User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ok you can delete it now... I will add it later tonight again when I have more time Abdulnr 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Moving the IPA 'g' problem to the correct location

Thanks for the heads up! You can find the new conversation at The Village Pump (technical) Dave 17:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (by the way, should I be replying here or on my own user talk page...?) - do you think this is something we should contact the Firefox people about? They're friendly, open-sourcey types and will probably be amenable to addressing this issue. Dave 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

Maybe it's not necessary, but everyone gets one! Cheers, Melchoir 13:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek alphabet and Macedonian

Quite right. I simply moved Ancient Macedonian from the intro paragraph to a bullet point without thinking. I think it is necessary to mention Ancient Macedonian somewhere, otherwise it will be added in the wrong place. Check my new wording. --Macrakis 18:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, someone was rather quick to revert it, it seems... Well, let's see what can be done. Fut.Perf. 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Domenico Gabrielli, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. 16:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi, what does your username mean? --Telex 20:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... well, I probably can't keep it secret forever, can I? It's just a silly joke for Germans, basically. Okay, here goes:
It's an allusion to a punchline from a famous comic sketch by a 1970s German comedian, Loriot. There's this bored housewife who wants to get an extra professional qualification to become "emancipated", so she takes evening classes. The class she takes is a yodeling class, of all things, where you study for a "yodeling diploma". And to make it worse, that yodeling course is a parody of a terrible old-fashioned language class. Instead of actually yodeling, we see learners memorizing nonsense "sentences" like: "holleri du dödel-di, diri-diri dudel-jöh". And then they get told off by the teacher for making grammatical mistakes. Yodeling has a very complex grammar, apparently with a system of multiple tense forms depending on the time of day. So, if in the above sentence you replace "du dödel-di" with "di dudel-do dö dudel-dö", we are told, that's "Future Perfect at Sunrise". (which apparently would be ungrammatical in that context). -
So, it's a bit of a linguist's joke too.
In the German it is "Zweites Futur bei Sonnenaufgang", but in the English it also has the additional advantage of the ambiguity with the non-grammatical meanings of "perfect" and "future", which I liked.
Do you read German? []. And wow, it actually has its own Wikipedia entry: de:Jodeldiplom! Fut.Perf. 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, I've never been able to pronounce the letter ö. I suppose I'll never be able to :-( --Telex 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hah! You probably can't even do a proper [e:] or [o:], can you? Inveterate vowel shifter that you are. Mwuahahaha! Fut.Perf. 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Do you think English would benifit from a spelling reform?Cameron Nedland 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No - I'm used to the current way of spelling. --Telex 21:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but I was reffering to Future Perfect at Sunrise.Cameron Nedland 02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm, not really - but why are you asking me? Fut.Perf. 06:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Because you are both a linguist and someone who learned English as a second language and I thought your opinion would be very valid.Cameron Nedland 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Illyrians Article

Unlike Aldux (with unintelligent comments such as "crap"), you at least took the time to explain why you reverted the content I placed on the Illyrians article. For this, I thank you. Just so you know, reporting me to an administrator was kind of useless since I was on vacation when the block came into effect. Also, blocking contributors who nicely ask for constructive criticism and good reasons for revisions to be made is quite shameful. Of course, who cares what I say. The system is always right. Over and out. Deucalionite 14:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry I disagree, that's just how the 3RR works. You cross the line, you get blocked, no matter if you're right or wrong. Fut.Perf. 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. Just don't end up marginalizing contributors who actually ask for constructive criticism. If you do, then have fun dealing with the consequences (whatever they may be as if I care). Over and out. Deucalionite 20:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I just had an argument with another editor about synopses, at Dil Chahta Hai. Writing synopses is hard. I'm afraid, my friend, that I can't say I like your synopsis at Satanic Verses. That HUGE para! Unreadable. Paragraph with abandon, and assume that you're writing for someone with a one minute attention span. Zora 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (being harsh and critical, but, I hope, not mean)

Thanks for your feedback! Yeah, it's difficult, especially since it's quite a complex story. I'll have a look at it again. If you can think of a way to tighten it more, please feel free to intervene! I'm also not a native speaker, you know. :-) Fut.Perf. 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Precisely because most non-Greeks think that all Greek dances are Syrtaki. ;) Seriously though, I kept it there because that's the one dance people might have heard of, and would click on to learn more. About the content deletions, they just sounded strange to me. Phrases like "his dance is strongly reminiscent of the 1821 era in Greek history" sounded strange, when the dance itself is centuries old. Also, if you look at the first edit (creating the article) it looks like a cut-and-paste copyright violation, possibly copied from a performance group's billet. On another note, I was wondering why you capitalize the names of the dances. Samba, ballet, salsa, swing, etc. are not capitalized. Just curious. --Fang Aili talk 23:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

Hi! Just wanted to tell you I fully agree on your cutting down the "Hellenic controversy" section; it had simply got out of control. Ciao :-)--Aldux 21:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support - I think it needs not just pruning down, a real good thorough rewrite would be called for. I mean, some of this material might be useful, but it was soapboxing and quite blatantly OR in parts. I've asked dab to keep an eye on it too. Fut.Perf. 21:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. The problem of this article is that it partly was created to free the article Macedon from all these disputes, bringing to this article, clearly too insistent on the question of ethnicity.--Aldux 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

Legobrick.pngWe are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Fut, and thank you for your comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I will do all I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...


Did you invite him as well? You agree with this comment?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, the old error of calling content disputes "vandalism". Many make that mistake. Well, I regret what happened last night - Pmanderson unfortunately has a long history of clashes with Miskin, and I can understand he sometimes gets impatient or loses his temper. Anyway, he's an extremely knowledgable contributor to these kinds of topics, and - sorry because I know you'll probably disagree - I usually find his contributions quite sensible. So yes, though I didn't personally "invite" him, I definitely say we all ought to listen to what he has to say. I've left him a message asking him to take it easy, though. Fut.Perf. 09:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
PA's aside, I don't necessarily disagree. Convince me.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, I saw your conversations with Telex about various Mac-related sources. I told Miskin something similar a couple of days ago: My subjective impression of what is and what isn't "majority opinion" or "commonly accepted" in the literature probably differs from yours. I seem to share with Pmanderson the impression that authors like Meillet (among the older historical linguists) or Borza (among the modern historians) are extremely important, highly respected sources. I can vouch for it in the case of Meillet, who was one of the most important linguists of the 20th century. And Borza gets glowing reviews in top-notch journals such as "Bryn Mawr Classical Review" ([1]), hardly a stronghold of FYROMian nationalists. So, whatever these guys say has a claim to being represented at least on a par with other views. But I must admit I haven't studied the matter closely yet, and I'm hesitant to commit myself to substantial edits before I've seen some of the primary research literature. I wouldn't want to work on the basis of tertiary sources such as other encyclopedias too much, let alone the usual trash websites. Let's have only high-quality food for the wolfpack. :-) Fut.Perf. 10:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're interested in POV - take a look at User:NikoSilver/List of POV edits by Slavomacedonians. It's a hoot :-)) --Telex 10:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm, as long as we're talking ancient Macs here, I've so far been trying not to view that debate in any relationship with the modern nationality issue. But then again, modern Slavmacs as inheritors and descendants of Old Big Alex? Well, if you guys can declare yourselves inheritors of Pelasgians and Minoans ... ducks away Fut.Perf. 10:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't get it do you? Macedonian Slav propaganda claims that Македонскиот Народ (The Macedonian Folk) are the descendents of the Ancient Macedonians and Slavs (like the Bulgarians are largely the descendents of the Bulgars and Slavs - unlike the Macedonian theory, this is widely accepted). Various users e.g. User:Macedonia, User:Makedonia, User:Bomac (have made such statements) seem to think that when the Slavs arrived in Macedonia, they found Ancient Macedonians, or as User:Macedonia says in this version:
In the case of the Macedonians, the Slavs integrated with the ancient Macedonians and their ethnicity became dominant. The Macedonians transmitted to them some of their own customs, including the Christian faith, culture, and name of their homeland, "Macedonia". The Slavs in return gave them some of their own traditions, such as folklore and language. Eventually, the Macedonian language transformed to a Slavic tongue, and Macedonia became the leader of Slavic heritage; following to the creation of a new alphabet, literature, and the establishment of the first Slavic schools and universities in the world.
The problem is though, that the Ancient Macedonians (whoever they were) had died out by that time, and according to Britannica [2]: Macedonia's Greek ethnic composition was overturned by the invasion of Slavic peoples into the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD. In other words, when the Slavs arrived in Macedonia, they found mostly Greeks, not Ancient Macedonians. --Telex 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no, descendance is transitive. If A descends from B, and B descends from C, then A descends from C, right? Otherwise, what was to become of my own treasured Silingo-Cheruskan ancestry? So, 6th century Greeks were still Macedonians (ήταν, είναι και θα είναι, ξέρεις) - ergo: When Slavs mixed with them, they became Macs too. Easy. By the way, do you know how 11th-century Byzantines saw Macedonians? rummages through bookshelf:
[οἱ στρατιώται]...ἀπαισίους ἀπερρίπτουν ἐπὶ τὸν βασιλέα φωνάς, νῦν δὲ Πόλεως ὄλεθρον καὶ δήμου φθορέα, νῦν δ' ἄλλο τι τῶν ἀτοποτάτων ἐπισυνείροντες τούτῳ καὶ καθυβρίζοντες· οἱ δὲ πλείους τῶν Μακεδόνων, δῆμος ὄντες αὐθαδείᾳ χαίρων τε καὶ θρασύτατι, καὶ οὐ στρατιωτικῆς ἀφελείας, ἀλλὰ πολιτικῆς βωμολοχίας ὄντες ἐθάδες [...] χορείας εἰς τοὐμφανὲς συνιστῶντες, αύτοσχεδίους ἐποιοῦντο κωμῳδίας τῷ αύτοκράτορι, τὴν γῆν τῷ ποδὶ σὺν ῥυφθμῷ ἐπικροτοῦντες καὶ κατορχούμενοι. (Michael Psellos, Chronographia VI.110)
Irreverent bunch, those Macedonians. Calling an emperor πούστη and dancing Tsamiko to it. Fut.Perf. 10:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that ethnicity is based on blood (in that case, I could be Inuit and not even be aware of it). I thought it was language, culture and cultural influences. --Telex 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Which brings us back to comparing the amount of continuity between Anc.Macs and Slavmacs to that between Minoans and modern Greeks ... :-) Fut.Perf. 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes - "language" is the likely answer. To find out though, we'll have to wait for the code to be cracked. --Telex 11:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, see the maps at Macedonia (terminology). Modern Cretans live on the same island - Macedonian Slavs live in a different part of the world (Vardar Macedonia vs Greek/Aegean Macedonia). --Telex 11:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


The two you have named appear reasonable; I find Miskin's personal threats [3] somewhat less endearing . All I really want is to keep the Greek/FYROM quarrels out of ancient history. In Ancient Macedonia, it means an account of the Argead claim, which

  • Herodotus does base on the luck of the youngest of three brothers;
  • Applies only to the family of Philip and Alexander
  • Was not consensus in antiquity.

In Macedonian Greeks, it means restricting the list to those who both

  • self-identified as Greek, and
  • were from Macedonia

In the cases of Antipater and Seleucus I (and St. Cyril) the first requires a source; in the case of Michael the Paphlagonian, the second.

I expect to accept a compromise, as I have on Macedonian Greeks. Septentrionalis 15:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for expert evaluation

Could you check Slavic language (Greece) now after the latest amendments (I may have been subconsciously POV pushing without realizing it). --Telex 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. Very Trudgillesque of course, but that's certainly not a bad thing in my view. I think Francis also is a big Trudgill fan. Perhaps I'd have mentioned something about the bare linguistic facts (for instance existence of the South-Slavic dialect continuum) one or two sentences further up in the text, but that's just a minor tactical issue of text organisation. As for content, I guess it should mention the Pomaks somewhere as a distinct sub-group (don't know how close they are linguistically with the rest, but probably Trudgill should mention them somewhere). Also, a bit more about the historical existence of a ethno-national pro-"Macedonian" movement might be in order (role of ethnic politics in the Civil War, forced emigration, "paidomazoma" etc.) Fut.Perf. 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you're using as your source, but about the Civil War, take a look at my comments at User talk:FlavrSavr#Refugees. Ethnic identity had nothing to do with it; it was all to do with whether someone was communist. The Slavophones has largely supported the communists because a) there were Slav communists in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, and b) KKE/EAM had promised to end the far right oppresive laws enacted by Metaxas and were likely to remain in place if the royalists won. This will need sourcing though, and it's late over here - tomorrow. --Telex 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen's RfA

Atlanticpuffin4.jpg Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. Thank you for your support at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. If you need admin assistance, feel free to ask me. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future, hopefully as an admin. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions and "traditionally inhabited areas"

I do not think we can talk about "traditionally inhabited areas" since kurds have been nomadic people for centuries, if not millenias. The borders of this "traditionally inhabited areas" are too ambigious. Hence I propose you reconsider your vote. --Cat out 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree. Fuzzy boundaries do not necessarily make categorization impossible. That goes for real-life categorization (as a linguistic concept) just as for these categories here. There are enough places that clearly, unambiguously belong into it (Diyarbakir, Mardin...) and enough that equally unambiguously do not (Berlin...). The existence of a few places on the margins where categorization might be doubtful is no real obstacle for the category to work. Of course, editors interested in the category ought to sit down and work out something like a set of operationable criteria. For instance: any place for which it can be shown through reasonably reliable sources that Kurds formed a significant part of the population sometime before the onset of largescale internal emigration to the big cities in the late 20th century. I take it to be a matter of common sense that recent migrant communities abroad and in Western Turkey should not count here. Fut.Perf. 16:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No reliable source exists. No census, no nothing. We know large amount of kurds were relocated due to PKK. I feel a list would be more aproporate.
We do not tag per linguistics, or ethnicity elsewhere.
--Cat out 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


As you can see, three of those came up, check out the category Category:Cultural assimilation, both Bogdan and I have been working on filling it up. Regarding Swedishisation, I think maybe Swedisation or Swedification is more likely to be there "... in 1809. In the 1880s, however, a clear Swedisation policy was initiated... " — "... Already from the time of Bishop Landgren, when the Swedification policy was launched," — each gives a couple/few results in Google scholar. Anyway, we aren't just adding them willy-nilly, I check each time on JSTOR and Google scholar to make sure they are terms used in academia.

It is a shame that the Albanisation one got such a POV headache. The term seems to be used to mostly describe the process in Kosovo. - FrancisTyers · 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As a note (I missed that bit before), the article should be covering the Albanisation of Kosovo, as this is the most discussed in the literature, and is certainly notable. Especially considering current events. - FrancisTyers · 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Neither am I happy to be honest, it seems to me that cultural change and assimilation are too complex to be described simply with -isation or -ification. I've yet to see a good article on these matters. As you said, it would probably be better to be in a "History of", "Culture of" or "X people". However, there would be more opposition to removing them all than adding them all it seems... - FrancisTyers · 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nikos Kavvadias

Hey, he fixed it. Give the newbee a break, will you?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Let him have a break and smoke the cargo. I'll be having "δύσκολες βάρδιες, κακό ύπνο και μαλάρια" the while. Fut.Perf. 16:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

about the templates

Thank you for your concern and consideration. I will add back the templates since I think it's appropriate since the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed. --Albanau 11:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


No, no, no, not what you think! This time is for something that all of us need:

Improvement of the <ref> function.

Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Poll!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the message, please do what you feel is best, I will go along with it. My intention was/is to clarify why the tags warning about the article are there. Once we can locate the disagreement, then perhaps we can sensibly go about solving it. Also please see my material in talk. Politis 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi... I take it this was some kind of mistake? Jkelly 21:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems page

In reply to the message left on my user page:

Whoops! How embarrassing. Yes, it was a total mistake. This keeps happening to me, in fact, it happened when I was doing this edit; sometimes only half the article seems to load in the edit box, usually I check that it has loaded fully, but this time I forgot (and it hadn't). Thanks for noticing and reverting. --Skoorb 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)



....for the help in reverting vandalism. I greatly appreciate it. Regards, ImpuMozhi 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


What was the original external link of the copyVio text? talk to +MATIA 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[4] I've added it to the article. Thanks for helping to rewrite it, it's no doubt a good topic. That source is quite good. Would you say we should move the page back to the old Stradioti title where it originally was? Fut.Perf. 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's the same thing and they're both used in english. Thanks :) talk to +MATIA 08:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I've seen that about Kladas and John Scanderbeg somewhere else before, but can't remember it. talk to +MATIA 08:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kanhad Dev Songara

Please explain your reasons for the revert. Tatra 08:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(to Tatra): to prevent double categorization. (to Fur Perf): see this, you may want to correct it. I haven't the time now. --Telex 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies

I assure you I had no intention of removing your comment at ANI. It was a mistake that won't happen again. I hope everything is back in place now? Kasreyn 11:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Actually we were putting it back in simultaneously ... :-) Haven't checked the other bits further up, but I think you took care of those. Fut.Perf. 11:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the ANI intervention, and I'm glad something was done -- lets hope for atleast a little respite. But this troll is just unbelievably persistant. Regards, ImpuMozhi 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Sure. --Macrakis 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


How about adding Greek et al you cryptopolyglot you!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps to fit in with my "Vandalic" one, I should first add something like the following: Fut.Perf. 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
cel-1 This user knows how to say "my girl, take my kiss" in Gaulish, but has never tried.
xil-1 This user hopes he would manage ordering a beer in Illyrian, but isn't sure he would like the result.

How about:

xmk-1 This user knows how to say the truth: (οἱ Μακεδόνες Ἓλληνες εἰσί) and is proud doing so.

--Telex 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe better like this? Fut.Perf. 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

xmk-2 This user could curse a rival in love if they were an ancient Macedonian, but wouldn't know what language he was doing it in.

Better try:  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This user could curse a rival in love if they were an ancient Macedonian, but is too politically correct to accept it. ...since:

Why don't you try using the language box I have at my page? You can't get more politically correct than that. --Telex 23:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, we may be needing your help. A few WP:LAME edit wars are brewing on articles like Komotini over the usage of the Turkish name. My position on the issue is at user talk:Hectorian#Κομοτηνή, but I'm sure you understand the sensitivities involved - the Greeks have been ethnically cleansed from Istanbul whereas the Turks in Greek Thrace have a better standard of living than those in Turkey. Some Greeks feel they're being ripped off! --Telex 15:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Future. Regards your question I'd say that probably Giacomo is uncorrect, because it is almost certainly a modernization of the name. As for Jacomo and Jacopo, I suspect them to be both correct, as they are clearly both archaic and both can be found in scholarship.--Aldux 17:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Fut.Perf. 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


sorry about messing up the bibliographies, as I am a little inept on the intricacies of wikipedia..!



Could you have a word with User:Mitsos about our edit war over at Minority groups in Greece. He keeps removing the (stubby) section on the Turkish minority, whose existence is a fact (unlike all the other groups whose existence is dubious). Of course, I wouldn't expect much from a user who used to have this on his userpage (probably as a joke). I admit though I may be experiencing a some WP:OWN issues on that article now, as I've spent a lot of time clearing up FrancisTyers's POV version ;-) --Tēlex 11:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW I find it amusing that the Macedonian Slavs have been targeted by Serb and Bulgarian irredentists. I suppose this is the reaction to the Macedonian Slav odious POV pushing (that anon is Vlatkoto in case you're wondering) and historical revisionism. The sunny Balkans, where nationalism always shines :-0 --Tēlex 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've watchlisted the article for the moment. I'll get active if the edit war continues. Fut.Perf. 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Future. Actually, I do have some Byzantine history books (another one of Mango, Ostrogorsky, some Italian historians), but I need some time; I'm a lot behind on my watchlist schedule, and have to reach up a bit. For the moment, consider giving a look to these links J.B. Bury, Slavs - Britannica, and Bury's appendix to Gibbon on the Slavs in the Peloponnesus [5]. Hope they can be of some help. Bye, --Aldux 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, sounds good. I'll give it a look later. Thanks! Fut.Perf. 16:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kemal Atatürk

The paragraph on the discussion page, which all Turks will consider a personal attack, is not a comment, it is an insult, please don't continue reverting, it will direct the talk page to totally different dimensions, resulting in unwanted discussions. No one has the right to insult Turkish people by calling "The Father of Turks" a murderer. There's no good-faith in continuously adding an irrelevant and biased quote to the discussion page even several times after somebody took it as an offensive. Kertenkelebek(talk) 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird definition of a "personal attack". What's personal about it? Well, sorry Kerenkelebek, you will have to get used to the idea that people outside Turkey do not share the quasi-religious reverence for Atatürk you are used to in Turkey. We here feel free to talk about him and judge him as we would any other dead politician. If Turkish people feel personally offended by that, I'm sorry but that's their problem not ours. You can't demand keeping him sacrosanct. As for the particular discussion there, I've actually advised Niko to avoid POV discussions on talk pages that do not directly contribute to the article - but that goes for both of you. If you are free to express your opinion about Atatürk on that talk page, so is he. So, please don't delete this again; I see you have been warned, and if someone ends up blocking you for your deletions they will have my full support for it. Fut.Perf. 12:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I only now see what you wrote to Niko. I personally would not have insisted on reinserting that material, but I'll now do so nevertheless, with the sole purpose of teaching you the lesson that you can't censor Wikipedia according to the quasi-religious taboos of your state ideology. Fut.Perf. 12:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Hey. you mentioned that you thought my article on Arbërisht should eb redirected to Arbëreshë, however I am myself Arbëresh and I think that my language ARBËRISHT should have a separate article, as it is the name of the language whereas ARBËRESHË is the (plural) name for my ethnic group. I have expanded on my original article but have gone to edit it today and yet again it is redirected to Arbereshe, this is an error! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djalo24 (talkcontribs) 23 June, 18:51


I'm concerned about the accuracy of the Arvanitika and Arbërisht articles. Do you know what the difference between Arbërisht and Arbërishte is? Gender. Arbërisht / Shqip = the French Albanais, and Arbërishte / Shqipe = the French Albanaise. The articles seem to imply that Arbërishte can only be used for Arvanitika and that Arbërishte and Arbërisht can be used for Italian Albanian. --Tēlex 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah, see how ignorant I am. I think I should add "sqi-0" to my Babel boxes. Or do you insist I need separate "aat-0" and "aae-0"?
aat-0 This user couldn't even distinguish a male Arvanitic speaker from a female one.
Can you fix it? Maybe a little grammar note in the article might actually be of help. Note that some language resources, notably Ethnologue, use "Arëreshë" for the language too, so the potential for confusion is great. And did we ever find out what the relation between the different attested native names within the Arvanitic is (like "Arbërorë" etc.)? Fut.Perf. 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they are adjectives. The ethnonyms are as follows:

  • Greece: Arbëror (Arvanite man) - Arbërore (Arvanite woman) - Arbërorë (Arvanites)
  • Italy: Arbëresh (Arbëresh man) - Arbëreshe (Arbëresh woman) - Arbëreshë (Arbëresh people)

Personally, I prefer Arvanit as an ethnonym for the Arvanites, but that would be a neologism, as it's rarely used. In standard Albanian, Arbëror and Arbëresh are old fashioned terms for Albanians (like Romioi in Greek), whereas Arvanit refers specifically to the Arvanites of Greece. --Tēlex 21:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, that bablebox would be (I don't know how to say user, so I'll just use the first person):

aat-0 Nuk flas Arbërisht.

--Tēlex 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nukutu. (Which is supposedly a soundbite of Albanian picked up by some Greek friends of mine once.) Ni ih firnimu. Anlamam. Fut.Perf. 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean nuk e di? --Tēlex 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably. "sqi-minus-1". Fut.Perf. 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW I would support moving Arbërisht to Arbëresh language [6]. As I've said - Arbërisht is just a singular masculine adjective, and the Italiots are monopolizing it! --Tēlex 22:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about them monopolizing it, as long as we get ways of having good unambiguous article names. Can you discuss it with this djelo24 guy? He seems to be an Arbëresh himself, or at least knows something about the area. Fut.Perf. 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


By the way, I am a british born Arberesh (ie of Arberesh parents). I would love to discuss this tpoic with you guys. And, you are right, Arberishte refers to "Gluha Arberishte" because it agreees in gender with the feminine word for language "gluha." Arbereshe also refers to a female Italo-Albanian (for want of an english translation).


Thanks for the long message:) it was really enlightening! however, i cannot interstand some things... Istanbul fullfills all the creteria u mentioned, but the greek name has been erased tens of times... honestly, do u really believe that this happened cause it is mentioned somewhere else in the article (or in others, e.g. Istanbul (etymology)? why not remove the turkish names from the first line of the greek islands and place it somewhere else (complex situations about names can have many definitions...)? i, myself, removed the turkish name in some related articles, but did not ommite it from the article... i placed it somewhere else... u said that u would support the inclusion of Kos and of other islands. would u also support the inclusion in mentioning the greek name in the first line for the places in the Ionian coast, the Pontian coast, Cappadokia or the Marmara sea? anyway, i will not bother adding the greek name in Istanbul again... but i will not let the addition of the turkish name in Komotini to take place. maybe this is childish. or even better an eye for an eye (seems that i am not that good Christian:)...)-not the greek name in the capital of eastern thrace?->neither the turkish in the capital of the western... seems fair (according to geography, administative systems, history-Treaty of Lausanne, etc...). i have nothing to say against u, since u did not really bother me in the revert wars, nor your ideas differ a lot from mine: i would also support your 5 suggestions on when to include a placename in another language. but sadly, i begin to realize that some editors try not to hurt specific turkish 'sensitivities'... Regards --Hectorian 00:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish relations

Clowns... everywhere :( Do a hack-job on the POV and then submit the page for protection, all the warring parties have been blocked for 24h. - FrancisTyers · 09:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if thats right or not, but I've taken the liberty of following your advice regardless. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers · 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Do you think you could help at Aromanians. The reason Greier's trolling Greece-related articles is because there's been an edit war there and he's been outnumbered. Do you think you could give some impartian insight so as to make the article more neutral so that everyone's happy. --Tēlex 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand what that dispute is about. Is it about whether Aromanians are more closely related with Romanians than with other Romance-speaking peoples? If that, I'd actually tend to say yes. I don't know an awful lot about Aromanians, but it seems pretty obvious that both in terms of language and in terms of shared culture, they are closer to Romanians than to French or Spanish, right? - Have you got that article by our friend Trudgill after all? As usual, I only have easy access to the linguistic literature, not so much the historical. Fut.Perf. 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The dispute is over petty things such as layout - whether Greek POV goes before Romanian POV etc. --Tēlex 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On June 26, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kassel glosses, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish relations

Sorry, I've re-added your contributions now. But I thought they were officialy known by their former names back then, right? I was just going for factualy accuracy, that's all. Let me know how is looks now. —Khoikhoi 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. Would you be able to go ahead an change the names? I'm going to be sorta busy today. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright sure, no problem. —Khoikhoi 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That old high german war chant

This user knows how to say "Italians are crazy" in Old High German, but wouldn't want to be blocked for it.

I remember reading about the word for this in some linguistic book...but I can't remember! What is it?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean? A term for this type of joke? Or a translation of the phrase? Fut.Perf. 06:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The phrase! Wasn't there a word they yelled?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Arvanites did not bother to learn Greek well into the 19th century

double click on Athens News article

I read your reply to Greier as to the Arvanite issue. We can all harbour delusions my friend but it is important to read (and to take heed) what competent observers of the Arvanites wrote after visiting them on the ground. And what they did wrote is that far from considering themselves Greek they could not even utter a word in Greek language. Hardly a sign of love towards the Greeks don't you agree?


WHEN J. Theodore Bent and his wife travelled around the Cyclades in the 1880s, his impressions of Andros were coloured by the foul March weather and the prevalence of "obnoxious animalculae", aka fleas and bedbugs. Nevertheless, able to speak Greek, he enjoyed himself in the eastern half which he found almost paradisaical with its "delicious streams", fertile valleys and "lofty towers". Gavrion, the present port, was a different story. "Of all places in the world Gavrion is one of the most desolate... The inhabitants of Gavrion, too, struck us as morose, and not too hospitably inclined". He does admit, however, that part of the problem was his inability to communicate with them. These inhabitants spoke no Greek. Andros is alone among the Cyclades in having a large portion of its population of Albanian stock. They are the descendants of mercenaries brought in by the Venetians in the 15th century Apostolos Margaritis 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We were talking about Arvanites in the 20th century, I think, and yes, I have seen a lot of studies from people who went to see them on the ground. In the 19th century identifications would still have been fleeting - certainly they were still seen as basically the same ethnicity as the Albanians outside Greece in ethnolinguistic terms, but at the same time it's quite well documented that they would fiercely side with the Greeks (qua Orthodox Christians, which was synonymous with "Greek"/"Romaios") when it came to conflicts with Muslims/Turks/Ottomans, inlcuding Muslim Albanians. Levels of bilingualism would no doubt have differed from place to place, depending on how compact were the settlements and how mobile were the inhabitants. I have no doubt there were still monolingual groups at the time you're speaking of. Fut.Perf. 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
OK They would side with the Greeks you say, but can I ask you, which "Greeks" really? According to that ardent philhellene (and asiduos visitor of Greece) Colonel Leake (seeWilliam Martin Leake}(and he's quoted more recently by James Pettifer as a reliable source), up to half of the agricultural/rural population of the 19th Century Greece was composed of Arvanites. What I'm inclined to believe is that they rather sided with themselves and with their religion and not with the Greeks as such. As the Irish who adopted the English language without becoming English themselves, the Arvanites adopted the Greek language since there were no schools of churches in the Albanian language, without becoming "Greek". Let's examine another myth, that of the Souliotes fighting for Greece or for "Eladha". The truth is that the Christian Souliotes, people of Albanian stock, fought for their own freedom and not for Greece nor for any Greek cause. You know very well their villages were organized in a kind of semi-independent mountainous confederation. It is for this autocephal(ous) rural mini-state that they fiercely fought the Turks. Their struggle has nothing to do with the Greek independence as a whole or with the aim of creating a Greek Kingdom with its centre in Athens. Apostolos Margaritis 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be prepared to agree with your assessment of the 19th century, to some degree at least. Don't know about the numbers. Of course that doesn't change a thing about the present-day state of affairs. (Call it "identification with the aggressor" if you want to see it in a critical perspective.) As for Souli, yes, most likely. But it's also a fact many of them did fight in the 1821 war - And if you look at the Botsaris family, there seems little doubt they identified with the Greek national cause. (Private particularistic interests of local warlords notwithstanding - that occurred among the ethnic Greeks too of course.) By the way, that leads me directly to the matter I wanted to discuss in private with you. What about that e-mail? :-) Fut.Perf. 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Colonel William Martin Leake's claim that half of the rural Greeks were Arvanites is inserted the book James Pettifer, Albania & Kosovo, Blue Guide, A & C Black, London (2001, ISBN 0713650168). Of course, numbers can be disputed and 19th century statistics wildy diverge in their finding. I too had in mind Botsaris as one who seems to be an unambiguous pro-Greek Souliote. But do you know that Napoleon Bonaparte is quite hated in Corsica while he's revered in France? Bonaparte's family belonged to the minority Corsican francophiles again because of petty private reasons and local interests. But I am not sure if we can generalize and present Botsaris' stance as typical for all the Souliotes. And while Corsica survived as an island and a Heim (to use a German word) for Corsicans, the Republic of Souli is now basically extinct and survives just as a touristic recreation.
Anyway, I don't know why, but I have the feeling that the Grecization of the Arvanites occured relatively recently and the fact that in the 19th century (after 400-500 years of living in Greece) some of them were still monolingual says a lot. The final stage of Grecization coincided basically with their loss of Arvanitika and with the advent of the mass media (radio and TV) in Greece in the 1960's 1970's. And one of the reasons Albania and the Albanians are so demonized in Greece right now has definitely to do with the Arvanites. Albania does not have to be portrayed as an attractive place and definitely NOT as a viable alternative to the (superior) Greek culture. But now everything is over and we cannot talk about Arvanites as such. I'll get to you soon with my e-mail after I passage I want to copy&paste and insert it here Apostolos Margaritis 15:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The mountain of Suli may be conjectured to have been occupied by the Albanians about thirteenths or fourteenth century, and when the greater part of the surrounding country lapsed to the Mohammedan faith, this race of hardy mountaineers adhered firmly to Christianity. During the eighteenth century the Suliotes carried on a predatory warfare with the surrounding territories of Margariti, Paramythia, etc., but when Ali Pasha had subdued all the surrounding tribes, the inhabitants of Suli found he was an enemy, determined either by craft or force to disposses them of their ancestral inheritance. From 1788 to 1792 inumerable were the artifices of Ali to obtain possession of this singular stronghold; in latter year he made an attack on it, which nearly proved fatal to himself, while his army was defeated with great slaughter. In 1798, after six years of bribery and skirmishing, a portion of the territory of Suli was gained by the Mohammedans, through treachery of some of the inhabitants, and thenceforward the accounts of protracted siege of this devoted people is a series of remarkable exploits and resolute defense, by Suliotes of both sexes, seldom paralleled in history. Every foot of the tremendous passage leading to Suli was contested in blood ere the besieger gained firm footing; and after he had done so the rock held out an incredible period, until famine and treachery worked out the downfall of this unfortunate people. Then, in 1803, many escaped by passing through the enemy's camp, many by paths unknown to their pursuers; numbers have fled to the adjacent rocks of Zalongo and Seltzo; others destroyed themselves, together with their enemy, by gunpowder, or in a last struggle; or threw themselves into the Acheron or from precipes. Those of these brave people who ultimately escaped to Parga crossed over to Corfu, and thence entered the service of Russia and France. Many have returned to various parts of Epirus or Greece; but they have no longer a country or a name, and the warlike tribe who, at the length of their power formed a confederacy of sixty-six villages, may now be said to be extinct."Edward Lear - Journal of a Landscape Painter in Greece - London 1851 .

Now, it seems -in my humble opinion- that most of the Souliote action occured well before the Greek Revolution of 1820-1830's and the warfare had to do with Ali Pasha's intention to annex them to his state and not with the Souliotes' non-existent pan-Hellenic ideals. By 1803 they were quite kaput or extinct as Lear very well says Apostolos Margaritis 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the Souli quote. Actually, I was just in a little dispute over at Souliotes about just how "Albanian" they were. I mean, I knew quite well that they (like all other Arvanites) were called Albanians throughout the 19th century - but I doubt there was a clean dichotomy between being an "Albanian" and being a "Greek". It wasn't like you could only be either the one or the other. They were clearly ethnolinguistically Albanians, but were culturally/politically fast becoming part of what was evolving into the "Greek nation", it seems.

New pest

Have you seen the handy work of our latest sockpuppet Yakin (talk · contribs)? What do you think we should do - I mean once you've reverted, he (Tatra) creats a new sockpuppet and starts over again and again. --Tēlex 09:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. Take it to AN/I. Tony Sidaway once had the tactics of not indef-blocking Tatra just so as to avoid the sock proliferation, but I'm not sure that would have been very effective either. Semiprotect all the articles in question? Invent a bot that automatically reverts and blocks whenever a new user makes these specific edits? (Probably not feasible, that's only done for top-level threats like Willy on Wheels.) Asking two dozen admins to bookmark these pages so that they are watched all around the clock and blocks can made before he's gone through all of the articles? :-( Fut.Perf. 09:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanx very much for the offer of support, future perfect. I appreciate it. I think I am getting a grip on the reverts for now, but I will ping you if I need help in future. I understand the futility of blocking in a case where the troll just creates another account, just letting things go is not helpful either. I was actually hoping that if he saw that Telex was doing the reverts in 2 minutes flat, and I was being put to no trouble at all, that would convinve him to stop and leave, but that has not so far happened.
Even in his initial legitimate avatars (2-3 original socks), he was remarkably inpenetrable, impervious to reason, adamant: these were what precipitated the arbcom case and constituted important complaints against him. Sock count is now ~50! He won't go away soon, but if we don't beat him down on a daily basis, he will never go away. Bleak outlook! ImpuMozhi 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


I've posted a comment here and blocked the latest incarnation. - FrancisTyers · 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yer name, laddie


I love it! Part grammatical humor, part pun, all surrealism. Nice! Snoutwood (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC) <clear />

hey, thanks! :-) Did you see the explanation somewhere above here? #Username. Not that I want to spoil a joke by overexplaining it... Fut.Perf. 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Check your e-mail (shortly). --Tēlex 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me

I am shocked and stunned by such abuse. I have written a note on User:Mackensen's discussion page and I have sent a note to User:Angr who is also a linguist. Other than that, I don't know how to proceed in order to initiate a deletion review. If you do, please let me know. More importantly, I believe a process should be put in place to review this kind of abuse, censure it, and punish those responsible. If indeed, as it seems, User:Mackensen has arrogated the power to do essentially what he pleases, in the face of the clear majority opinion, I submit he should be barred from the Wikipedia. Pasquale 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I contacted a bunch on admins on this and only one has responded thus far; he is putting the matter on deletion review. When it comes up, I hope that you will repeat the reasons you thought these articles should be kept. Golly, we have articles on every two-a-penny pokeman creature, but this is unencyclopedic? Carlossuarez46 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion review debate is here if you wish to contribute. David | Talk 19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
David has given you the link to state your piece in the review. Pass it along to anyone else you feel would benefit from knowing. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Danke fuer deinen Rajput-Einsatz. Der Typ ist ja wirklich unglaublich :) dab () 09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Me redir U

Just in case you disagree... Noticing your comment in Telex talk, I took the liberty of creating a redirect for User:FPaS and the relative talk. :NikoSilver: 10:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the idea! I don't think it works for the subpage though. Fut.Perf. 10:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Rajput/Archive21#A useful list. --Tēlex 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it does! :-) :NikoSilver: 11:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


LOL....a template in honour of our esteemed friend! What is the world coming to! It is certainly serviceable, and I shall use it, but y'know what, I really detest the situation and am mortified at the recent escalation and I wish it would just end. The removal of that horrendous user, utterly intractible, adamant, incapable of NPOV, is certainly a blessing, and I tried sincerely to reason with him for a prolonged period, but I wish everything had been otherwise. In the case as it turned out, I am very glad to have your support, and I thank you sincerely for it. Regards, ImpuMozhi 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Future, regards the request you made me some time ago regards the Sclaveni, I've found some time and read what Ostrogorsky had to say on the argument. But there are some problems; 1) the title: Sclaveni is not an OK transliteration of Σκλαβήνοι, for the reasons you know better than me, even as a latinized form, and Latin sources seem to use not Sclaveni, maybe the article should be renamed Sclaueni, among the Latin names used, and a latinization of Σκλαυήνοι. 2) when should this article start? and more important, when should it end? 3) how can we prevent it from overlapping with Slavic peoples? Thesee are some difficulties. --Aldux 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what you mean. About the spelling, I really don't mind that much, "Sclaveni" seems to have some currency (of course, Latin sources wouldn't have distinguished <u> from <v> anyway at that time, but <v> seems more appropriate from the modern perspective.) About the scope of the article, I think the original author wanted it to deal just with the role of the Slavs in Byzantium, especially those that were later assimilated (e.g. on the Peloponnese) as opposed to the later Bulgarians/Slavomacedonians. Of course, it's not really the case that the historical term "sclaveni" is exclusively associated with these groups, is it, so yes, we do have a certain arbitrariness in the scope and naming of the article there. I'm not sure if that's a problem. Maybe even "Slavs in Byzantium" might be a better title. Fut.Perf. 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the title would be a bit misleading; the truth is that in the 7th century Byz. control in the Balkans simply crashed, and very little survived. So it's hard to even say in Byzantium; or to distinguish Slavic tribes in the Peloponnese and those in Macedonia and Thrace, at least till greater ethnicities start forming.--Aldux 22:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, could you see Talk:Greeks, on whether to add the sub-Saharan origins theory? My motto is always tell the reader something they could easily find out any other way, and present it in its true (NPOV) fashion (unlike the way it is presented in .mk websites). --Tēlex 14:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, just a few points:
  • First, I really don't know much about human genetics and can't judge how relevant this thing would be. Sure, wherever DNA-studies results get pressed into service for national issues, we should be hugely cautious.
  • As for your defensive motivation, don't forget we are writing this article not for Greeks or Macs, but for a wide international audience. I don't think many people not yet steeped in the nastinesses of the Balkan nationalist discourses are likely to have ever heard of this paper.
  • Finally, even if this claim was true - why would it be detrimental to Greek ancient continuity? Nothing Fallmerayeristic about it, is there? If indeed there was a population link between Greece and Africa which led to some unique distinctive Greek genetic traits, then that link must be very ancient. Because obviously there was no such case of population admixture in historical times. But if the "African" character of the Greek population is ancient, and it's still found today, then that means the Greek population must have remained extremey stable and unalloyed between antiquity and today, right? Nothing could be better evidence that you guys are special. It would be far more Fallmerayeristic if you were found to be just the same as other mediterraneans. :-) Fut.Perf. 15:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, but i do not think there will be need for references:). Tsakonic is undoubtably coming from Doric. as far as the Griko is concerned, according to what i know, it has preserved doric elements, but not to an extend to be considered descending from doric greek. other modern greek dialects have also preserved ancient greek non-attik elements (e.g. Cretan from Doric and Thessalian from Aeolian). u do know much about the greek language! --Hectorian 17:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. i am not sure if there is a common ground between me and him... anyway, i will think about it and we'll see... --Hectorian 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Have you seen the latest developments at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImpuMozhi. --Tēlex 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Nobody is going to find out that you are ImpuMozhi's sockpuppet after all. Aren't you glad? -- Fut.Perf. 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Why using sockpuppets to clean up vandalism? This case used to cost time and nerves in the arbitration stage, but as of now it's simply a case of filing AIV notices as the trolling comes in, no time lost in circular debates. This guy will tire of his fruitless hobby sooner or later, or if he doesn't, our descendant Wikipedians can go on blocking him every day for the next couple of decades, no sleep lost :) dab () 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, seeing how Telex and ImpuMozhi got wikistalked into other areas of their work, I can understand that some people might prefer to be spared the hassle. You and I have our accounts 'burned', of course, but there are friends who've chosen to help but remain anonymous. I could tell you more in private. :-) Fut.Perf. 18:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

cleaning up behind people

If you have a moment, consider looking at bharatveer (talk · contribs), esp. Talk:Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system, I have to run. dab () 17:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


just returned from a rather long absence! thx for letting me know about embirikos- to my understanding the problem is now solved. in any case, i want to make some improvements to the article.--Greece666 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk

What's your problem? — Sshadow 08:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. What's yours? Let's not talk about ourselves. Let's discuss the article. Why do you think the Cataclysm has anything to do with Souliotes? Fut.Perf. 08:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy with a mass of articles, but I've added it to my watchlist.--Aldux 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Listen Future, have you considerd using Google Books Search for the argument? Pardon me, if I'm already telling you things you already know, but even of copyright books you can generally read a number of sample pages of your choice, generally slightly more thsn a dozen, and there are many returns from "souliotes", even if many, but by no mean all, are from the 19th century.--Aldux 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Renewed revert wars

Hi FPS. I want to make clear that I also hate those revert wars. But some guys like you leave me no choice. Please explain to me why do you keep adding the Turkish name on places that have no Turkish population whatsoever and have little or no imprortance to Turkish people. You might say that this is due to Historical reasons, beeing occupied for like 400 years. OK agreed. But nearly ALL Greek cities were occupied for like 400 years, do we need to add Turkish names there too? Many other cities around the world were occupied by various civilizations on various times, do we need to add all names there too? Tell me FPS how is Simi or Kalimnos or Samothrace significant to Turkish people? Now lets say you REALLY want to add it for your own strange reasons..well do it in the text content just like in Istanbul article. By the way I dont see the same attitude by you in Istanbul article. Why not add the Greek name AT THE TOP of the article? I will absolutely not tolerate this situation.Regards.Mywayyy 11:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as my own personal opinion is concerned, please see the discussion we had on Hectorian's talk page the other day, I think I made my stance pretty clear. It's not because the Islands are significant to Turks, it because the contact with Turkish is significant for the history of the Islands. But now it's really more a matter of Wiki principle here. The revert warring must stop, that's paramount. If you feel strongly about these issues, get some process going that leads to consensus (maybe mediation or a centralised policy discussion page.) What you can't do is just say: I want it this way, I'll revert forever no matter what the others say. "I will absolutely not tolerate ..." is just something you have no right to say on Wikipedia. There have been some strong voices for the inclusion of these names in the lead, it's standard practice both in other places in Wikipedia and in some other encyclopedias (I just checked Brockhaus 2006, the German equivalent to Britannica, for instance). You will need to give some signal that you would be willing to accept a community consensus solution even it wasn't all Yourwayyy, otherwise we'll never get anywhere. -- Fut.Perf. 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. as for the on-top-or-not-on-top issue, I find it childish to fight about that as if it was a matter of symbolic significance. It's not, it's a matter of textual practicality. If it's simple (just one or two names without much necessary explanation) , it goes in the lead. If it's complex (more than two or three names, complex historical issues attached), it goes down in the text. First case is Kos (needs just Italian and Turkish); second case is Istanbul. Simple. Fut.Perf. 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


What exactly is the problem with the article? I know it had a grave error - the Suliotes were not Arvanites. --Tēlex 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

to my understanding, the debate is about the origins of souliotes. all i found is an entry in an encyclopedia, but its written by a well-known historian (Vasilis Sfyroeras). I quote: "it is not known when the first settlements were created in the mountaneous and isolated area if Suli, but most researchers, both Greeks and foreigners, agree that the first settlers came in the 16th century. The first inhabitants came from south albania and nearby lowland areas and formed 4 villages"(Πάπυρος-Larousse-Britannica, vol. 54, p. 414, entry Souli, Athens: Πάπυρος, 1993.) Tommorow i ll search for other sources, but im not sure i ll find sthg. (feel free to use the above quotation if you think its useful).--Greece666 23:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, that's a start, although it only speaks of geographical provenance, not ethnicity. It doesn't give further references, does it? Fut.Perf. 05:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


I've given him a final warning, let me know if he does it again. - FrancisTyers · 09:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See my note on WP:ANI. - FrancisTyers · 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you want Mywayyy permabanned? He does have some useful edits. --Tēlex 15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
See my note to Hectorian. Yes, I am aware that he has been, otherwise, a legitimate contributor. But he needs to learn the rules. I wouldn't mind him coming back, but under a strict 0-reverts parole on the particular issue at hand (and I mean "zero", as in: don't. ever.). His potential for disruption otherwise outweighs whatever good he can do elsewhere. As long as he's willing to negotiate for a consensual solution and leave the articles as they until we've reached one, I have no problem with him. Fut.Perf. 15:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. re the example of a useful edit you chose: I only now checked it. I wouldn't exactly describe instances of either macedonorepristinoiugoslavofication or macedonodepristinoiugoslavofication as particularly useful edits, but be that as it may... Fut.Perf. 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If I can give my opinin, maybe the best thing would be a topical ban, that excludes him from Greece-related articles; if he's a dedicated editor, he will continue more seriously on other themes, or else he'll vanish.--Aldux 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd be content with even less: a ban (or 0-reverts parole, boiling down to the same thing) from this one particular issue of adding or removing of foreign geographical names would be sufficient, if it is supervised properly and there's a genuine promise and commitment on his part. Which I'm not sure he'll be willing to give. For the moment, the admins have gone ahead and made the block indefinite. - Anyway, as far as the content dispute goes (and I'm not sure everybody else is yet absolutely happy with the status quo), I just mentioned what I find a really Solomonic idea on Telex' talkpage. Fut.Perf. 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW have you seen my comment at Talk:Greek Muslim minority. --Tēlex 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment-advice on his talk page... I hope he will take it seriously, and maybe think more and reconsider his behaviour. i think that asking to permaban him is exagerrating! i mean, come on guys!, remember how long it took to indefinately ban other users who had been extreme POV-pushers from the other side of the Aegean? He is new here, i want to believe that he is willing to learn the rules. what he does is by no doubt nationalistic and unencyclopedic, but not as much as other things that we have seen around here. I did not know that there can be a topical ban... (i know since a long time that Aldux knows more things than i do:)...). temporary topical ban or 0-reverts parole seem good to me at the moment, of course... --Hectorian 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't permablock him for POV pushing. i did it for habitial block evasion, Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

linguist assistance

You are listed in the linguist by profession category. Would you please look at the discussion at Talk:Caron? It has been suggested that professional opinions are required to resolve the dispute there.

More socks

Hi, do you think you could help with a sockpuppet problem we seem to be having. A user I believe is User:Amacos has been conducting a sockpuppet edit war with anon IPs. Some affected articles are Dame Gruev, Gjorche Petrov and Jane Sandanski. Is this thing allowed, or is the kind of thing people get away with, in which case I should make a sock army as well? If it's the kind of thing winners do, why not? --Tēlex 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the 62.162.*.* IP range there? I'd report him for 3RR first and ask for a range block for enforcement. As it's evidently one user, 3RR applies, and his multiple-IP behaviour would make preemptive range-blocking legitimate, I think. If he persists, the next step might be checkuser to link him to one of the named accounts, if you have any evidence for identity. I'll give it more of a look later. Fut.Perf. 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia

Hi Future, could you help me with Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia? A pro-Albanian newbie, User:Objectivee, has just emerged and is attempting to force through his POV, without presenting a single source. Could you try tackling him?--Aldux 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm afraid I'll probably not have much time and energy to tackle new disruptors over the next few days. Have been doing my fair share of disruptor-tackling recently, I'd say. But I'll try and keep an eye on it. Fut.Perf. 05:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Too true, and I know what you mean, I also have had "problems" with that Greek user some months ago. Don't worry, anyway, it only means it'll remain some more day their, than I will see to solve the question. Ciao,--Aldux 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


My brother in conjugation! How I envy you! My future is what's here-and-now; yours, however, is perfect! Thanks for the hello, and please don't hesitate to help me "perfect" my work here on Wikipedia as I see you have quite a bit more experience than I do. FuturePresent 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Arvanitic manifesto"?

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Whose manifesto? The only manifesto I can think of is that of Vinozhito, which want's to recognize Arvanitic as a minority language. I'll check Biris though - I think he does have some interesting statistics, not just in Athens, but in other cities. --Tēlex 11:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a manifesto. We were talking about the abstract of Biris's book :-) --Tēlex 11:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

About Biris, it's not that good and it's mostly guesswork. According to Johann Georg von Hahn, Albanesische Studien, Jena 1854, p VI (quoted by Biris), there were 173,000 Aranites in Greece, which he later admitted was incorrect, because he said that there were Arvanites in Σπερχειό and Φωκίδα, and there really aren't any. With those subsequent corrections, his estimates are as follows:

Arvanites in Greece (1854)
30,000 Attica, Μεγαρίδα and Salamis (but excluding Athens, Piraeus and Megara)
25,000 Boeotia
6,000 Southern Euboea (excluding Κάρυστος)
25,000 Argolis and Poros
15,000 Corinthia and Achaea
10,000 (?) Southern Arcadia (Laconia)
12,000 Hydra
10,000 Spetses

Apparently, according to Hahn, there were no Arvanites in Athens (!) so Biris treats his estimates with extreme caution and refutes some of them, and arrives at the conclusion that the population of Arvanites was really 120,000. According to Pouqeville, Voyage de la Grèce, 1827, V, p. 122, there were 15,000 Christians in Attica excluding Athens out of whom "most" were Arvanites (he probably used the word "Albanians"). What I'm trying to say is that that chapter is full of speculations and does not really give a quotable estimate on the actual figures. --Tēlex 11:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

About manifesto in Greek, me and Matia were talking about what is written on the inner side of the front book cover. I don't know if it's correct usage or not. --Tēlex 11:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

and another Poll...

Hi. There's a debate about how much "X-ian" one must be in order to be considered "X-American" (or X-Yian for that matter) and be categorized as such. The poll is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Kindly weigh in! :NikoSilver: 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Well, that'll be the first article we're not bitching too much about! :-) :NikoSilver: 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Something new

Can you believe this? ImpuMozhi 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

... and he even seems to have found an unwitting ally against you and our little rodent friend, here: [7]. Fut.Perf. 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you...

... check your e-mail. --Tēlex 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rajput vandalbots

that is actually good news, because the sophistication will force the community (in extremo, the developers) to clamp down on the case. Please post this on WP:AN/I. dab () 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reprodding Peloponnesians (Greek)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Peloponnesians (Greek), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --ais523 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Double sourced

Re Macedonia terminology. Perhpas you have an incomplete picture (or is it me?). Francis gave another reference believing it contradicted my own. But in fact it concurred with mine and I am most greateful to him. So: we have the 'earliest official' reference from Greek sources quoting Yugoslav and from Bulgarian. That makes 2 certain sources (Greek and Bulgarian) and one highle probable (Yugoslav). If there is anything I am missing, always greateful to be informed, meanwhile, happy readings. Politis 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly are we disputing now? I haven't got too much time now, but I can't see any second source asserting that the term "Aegean Mac." was new at around 1944. That's the point of contention, right?
My 2 cents:
  • We should use the quotation you brought strictly as a terminus ad quem. The term was adopted by 1944. We should not take seriously the claim that it was new at that time. You have to ask yourself: If in fact it was not new and people had been using it earlier, would the Greek propaganda ministery have mentioned that fact? Of course not. So, its claims in that respect are worthless.
  • I also object against a formulation (as in one of the compromise suggestions) that no older attestations are known or the like. Because that means confusing the state of knowledge of Wikipedia editors with the state of knowledge of scholarship. Such a sentence would insinuate: Scholars have looked through the archives for earlier attestations but haven't found anything earlier. That's not true. Three Wikipedia editors have browsed the web for a couple hours and have found nothing earlier. Not the same thing. As long as we simply don't know anything about the time of introduction of that term, other than that it was before 1944, we should write simply nothing about it. Fut.Perf. 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Long day? I know the feeling. The date is 1945, not 1944; that is why I said that we both concur. You do not have the book, I presume, hence some of your comments are not quite apposite. The Greek source is just a FOOTNOTE on page 47. It reads, 'Δια του νέου όρου 'Μακεδονία του Αιγαίου' οι Γιουγκοσλαύοι ενοούν την Ελληνικήν Μακεδονίαν'. As I said, WE CONCUR, in other words, both our finding give us 1945. Politis 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I still think there's a misunderstanding. I don't care whether it's 1944 or 1945. My understanding is that Francis was disputing that it couldn't have been much much earlier. We have a terminus ad quem; if I didn't miss something significant on the talk page we have nothing except the assertion by the Greek propaganda suggesting that it really was new at that time. Which seemed to be what you wanted to show, right? Fut.Perf. 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the talk page, I don't think I should respond to the racism allegation, and I'm glad that what I'm saying isn't falling on deaf ears :) In case you didn't have time to read the talk page, I have no problem with including the source, what I have a problem with is accepting that when the Greek government says "this is the first recorded use" we should believe them. Especially considering it was at the height of a war published by the Greek government in a book called "Designs on Greece", I think if this was any other government (e.g. replace Greek with Turkish there) they would be having none of it. - FrancisTyers · 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree (as you can see from the above, and I also mentioned something on Niko's talk page to the effect that I see the burden of proof about the earliest attestation thing resting with Politis, not you.) Fut.Perf. 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad to know I'm not going crazy :) - FrancisTyers · 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They? Who is they? Have you seen my pieces on Cyprus. I was accused of not being Greek. Please, take a breath Francis, you are not making things better. And where did you read, "this is the first recorded use"? your quotes, your text. Thank you. I am keeping a copy of all this to re-examine in a cooler atmosphere and assess the situation. Politis 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, "this is the first recorded use" wasn't meant as a literal quote, I suppose, but as a - correct - summary of what that citation you included wanted to insinuate. And yes, I agree with Francis that that insinuation was highly dubious. Fut.Perf. 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, the quotation marks were decorative? That does not hold water, in the media, in academia or between people versed in the format of scholarly exchanges. Sorry, I am a bit out at sea on this one, what insiniution? Politis 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was pretty obvious that when you introduced that quote, you wanted to suggest to the reader that the term was invented around that time and wasn't in use earlier. That's what the quotation implies. And all that Francis and I have been pointing out to you all this time is that this conclusion is unwarranted. (And the use of quotes was correct to mark the colloquial figure of speech of using direct speech to render the intended contents of an opinion ascribed to a third party. I, for one, am quite versed in the format of scholarly exchanges, believe me, and I had no difficulty parsing it.) Fut.Perf. 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


About Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorasi. Shouldn't the Radiophonia be Radiofonia? No one in Greece uses ph for φ. It looks pretentious. --Tēlex 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, edit conflict on my own talkpage. What a busy place this has suddenly become. Yes Telex, you're right. Fut.Perf. 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking if you want pretentious Erasmian tranliterations, transliterate it Hellênikê Rhadiophonia Têleorasê. --Tēlex 18:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(3rd conflict) Well, I just closed the move poll, I'm happy to move it again if its just a matter of 'ph' -> 'f'. Discuss it on the talk page then give me a call. Or, if Elliniki Radiofonia Tileorasi doesn't exist you can do it yourselves :) - FrancisTyers · 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW you should have let Aldux move it :-) --Tēlex 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no, I had wanted to reserve for him the honour of placing the final lethal range-block on the Rajput mutant, as his first real admin action. But there was no opportunity today. Has somebody else done that? :-) Fut.Perf. 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


What is your opinion on this edit [8]. Deleting sourced info and reverting to a version full of {facts}. Even his latest version was totally unsourced. --Tēlex 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He must be well beyond 3RR again anyway, isn't he? I'm too bored right now to fill in the report... ;-) Fut.Perf. 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

0.02¢ required

Hey man, could I get your (very brief) comments on Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)#Please give me a good reason. The journal looks reasonably reputable, but the claims are outlandish, not to mention Macedonians were involved in writing the paper. Smells fishy to me. - FrancisTyers · 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll mention that. - FrancisTyers · 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology)

Text added in demographics and linguistics. Please comment.:NikoSilver: 12:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have email. Politis 14:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


There was one Irish speaker, AFAICT, who opposed my adminship. lol. What is the plural form? And your user page led me to Kassel conversations - how amusing. --Chris S. 18:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List of casinos

Thanks for that correction. Republic of Macedonia been changed so many times I think I'm forgetting what the correct one is. Vegaswikian 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A vandal

Hi Future Perfect. I'm afraid I was in the middle of exams a few weeks ago and I didn't thank you properly for a very nice message you left on my talk page. Thank you. Anyway thought you should see what I've just been reverting, [9] and [10] and quite a bit more. Looking at the page history you seem to more about this person than I do and probably know which admins were involved. As you can see he has a couple more IP addresses now. Best. --Lo2u 14:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


I have fixed the sockpuppet mixup abakharev 08:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Do you think you could give your opinion at User talk:FrancisTyers#The language, and maybe consider archiving your talk page. --Tēlex 10:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Es tut mir leid

Not German, an UndutchableGreeklitalmaffiozo (and this only to start with). (Haas K. D. 15:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Ah, I see. That fits well; as for myself, I've gone on record here self-identifying as a Celtovandalosilingovenedopolonofrancosaxocheruskan with a Rumeloarvanogyphtovlachellenic adstrate. :-) Fut.Perf. 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversial does not mean to put up with mistakes, does it??

So when people ask you where from, you say "lots of different places". Has a ring to it!!

Now let me ask you...

The second part of opening phrase does seem to make sense.

The Macedonians today live in the Republic of Macedonia; there are minority communities in Greek Macedonia with their own dialect and history but where the overwhelming majority consists of Greeks (who are also known as Macedonians in the region), as well as in Albania and Bulgaria.

What kind of minority communities axist in Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania??? Are their ehtnic, linquistic, cultural, religious, large , small? Does the overwhelming majority of the community members consist of Greeks?(they actuall do) Or do they consider themselves something else in contradiction to Greeks. And what does the poet mean by sayin "as well as in Albania and Bulgaria". Do all these apply there also? I am sure the Greeks wouls be happy to here that! And what is this different history... Saying something like that should require some refferences to back you up!!!!

Am i not entitle to change this passage?

Seems not.As for the ancient period paragraph. It is quite misleading since it does not refer to ancient times at all. Propably should exclude all the passage from text.

It seems that certain people are quite satisfied with their wotk and do not accept comments and corrections (but if this is the case they should not write here, really)

It is indeed a controversial article and i had to be more carefull at the beggining. It is also a very amusing one to follow up, from its creation to the seemingly result. Is like drafting a treaty between hostal tribes. The fact that large parts of the outcome derive from original contributions with very clear, highly nationalistic positions for the one (mostly) and the other side is absolutely charming.

This article has flaws and can be improved. The fact that is controversial should not be considered a problem and a taboo. There is no thing like status quo ante in wiki as far as i know. In any case my alterations reffer to comonly accepted facts undisputed by all sides.

I will sincerely continue keeping you company in your efforts. 

Thanx Haas