BalkanFever 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

BF is not swearing?! Highbrow stuff indeed.Xenovatis (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been not swearing since before you had an account. Oh, the not swearing I've done. BalkanFever 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just goes to show it takes some people a long time and even then they still can't get it right.Xenovatis (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're offended by the "f-word". On the internet. I have done nothing wrong, so just drop it. I can understand why you would hate me, but that is a problem you have to solve in the real world. Seriously, grow up. BalkanFever 12:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the personal attacks and you will be reported. Again. I understand that you see nothing wrong with this behaviour having been raised on a steady diet of antihellenism, idiocies about not being Slavs and hatred of Greeks but this is an international discussion forum and your behavior is not tolerated. You have been warned.Xenovatis (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh cut the crap. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I am not an Antihellene, but it doesn't surprise me that a POV-pusher like you would call me that. After all, you're Greek, so you must be right. All hail Xenovatis, the neutral genius with no axe to grind. And considering you believe Wikipedia is a forum for your agenda, what more can I say? BalkanFever 08:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not be participating in this sort of discussion which is all one can hope for with this person.Xenovatis (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, apologies for the error, I didn't have access to the previous two pages. The rest however are his own, especially the parts about the way Tito constructed a language and an ethnic identity and how that identity had to destroy the Bulgarian one. There is also a nice part later about their nationalist idiocies like that they are not Slavs, they are related to the Macedonians etc. And this is nice as well:

p.65

The question as to whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when the Communist Party of Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slays of Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians (Palmer and King 1971:199—200). Another observer wrote in 1950 that “the feeling of being Macedonians, and nothing but Macedonians, seems to be a sentiment of fairly recent growth, and even today is not very deep rooted” (Barker 1950:10).

Xenovatis (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever, I don't think Xenovatis was lying, it was probably an innocent mistake. Presumably he was reading parts of the book on GoogleBooks, where it's easy to misunderstand out of context text; even I've done that before.--Dexippus (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)