User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. – July 2006
  2. – October 2006
  3. – November 2006
  4. – January 2007
  5. – 12 March 2007
  6. – 5 May 2007
  7. – 8 Sept 2007


Neutral tone

I must admit that your version is nearest to the neutral point. But can I ask (before making changes to replace "Slavic ethnic group and the language within Yugoslavia" with "ethnic Macedonians group and their language within Yugoslavia"? And also as we can some pages it is stated that the most southern part of Yugoslavia is Macedonia, and in others that the Socialist republic of yugoslavia is Macedonia. So, according to me this will be the best solution:

Some authors from the Republic of Macedonia have pointed out in support of their position that Greek authorities themselves, prior to the 1990s, used the name Macedonia to refer to the then Yugoslavian Socialist Republic of Macedonia, implying that the later rejection was artificial and politically motivated. They quote Greek geography school books from the 1980s that use the term with reference to southern Yugoslavia or Socialist Republic of Macedonia and also include the terms Macedonians and Macedonian for the ethnic Macedonian group and their language within Yugoslavia.

With respect. Revizionist 11:10, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, no problem. I was just trying to keep it short and less redundant. Whether those maps mean the political entity or just some vague geographical region is pretty irrelevant, isn't it. Common sense says that of course they mean the political entity, even though they aren't explicitly showing the boundary. In any case, you don't need to include the link to the SRoM twice in the same paragraph, nor the wikilink on the Republic of Macedonia (we usually link to the same target only once in an article.) Fut.Perf. 09:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I made the changes that you approved plus I excluded the second link to Socialist Republic of Macedonia as unnecessary. P.S. Sorry if am behaving non-ethical for asking, but could you tell me what is your native language (that is what is your background). Best regards, Revizionist 11:29, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Language is German. Ethnic background and self-identification, as I put it once, is Celtovandalosilingovenedopolonofrancosaxocheruskan, with a certain Rumeloarvanogyphtovlachellenic adstrate in the family environment. :) --Fut.Perf. 09:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe. I like the concept. Well I guess I can partially identify my self with a similar example ;) Cheers Revizionist 11:58, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fut.Perf. . There is this guy DL1977-2 that made some reverting without giving evidence nor facts. He even asked the name of the encyclopedia, and I gave it to him. I posted it here. After I posted it, ·ΚέκρωΨ· started saying that the encyclopedia is not a proof and so on. With ·ΚέκρωΨ· till now I'm having a civilized discussion (although I see he has be warned several times for vandalism on Albanian articles. Both of them have never written an article or some kind of a constructive text. Only edit wars. That is why I'm reporting to you (please excuse me if I'm being boring or pathetic, but I really hate this pressure), because the next time someone reverts your version I won't be avle to return it back - for I will brake the Three-Revert-Rule. Thanks in advance. With respect. Revizionist 19:59, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... welcome to Wikipedia's Macedonian pages... I recommend to take it easy for the moment, don't let yourself be drawn into a revert war now. (You know the 3RR, right? Oh yes, sure, because I blocked you the other day... :-P) These debates can be pig-headed. Kekrops is a long-time contributor, very clever and knowledgeable, but he can be a real tough nut in such a dispute. The other guy is probably not really new either. I wonder what kind of misplaced footwear he is. Will find it out, don't worry. :) But in any case, your position with respect to those sources is not particularly strong, it's not as if it was some high-class historical scholarship you were quoting. Fut.Perf. 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Fute, I'm sure you can appreciate that this tough nut cannot accept Dionysia Weissman's γιὰ σᾶς, παιδιά by "εκδοσεις αυλος" as an official "Greek school book". Those are published by the Οργανισμός Εκδόσεων Διδακτικών Βιβλίων, which is overseen by the Ministry of Education. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I never presented the encyclopedia "γιὰ σᾶς, παιδιά" as a "Greek school book". I said " Greek textbooks and encyclopedia" (which is different from what you said).
Actually Fut.Perf. , for the time being mediation is not necessary. This ·ΚέκρωΨ· turned out to be a reasonable guy. Unlike other who just vandalize articles and engage in edit wars, ·ΚέκρωΨ· gave evidence about the encyclopedia, and we reached a mutual compromise. We stated that the Encyclopedia is privately published, and the Geography textbook is state published. Yes, I am new in Wikipedia and the Macedonia related articles, but I'm happy that all this time I manage to use a calm academic tone (like you guys), and I hope we will become friends. Για σας, και καληνηχτα. Revizionist 21:08, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
Довидување и добра ноќ. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


You're good at Macedonia related stuff....please take a look at this discussion here regarding the PD-RoM template. SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for going through the template and orphaning out the stuff that didn't apply. My fingers would have gotten tired. SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the response! It was exactly what I needed. Shup's back at IP tonight, but seems to be behaving himself. Once again, I appreciate all that you're doing (overall! You seem to have you hands full lately...). Hiberniantears 02:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for erasing Frightner's comment on my talk page. I appreciate it. I don't like provocation. His statement was not argument, because he didn't read your comment offering help to revise the template. With the help of the admits I will make a new template for connected with Article 31 of the "Law on Copyright and Related Rights" of the Republic of Macedonia. Cheers Revizionist 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks, but I don't think that's a good idea. What that Article 31 says is about country-specific conditions on what we here call non-free content / "fair use". It's a very thorny topic, and we have a hard time already reaching a consensus about what the American rules on fair use mean for us. I don't think additional information about the MKD-specific rules would clarify things any further - the American rules is what ultimately counts here. Fut.Perf. 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia is ultimately governed by American law. While occasionally we have templates regarding PD in other countries (Germany and UK come to mind) their laws are written such that the templates work as well under American law. Macedonia law does not work the same way. SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for the record, I don't really see that many differences between the Macedonian and the German case. As far as I can see, the laws are quite similar in scope, structure and content. And the condition described in {{PD-Germany}} is very much of the same kind as those I put on the Macedonian one. But we shouldn't have country-specific fair use tags, they don't make a lot of sense. (Don't know how and if those fair-use-related articles of the law would be applicable in America at all, probably not.) Fut.Perf. 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks


An Arbitration case on which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Regarding edits on Atanas Badev, this has been edit warring there for the past four months. He reverts away from compromise version by myself, Laveol and Capricornis. Also he is editing through sockpuppets: this ip adds a picture just uploaded by Strich3d. Same thing a couple of days ago he uploads this image, and then anon user inserts it here. Also he seems to be erasing the notice for lack of licence information. Mr. Neutron 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like Fut.Perf. has been indeed appointed as THE admin for all the macedonian-bulgarian disputes :) As for the image of Solun I made it clear on the talk page of the portal that such uploads are undesirable and not helpful, there is no need to bring that up over and over. As for the warring, I will look into it and try to talk sense to the warring parties, since as I mentioned on the talk page, this is the first time I ever hear about this Badev guy :) Capricornis 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, need help

What to I have to do to change the result of this? Just read the rationale on the votes and the first paragraph of Koine Greek (if you don't already know it) to see how important that third era is. For the record, the voters urge me to list myself in grc (Ancient Greek), which is much further than what I can confidently and easily understand. Koine is the predecessor of demotic, and I'm very glad I don't miss a iota in the original text of the New Testament. I couldn't say the same for Plato or -worse- Homer though... If the ISO of "ke" is the problem, then let's just fix it. NikoSilver 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. It's a bit awkward now, process-wise, because although "Consensus Can Change" there isn't really a standard process for overturning this kind of deletion debate - DRV is only for procedural issues about contested closures, not for a new content appraisal, and if you just recreate the category it would be subject to a speedy. I guess we should at least contact the deletion nominator and the person who closed it, to see if there are objections. Lemme see. Don't think it would be hugely controversial, really. Fut.Perf. 06:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: See [1], [2]. Fut.Perf. 07:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your actions. I'd have contacted them myself, but I wanted to make sure there's no standard procedure for undeletion in the first place.
The last text I read in Koine was the Revelation of John (here). I found it very interesting that it was 100% comprehensible for me. Mind you, I was one of the worst students in Ancient Greek at school! I also went to Patmos this year and saw his cave. It is amazing how our language has changed so little in over 2 millenia! It's also amazing how it changed so much in just 300-500 years (since Pericles for example). What do the linguists say? How can a language speed up its evolution over a short period of time and then pause to rest for almost eternity? NikoSilver 08:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Normally, I reply to posts on my talk page, but seeing as how the thread here initiated that post, I'm going to respond here and hope that you will not mind. First of all, let me say thank you for coming to me to discuss the matter. I want to be clear that I want to do what is best for the project, and that I have no feelings that my decision is set in stone or not otherwise subject to change. I believe that you have made a very good case for a distinct category to exist. As far as I can tell there is no ISO code which applies here. I would suggest that perhaps Category:User koine be used, instead of "ke", since that will prevent any potential issues that people sometimes have with 2 or 3 character codes. Also, I would ask you to consider if you need the "levels" (-1, -2, etc.) of child categories, or if you just need one primary one for everyone. I think that I will have no objection with whatever you decide, and only would ask that you link to this discussion when you do create the category(ies) so that people will understand why. My final thought would be that if you are looking for any other opinions (who all know more than I) User:jc37, User:Black Falcon and User:Horologium have all been active in this series of discussions. --After Midnight 0001 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Fut, what you say with this? We seem to have 4go10 (and I hate the red link on my userbox :-)) NikoSilver 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you take it up with the guy himself? We had some discussion on his talk page too, and apparently he thought it would be okay to go ahead and recreate it. Fut.Perf. 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. See User talk:After Midnight#A category issue for your info. NikoSilver 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just some chat about linguistics

Hah! Gotcha too. Now you do owe me a Tobermory. I followed your link to the Revelation text and wondered: wow, I didn't know Koiné was that modern either! Future tense forms with thélo! Reduction of ina > na! Then I got suspcicious and checked my printed New Testament. What you got on the web there isn't the original, it's a Katharevousa adaption. Unbelievable, isn't it? If they are going to use not the original but a modern translation, why don't they go straight for standard demotic? (Perhaps that illusion of continuity is just what they want to achieve?)
Anyway, your observation may still be correct. There are two factors. First, many people believe that sudden language contact speeds up change, especially language shift. Between classical and koine, you had all those foreign non-native speakers to assimilate, such as speakers of Macedonian sorry, couldn't resist...;-) Illyrian, Thracian, Lycian, Luwian, Aramaic, Egyptian etc. Not to mention the Paxiotes. Second, on the other side, don't forget that much of the recognisability for a modern speaker may be owing to the "artificial" preservation of language features through the ecclesiastic register and later through Katharevousa. If you were a speaker of pure traditional demotic, living outside the cultural sphere of the orthodox church or the Greek state, you'd probably find the Revelation just as baffling as a modern English speaker finds this:
Her hæþne men ærest on Sceapige ofer winter sætun. 7 þy ilcan geare gebocude Æþelwulf cyning teoþan dæl his londes ofer al his rice Gode to lofe 7 him selfum to ecere hælo, 7 þy ilcan geare ferde to Rome mid micelre weorþnesse 7 þær was .xii. monaþ wuniende 7 þa him hamweard fór, 7 him þa Carl Francna cyning his dohtor geaf him to cuene, 7 æfter þam to his leodum cuom 7 hie þæs gefægene wærun. ([3])
About a radical view of how languages can suddenly change speed of change, see punctuated equilibrium (let's see if this turns up blue? Ah, it does, but the article deals only with biology. There's a guy called Dixon, specialist in Australian Aboriginal languages, who applies the concept to language development too.) Fut.Perf. 09:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bre Fut, I read the Revelation from my Bible too, sorry for the wrong (just discovered) link. Well, you have a point, I should have immediately spotted the difference in ease of comprehension. Truth is, I can't immediately classify the Greek I read to a specific era. Anyway, how old is this English (?) text you quoted?

About the Katharevousa thing, you won't find me as criticizing as yourself. Personally, I believe that the utility of being able to have easier access to such huge amount of wisdom (be it the New Testament or Plato and Homer), deserves the "intervention", as long as this is not forced of course. So I agree to the end, but I criticize (just like you) the means. NikoSilver 10:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the difference between the original Koine text and that adapted text is not very great - but it's actually quite revealing in many ways to see what they replace and what they don't. -- The English text is from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, entry for 855 AD, written probably around 900 AD. (Did you understand anything?) Fut.Perf. 10:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Zero. Does anybody? Isn't it a "pity" that this stuff is not taught or otherwise preserved a bit? I also note that all languages tend to become over-simplified. Declensions, tenses and vocabulary etc are becoming obsolete. In my view the language is the tool for the brain. To give you a parallel, it is another thing to run Visual Basic in your brain, and another to run e.g. COBOL. The only problem is that the computer languages evolve, while the human ones perish. Are we becoming dumber? NikoSilver 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if you can work it out now:
Her hæþne men ærest here heathen men erst
on Sceapige ofer winter sætun. on Shepey over winter sat
7 þy ilcan geare and the ilk year
gebocude Æþelwulf cyning booked Aethewolf king
teoþan dæl his londes tenth deal his land's
ofer al his rice over all his reich
Gode to lofe 7 him selfum to ecere hælo, God to love and himself to [eternal] heal

This year the heathens spent the winter on Shepey for the first time; and in the same year King Aethelwulf registered the tenth part of his lands, across all his kingdom, for the love of God and for his own eternal salvation. It's completely opaque for the modern reader, but if you look more closely, you'll see that the only word that really hasn't survived into the modern language in some similar form at least is "ecer", 'eternal'.

As for dumbing language down, no we aren't. We are going through grammaticalisation cycles. We continually create new inflectional forms out of periphrastic constructions, then the inflections get eroded, then in parallel we start inventing new ones. There's no evidence that at any stage of the process the language is any more "complex" than in the other. It's like this:

  • Pre-Latin: Present tense ama- 'love'. Future construction ama- + some auxiliary verb (hypothetical)
  • Latin: auxiliare construction has developed into Future tense: amabo 'I will love'
  • Late vulgar Latin: new auxiliary construction amare habeo 'I have to love', develops into a way of saying 'I will love'. Old amabo drops out of use.
  • Early French: amare habeo has developed into aimer-ai 'I will love'
  • Modern French: aimerai slowly starts dropping out of use; new periphrasis je vais aimer ('I'm going to love') develops.

And so on...

Fut.Perf. 11:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm partly relieved that your informed opinion is I'm not becoming more stupid than my ancestors. Problem is, I'm not so sure those "cycles" apply to Greek. It looks more of a "cliff" to me... NikoSilver 11:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW thanks for the lesson and for the example. Yes, it looks greatly familiar now. It reminds me of how dumb it is that we were taught the Odyssey at school with the poetic/demotic translation of [the otherwise magnificent] Kazantzakis right next to the ancient text, instead of some sort of Katharevousa-ized translation that would highlight those similarities... Maybe that is the reason Ancient Greek never got into me, as opposed to -say- Mathematics which had no such intensional logic dilemmas (to get back to our previous talk). NikoSilver 11:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah, Greek is doing fine with its cycling tours. Let's see: the textbook example of a grammaticalisation process similar to the amare habeo > aimerai thing is the Modern Greek tha (< thélei). That's not just one new grammatical category, it's three: a new future tense, a new conditional mood (tha to diávazes an eíxes óreksi), plus a new inferential mood (ídhi tha to katálaves). Plus there's a full new perfect system (éxo + -i). And, lemme see, what do we have here:
  • to árthro todhiávasa
  • ti selídha tidhiávasa
  • ta vivlía tadhiávasa
Don't mind the spelling. If this isn't a full new emergent system of object agreement, what is it? (You stole that one from your northern neighbours, or so I'm told. You should be grateful for this generous donation, and not grudge them if they steal a few other minor linguistic things from you in return).
What's even more fascinating is that this object doubling thing, while it's not quite yet arrived at the stage of being a full-fledged agreement system, is currently serving yet other nice grammatical functions. Have you ever asked yourself what the contrast is between:
  • To Níko ton blókaran gia ta revert tou
  • To Níko blókaran gia ta revert tou
There's a subtle difference in meaning, I'm told. Yet another new grammatical category you've invented a new way of expressing.
So, not so bad after all. Don't worry. Fut.Perf. 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so it apparently is not a cliff; it's a yo-yo. The only problem that remains is that this yo-yo never stops on the same edge, and the aforementioned wisdom becomes increasingly incomprehensible to the many. But how can you explain this to the typical new expression inventor? It looks so small to create a new expression every now and then, yet it functions like a drop of water on the edge of the stalactite of discontinuity in wisdom transfer. It looks so cruel, that makes me certain the Epsilonists attribute it to some sort of organized conspiracy theory for de-Hellenization... Eínai na ta paírneis stin krána... NikoSilver 12:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Complaints about language change are probably about as old as language itself.
Multa renascentur, quae iam cecidere, cadentque
quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula, si volet usus,
quem penes arbitrium est et ius et norma loquendi.
Trouble is, we don't "invent" these changes. Nobody brings them about intentionally. We "create" them, collectively, just as car drivers collectively create a traffic jam or just as buyers and sellers collectively create an inflation. It's an invisible hand phenomenon. So all complaining about it is moot. Fut.Perf. 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure we stole clitic doubling from our northern neighbours? According to the sprachbund article, "southwest Macedonia appears to be the location of innovation". Well within the Greek sphere of influence, unless of course the author means the Republic. I also note that it is exceedingly common in Spanish, so the extent to which it is a true Balkanism is debatable: Los he leído los libros; le he dado los libros a ella. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure about the historical sequence. But according to Victor Friedman in a 2006 paper, Macedonian (and specifically its western dialects) is the language that has gone furthest with making clitic doubling obligatory, with northern Aromanian in a similar stage; followed by Albanian; with Greek and other Balkan languages having much less. The natural assumption would be that the language that has most of the phenomenon is the one that started it, though that's not a strict necessity of course. Fut.Perf. 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. The problem with Greek is that it is peripheral to the sprachbund at best, as the formative centres of the standard language at least, unlike those of neighbouring languages, were well away from the central Balkan areas where widespread linguistic contact took place. Given its relative geographic isolation, it could well be that Greek clitic doubling is a coincidence, like the Spanish or Persian cases, unrelated to the more salient Slavic or Albanian phenomenon. Will we ever know for sure? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
These things are fiendishly difficult to prove with certainty, notoriously so. In the Balkan case, the most important type of evidence is that all these languages together, with their sub-varieties, seem to form a common geographical pattern: the closer two varieties are to each other, the higher the likelihood that they follow the same rules. That implies that, at the very least, we have lots of parallel developments that are causally related at the edges somehow. The cherry on the cake, in this case, would be if it was shown that northern Greek dialects have again more doubling than the southern ones. Friedman doesn't say that; he just says that the educated standard in Greece has shown a tendency to resist clitic doubling. -- You are right, of course, that cltic doubling is in principle a structure that would have been independently available too. I'd say it's a universally available strategy once a language has certain structural preconditions (like object pronouns being routinely on the other side of the verb from full NP objects). Fut.Perf. 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that it has less to do with education and more to do with register. It is almost ubiquitous in informal speech but avoided in formal language. I am also not entirely convinced that it is unrelated to the doubling of the definite article in the attributive position that goes all the way back to ancient Greek: ὁ καλὸς ἄνθρωπος, but also ὁ ἄνθρωπος καλός. It is not implausible that the clitic pronouns that replaced forms of αὐτός were adopted from and then confused with the identical corresponding definite article forms, hence providing fertile ground for the doubling of the latter to be extended to the former. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting speculation. I might think about it. Fut.Perf. 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting indeed. It is obvious that the third-person clitic pronouns were simply copied wholesale from the corresponding definite articles. Is it unreasonable to expect that the former would carry on at least some of the baggage of the latter? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Me eksitároun óla aytá! Ooops! I just noticed there is an Anglo-Greek Sprachbound too! NikoSilver 14:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bfffff .... I tried to follow you (Greek linguistics is an exciting theme for me), but .... What a waste of potential! Instead of "wasting" your time here analyzing and analyzing, why don't you unite your efforts to make a FA on linguistics, let's say Greek language. I seem fully-equipped users for the task here ... Think about my proposal ...--Yannismarou 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... You're right, of course. I still have that big project of reworking the Greek language articles parked in my userspace. But at least I did some maps today, does that assuage your Olympic ire? Fut.Perf. 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Not completely, but it fills me with hope!--Yannismarou 09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to feed your ego, but I do have to admit that it is a nice effort. So, I do not dare to be cross! IMO the article is already up to GA status (but this is subjective!). When you feel that you have completed your effort, and if you decide that you want to have serious aspirations about the article, and, you believe that I can help you, just let me know. What I can say for now is that I have Triantifyllides' Γραμματική and his Ιστορική Εισαγωγή (Official Volume Edition by the Greek State c. 1940 reprinted), and I'll have a look at it, in case I find something helpful.--Yannismarou 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


When I try to edit Talk:Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising, I can't; a notice appears which says "This page is currently semi-protected, and can only be edited by established registered users". Is there some other venue where I can complain about Strich3d's edits? It's foolish to assume that all Greeks in Macedonia at that time were "Grecomans" (even though the source cited speaks of "Greeks") and it's even more foolish to use websites like as references.--NetProfit 15:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is none the more 'foolish' than using an obvious pro-bulgarian POV sites like Capricornis 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC) is a collection of published books by experts, is just amateurs' scribblings on the matter.--NetProfit 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to add: "this is my own personal opinion" :) Capricornis 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As did you :) --NetProfit 20:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I recreated that because of an edit war at Template:Greeks. El Greco refuses to remove the link even though the article has been deleted and it seems pointless to keep a red link if there is no hope of there ever being an article there (unlike for example Greeks in Russia).--NetProfit 21:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you think you could have a look at the edit war at Germanos Karavangelis.--NetProfit 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He says it being deleted "doesn't mean it can't and won't be recreated".--NetProfit 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that NetProfit called be a bigot, doesn't that count for anything? See my talk page Vandalism section El Greco (talk · contribs) 23:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... whereas you calling the edit discussed "vandalism" was no problem.--NetProfit 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you look at: WP:No_personal_attacks El Greco (talk · contribs) 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness I didn't call you anything. Your assertion above that I called you a bigot is misleading to say the least.--NetProfit 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And I quote Before making bigoted accusations like you recently did at Greece, I advise you to look at the available sources, from my talk page. Is that not calling me a bigot? El Greco (talk · contribs) 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No. It's accusing you of "making bigoted accusations". I must admit, looking at your contributions history, you do tend to cite vandalism as a ground for reverting well intentioned edits rather often.--NetProfit 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
...which is calling me a bigot. And looking at my contribution history is like judging a book by its cover. You got to read the book before you can comment on it. And just so you know a lot of the edits that happen here on Wikipedia are vandalism (go see your Germanos Karavangelis article) El Greco (talk · contribs) 00:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC) and Digby Tantrum

FYI , the user at IP currently vandalising Digby Tantrum's talk page would appear to be a career vandal and sockpuppeteer who most-recently went by the now-blocked name of Learntruck. But then, you'll probably already know all this by the time it's taken me to write this... Best regards, Liquidfinale 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about where I was right now. "Kunkanti" is definitely a hoax too. But of course Digby Tantrum shouldn't have been mass-reverting like that anyway. Will unblock him shortly, though. Fut.Perf. 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Hi Fut. Perf. It might be nice to revise your comments to include the fourth revert by NiYet, who an admin blocked for his (in the admin's words) a "clear-cut" violation of 3RR. As for "unconstructive," I noticed that Lactose at least added several references addressing the unsupported claims NiYet made five times in < 24 hours, attempting to weakly obscure by making some unrelated changes in the guise of "constructiveness."

I might add that I understand where you are coming from in terms of looking down on reverts in general, but keep in mind that some are (correctly) used not in a revert-war fashion, but in an appropriate illustration of consensus or fixing vandalism. Anon ip's especially plague this article with violating some pretty clear naming convention guidelines (such as changing all instances of "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea.") The naming convention guidelines in question involved dozens of editors and much discussion, and reflects on of the most successful instances of consensus compromises in Wikipedia. I don't want to fall into the "my version is the right version," (heck, it's why I reverted only once), but keep in mind that not all reverts are equal, and that in general editors bear the burden of supporting the insertion of unreferenced material with references if they want to add them.

I don't find editors such as NiYet especially constructive, as your comments had suggested, when they insist on a change that many times in a 24 hour period (5 before being blocked from doing it further) without even bothering to discuss the changes with the many editors who regularly edit the article, even when it became painfully clear that they were controversial edits. --Cheers, Komdori 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I too can see where you are coming from. I honestly didn't see a fourth revert - I may well have miscounted or missed some here or there. Frankly, I can't be bothered to re-count right now. Whether it's four or three doesn't really mean that much of a difference.
But the point is, I have no evidence he is (was?) an abusive sock or meatpuppet. As long as we may assume he's a genuine newbie, AGF, BITE and BOLD apply. And that means, you don't revert their good-faith contributions. You don't revert them and then demand that they go to the talkpage and initiate a discussion. It's your obligation to go to the talkpage first and explain what you don't like. And you will please wait to give them a chance to explain their view, before you revert them. With newbie's, it's always primarily your responsibility to make sure an edit-war is stopped early.
NIYet's contribution was about a prima facie good-faith, reasonable objection about an issue of POV wording; he explained it politely and intelligently, but he was repeatedly met with blind, blanket reverts. People didn't even bother to distinguish between reverting the change in naming order and the change in the wording regarding the subsidizing. This was bad. In such a case, my personal stance as an admin is I'm inclined to block the regulars, for WP:OWN violations, not the newbie. Personally, I probably wouldn't have blocked him even if I'd seen a fourth revert. Fut.Perf. 09:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you are taking an interest in this article, you may want to review recent edits from melonbarmonster. I personally don't have a problem with putting Korea before Japan in the first paragraph, but he edited only for the sake of doing that, didn't run it by the talk page first, and reverted my change, which was to put back in some sourced and I think important information that he removed without explanation. I left the order of the countries the way he put it even though there is no justification for changing them. You don't need to block me, because I am going to take 24 hours off from this article, but you might want to consider warning him because he's being very rude and inflammatory. Alexwoods 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes. Your message came up here exactly the second I had blocked him. Fut.Perf. 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfC

Is there any way you could take control of this? I know it's just an RfC and doesn't really mean much, but I'm getting support from users who are pretty clearly sockpuppets, which just makes me look bad. Lexicon (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi! A certain anon user adds nonsense to the articles about Chechnya and its history. He's been reverted by many people countless times but still engages in it using different ips. Could you semi-protect these articles for a while? Alæxis¿question? 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can understand your plight, but strictly speaking semiprotection should not be used to give registered users the upper hand over anon users in a dispute. Was he ever warned about edit-warring, or blocked for it? Fut.Perf. 08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, probably I should've warned him at his talk first... not that it would've changed anything, but still. Alæxis¿question? 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


What exactly do you want from?? Are you one of the those who denide Macedonians to??

Pozdrav Makedonij 12:10 18 September 2007(UTC)

RFC Lexicon Closure

First let me commend you for your correct decision in closing an RFC that was opened without proper conflict resolution process. I have been in Wikipedia over a year and obviously deal with controversial issues such as Human Rights , Massacres, Assassinations , Rapes which not a fun thing to do as it can affect ones personal quality of life. I expect a certain kind of flack from people who disagree with me that such information is either wrong, trivial or outright embarrassing to be out there. This I have rationalized and accepted as part of my being part of the Wikipedia community. When you said that if this issue goes to an Arbcom then you see the potential of bans on both sides, you accept that there are clear cut two sides. I think the only two sides are not pro - Sri Lankan government versus anti- Sri Lankan government as it might present itself to any uninvolved outsider but those who play by Wikipedia rules and those who don’t. As you may have seen in the talk page of the effected editors, many Admins had a chance to correct the uncivil behavior much earlier on. By allowing the problem to grow now we have an rfc and a potential rfa, all taking time away from what we are here for, that is to contribute to the project. Just my thoughts Taprobanus 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. Much of User Makedonij's front page reads like a personalised blog and is irredentist (I think that would also be the view from Athens, Skopje, Sofia and Tirana). This has happened in the past by User Makedonia and he kindly agreed to change (most, not all) the material incompatible with wikipedia terms. Politis 12:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many userpages which reveal that the user's objective in Wikipedia is to spread propaganda (User:INkubusse (also look at the flags he uses to represent Bulgaria and Greece at the bottom of his userpage here), User:Strich3d, User:Vlatkoto and so on). I think it should be allowed, it helps regular users understand what kind of people they're dealing with (after all, a picture is worth a thousand words).--NetProfit 12:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that flag waving can be seen as patriotic rather irridentist such as potentially irridentis maps and rhetoric. The final arbitor in such matters is probably wikipedia policy. I am certainly not in a position to edit user pages, just making an observation. Politis 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not complaining of irredentism; irredentism nowadays should be laughed at, not feared (incidentally, what do you think of this map with "United Macedonia"?). I'm making an observation that strongly nationalistic userpages reveal the aims of the owners on Wikipedia and how seriously one can expect them to be objective.--NetProfit 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Template removal

In that case, it should never have gone into the template namespace in the first place. But let me advise you that it would be rather inappropriate, imo, even if just hard-coded on your page. Fut.Perf. 06:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just put it under my name as user:Wiki Raja/state sponsored terrorism? Wiki Raja 06:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:User state sponsored terrorism

What, in your opinion, is wrong with this userbox? I was going to userfy it but you deleted it before I had a chance to. When I figured out what had happened, I decided to defer to your decision but I would appreciate understanding your thought process since you reached a different conclusion than I did. My conclusion was: inappropriate for template space but OK in user space per the German userbox solution. Your conclusion seemed to be: inappropriate in any space. Can you explain why you reached that conclusion? Thanx.

--Richard 06:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:CSD T1, templates that are "divisive and inflammatory" get deleted. The box contained a statement about State-sponsored terrorism, combined with a flag of Sri Lanka. It doesn't require magic powers of divination to conclude that the author wishes to imply that somebody on Sri Lanka is guilty of State-sponsored terrorism. If that's not a divisive statement, what is?
To Wiki Raja, above: There's not such a clear-cut rule for what you can or can't do on your user page. But it would certainly be seen as a sign of a combative, uncooperative attitude towards a political dispute, so I'd strongly recommend not using it. (Hint: if this whole Sri Lankan case ever ends up at Arbcom again, I wouldn't want to be caught dead with a thing like that on my user page.) Fut.Perf. 06:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't the same be said about this? Wiki Raja 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Just this minute I was looking at it. Yes, it could, in my opinion. Another admin already declined the speedy, otherwise I'd probably have deleted it. You might want to take it to WP:MFD; I'd be inclined to support deletion there. Fut.Perf. 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, I am a bit unfamiliar with WP:MFD in regards to the three step process. Wiki Raja 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have posted my discussion on this template here. Thanks. Wiki Raja 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

rules of conduct

Hi, Future Perfect. I want to hear your opinion because you proposed Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct. Is such a one-sided edit permitted? [4] I think that he violates "uncooperative editing" and "slow it down".--Opp2 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Here's the translation: Hey, there are some pictures of Ancient (or old) Greek atlases on kajgana ( with the name μακεδονία (makedonia)... I can't contact the admins, but I'll try and ask for them, just tell me if they'll be of any use... If we, the participants of WP ROMacedonia, think of something, the Greeks won't be happy :) (trying to say that if they prove anything, the Greeks won't take it too euphorically lol) INkubusse 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to ask you what you think about OTT. NetProfit mentions me and accuses me of spreading propaganda and irridentism. This is an attack against my reputation on Wikipedia! If you are worried about my purpose on Wikipedia, you can look in my contributions for any "illegal" activities. If you need explanations about anything on my user page, you can get it from me, you don't have to wait for them (and them is Bulgarians and Greeks). All I'm asking from you is to tell them to stop fouling my name all the time! If you need ANY explanation or anything else from me, ASK ME, don't wait for them, please. Thank you in advance. iNkubusse?
Thanks for the translation. As for those maps, if it's the ones Revizionist brought forward the other day, they aren't apparently worth too much. But what he writes there is interesting in another way, it tells us something about how he imagines that WikiProject should work. I have to tell you, if that's what the project is going to be about, then it will very soon be closed down. -- As for the discussion above, well, the point about the flag on your mk-wiki user page is, I have to agree with them. Absolutely tasteless. And you can't really expect being taken seriously as a good-faith contributor here if you do things like that over there. Fut.Perf. 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure as to which maps you refer as useless. For anyone who has lived on the balkans before 1989 it is commonly accepted fact that Macedonia and Macedonian referred overwhelmingly to the southernmost republic of SFR Yugoslavia - SR Macedonia. All the schoolbooks from decades before that mention that fact as a common knowledge. The problem here is that not many people keep those school books from 20-30 years ago, nor do have time to dig'em up, get'em shipped, scanned etc. just to prove an obvious point to a bunch of ultra-nationalist Bulgarians and Greeks. I definitely do not have the time, nor motivation for it, there are enough problems in my everyday life without adding the made-up ones from wikipedia. Capricornis 22:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I think it sounds that way because of the translation. That's everyday (informal) Macedonian talk and when translated in English, it sounds a bit rough. As for the discussion above, I see, I know it's absolutely tasteless (except for the sake of humor). But I wasn't reffering to that; he makes an impression about me as if I were a propagandist or such... The tasteless detail with the flags is pure irony and has nothing to do with propaganda, and as far as I know, it doesn't break any rules. They don't have to like me, but accusing me for spreading propaganda (the sole purpose!) and irridentism is just too much for me. iNkubusse? —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi, this user is asking his block to be reviewed. Since I am not familiar with the mess this article is, would you like to comment/review the block? :) -- lucasbfr talk 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just saw it myself. See you over at his talk page again. Fut.Perf. 22:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well complaints of disruptive editing exist on both sides of this very POV issue. I only ask that you refrain from attributing such complaints just to my edits especially if it's coming from Komdori. Also, I made my edits accompanied by edit explanations only to be attacked with sarcasm, name-calling from Alexwoods. I understand this article is a mess but maybe we should be strict with the civility requirement instead of the rogue rules. Also, you need to make the rogue rules more prominent so that new editors are aware of them. Maybe we can put a partial lock on the page or something.melonbarmonster 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncooperative editing

ooops, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the new rules in force for the Liancourt Rocks article, and thank you for not blocking me, I might lack tact and be a little thoughtless with my edits at times, but I wasn't looking to get banned - thanks again for giving me a warning instead of a ban.

BTW is it possible for the warning to be shown on the actual edit page, rather/as well as the discussion page? I think that would ensure that there are no more silly edits and admins will not have to consider "hmmmmm did they see the warning or not?" thanks Sennen goroshi 17:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia/To Do List

Refrain from unilaterally deleting content from this project without discussing it first. There is no POV pushing whatsoever on the page, but a simple list of articles that need attention in order of importance. If you took the time to look at the list of members, you would have seen there's a greek and a bulgarian guy among the members, and I am sure they will keep an eye on any POV better than you. thank you Capricornis 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you refer to as "political "to do" messages", but I don't see an of that, and if you don't stop with your unhelpful edits on wikiproject ROM, I will be forced to present this case in from of the larger wikipedia community and its administrators. There is nothing wrong with pointing out to articles most urgently needing attention, and changing FYROM to RoM, and the place most appropriate for that is the wikiproject page. I do not understand why do you delete the task of changing fyrom, when you are perfectly familiar with other users who systematically 'disambiguate' Macedonia to RoM, macedon, etc. Capricornis 08:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries?

Sure, I keep forgetting, I'll start using them.

Oh, another thing. I want to ask you why you specifically blocked only the Korea side editors? What is that supposed to mean? That you're going to hand out blocks to Korean editors, or maybe that its a sign your going to pick on us?

Look, we've had way too much trouble around here. And its not just the Korean editors that are at fault. We've taken our cases to dispute resolution processes before and it almost always went against us. You know why? Its because editors like LactoseTI or Komdori make their arguments using WP:NPOV. Simply because Korea has a stronger history of claim than Japan in Liancourt Rocks doesn't mean that its biased. Thats a fact and it'll show up on the article regardless of what they think. But by using WP:NPOV, it seems as if the JPOV editors' arguments are justified. Trying to put Japan at equal political footage on Wikipedia doesn't work. I just wanted to let you know that.

This has gone too far. By mentioning that you didn't block us for biased reasons, shows that you are biased yourself, of course the action shows it as well. When LactoseTI reports me for 3RR, that means he has been edit warring too.

I'm extremely displeased with how pro-Japan editors are tearing apart Korean-related articles everyday (no I'm not exxagerating. Check Kimchi, Goguryeo, Korean War, Balhae, Korean Cuisine, to name a few) and even more angry at how almost every single administrator I've met has failed to be fair to all of us.

I'm cooking up enough evidence to make sure that some editors here are dealt with accordingly. I never said that I'm perfect, but I'm ready to strike down on anti-Korean sentiment here.

So, why am I ranting like this? Because I'm having an emotional breakdown? No, because the story has been like this ever since. I think you should know that too. Good friend100 20:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is a bit weird now... First of all, how the question of whether fermented cabbage is good for you can become an issue of national contention is beyond me... (I prefer sauerkraut, anyway, it's just as full of vitamins but not as spicy.) But apart from that... So, you find Korea's arguments are objectively stronger, so any treatment in the article that gives equal weight to Korean and Japanese arguments is inherently unjust? Well, fine, but how do you expect to explain this to somebody who happens to believe that Korea's arguments are not objectively stronger? That's the whole point about NPOV, you know, we have to reflect both their opinions and yours. If you believe that a page is only okay if it lets your POV appear to be the stronger one, I can't help you, you will never be happy here at Wikipedia.
As for my blocks, believe it or not, I was rather surprised myself that my first three victims were all from one side. But I can't help it, three people broke the rules there, others didn't.
As for the case itself, Liancourt Rocks, I'm as neutral as can be. I have not the slightest sympathies or antipathies towards either Koreans or Japanese; politically, I couldn't care less whose islets these are, and factually, I have not the slightest idea what the relevant arguments are. Didn't find the time even to read the article in full, and what I did read didn't help understanding the issues much. Fut.Perf. 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Saying that "we have to reflect both their opinions and yours" is fair and thats supposed to neutral. But the JPOV editors use NPOV to make the article biased in their favor. Thats the problem.
And I'm surprised too! Why fermented cabbage could become a "national contention". Lactose is the one making it about pro-Korea and anti-Korea. There were no problems at Kimchi until Lactose started to complain that his sentence should be included.
I still am not happy with how you deal things here. And I don't care how surprised you are about the blocks or how you claim that your neutral. Your actions show that you aren't neutral. Good friend100 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Since you seem to be our (at least temporarily) resident janitor over at Liancourt Rocks, might you be willing to take a stab at archiving the talk page for us? It really should be done with the move method, but I'm afraid to mess with anything right now since things are looking cautiously optimistic in terms of quality of discussion. Most of the sections are relatively recent (in the past month or so), but it's over 250K, and if we need to revisit a stagnated conversation later we can always revive it.

In general, thanks for taking an interest in helping everyone sort out the tangle there. —LactoseTIT 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam/Local news

Over a week ago, you left a message on The Behnam's talkpage, asking him to remove this page. he acknowledged reading it, but has done nothing to remove the page so far. Perhaps you need to discuss this with him further. Or should I just go ahead and delete it, and let you know if he re-creates it? Jeffpw 06:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks. I guess the most correct path of action would be an MfD then. It's a pity he hasn't been more cooperative, as I've always thought of him as a very sensible contributor. Fut.Perf. 07:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Done and thanks. Jeffpw 11:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Sea Lion

Fut. Perf., I saw your post on ANI about policing the Liancourt Rocks article, and wondered if you had noticed the Liancourt Rocks-related edits over at Japanese Sea Lion, e.g. [5] by User:Jjok. Long ago, Jjok was suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Opp2--the case is Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Opp2. I found that accusation plausible then, and I think it's plausible now. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. Darned socks. Actually, I'm skeptical about Jjok and Opp2, they seem to be in different timezones. But I have another suspicious pair I'm looking at right now. Can I send you some data off-wiki? Fut.Perf. 18:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP concern

Hello! As you are a at the moment active admin I would like to ask you to take a look at the history of the article Mossad. I have removed the addition of an IP about a named person to be a leading agent of this organisation and being involved in an assassination. While this could just be nonsense I think it might be a good idea to also remove this reversions from the edit history as it could be dangerous for a person by this name in the area to be named in such a context even in the page history. Thanks for your consideration.VirtualDelight 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi Future, I have a couple of editors I would like you to quietly take a look at in regards to Flavius/Shup (its pretty clear he has been very actively evading his block). I have been working on Talk:Turkey this week, and Shup showed up through one of the Italian IP's through which we generally find him. He's pretty much behaving, but using a large number of IP's, and while sifting through these, I ran across the edit history of Ankara for September 25th where I noticed two suspect editors here [6]:

1) User:Kemalist Yurtsever who made a first edit on 9/15 and was then inactive until 9/25 and seems to be making the same edits Flav normally would. I'm nearly certain this is a sock, but ask for your opinion because I do not want to be overly aggressive or bitey.

2) User:Plenumchamber has been editing since 1/8 with few problems. I am less certain that this is a sock, and wholly admit this is really a case of suspicion by association. This editor, like Kemalist Yurtsever, made a handful of edits immedeatly prior (within the same half hour) to one of the Italian IP's. In both cases, this looks like Flavius signing out and continuing to edit anonymously. But as I noted, this editor really has not been a problem... but with the sheer number of sock IP's and user names, I thought it warranted a little more scrutiny.

Thanks for your time. Hiberniantears 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me also add User:Patrick Sanders to that list. The edit summaries alone are dead on, as well as the list of spoken languages. Hiberniantears 13:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, the following is of note: [7] Hiberniantears 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Fut. Per., I think User:Patrick Sanders is definetly Shup, and I think he was editing today alternating between that user name, and then anonymously as User: to create some plausible deniability. He's making tons of edits to a large number of articles; some edits are good, some are bad, and some are simply an effort to instigate problems. With the large number of user names and IP's which he is employing, I think it makes it very hard for anyone but those few of us who are familiar with the issue from working constructively on any of the articles in question. Even still, I'm keeping my distance from a large number of articles which I would like to work on right now because I can't tell which users are actual individuals, and which ones may/may not be Shup. Because he drops positive and negative contributions using alternating accounts, I think it is clear that he is trying to systematically obfuscate the edit history of all these articles so that it is nearly impossible for anyone else to meaningfully contribute. I'm giving him the room to operate freely for the time being for two reasons: First, I can't tell who's a new editor, and who is Shup. Second, I don't want to get in an edit war with him, and he makes so many changes that it is nearly impossible to make a simple change without him jumping on it. I know this is extreme, but what are your thoughts on an IP range block for a short period of time (24 hours)? I think this will at least let us get an idea of a more stable version of some articles before he jumps back in after the block expires (even though it will probably block a large section of Italy). I am interested in knowing your thoughts on this. Thanks! Hiberniantears 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ughhh, ugly. Thanks for keeping me updated. I've taken some rather drastic measures (range blocks and semiprotections) and reported at ANI for more help. Fut.Perf. 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this. I don't really like that I'm harping on him so much, but as noted, he's on a mission now. I tried to do as much leg work as possible to see what was going on before dumping this in your lap again, and that was challenging enough, so I appreciate the amount of effort this requires on your end to follow up on all the blocking, and keeping an eye on things. Let me know if I can be of any assistance, and once again, thanks for all your help, and for putting up with me the last few months! Hiberniantears 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Capricornis (talk · contribs) and MatriX (talk · contribs)? ForeignerFromTheEast 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fut.Perf, I came a little bit late in the discussion about the deletion of the R. of Macedonia Wiki project (I voted there now and left several messages on the talk pages). I'm sorry that you proposed a deletion of the whole project after your quarrel with Capricornis and other users regarding the project's To do list. Don't you think the deletion of the whole project because of the supposedly POV-pushing To Do list is a little bit excessive? We all know the articles in that To do list (Ilinden uprising, Jane Sandanski etc) are target of a frequent edit warring (not all of them, there are some benign articles like Thermal Spas in Republic of Macedonia etc), but not only the Macedonian editors are engaged in such behavior (I shouldn't tell you this, you know that well) and I simply cannot believe that you proposed deletion of the whole project because of the problematic To do list. I believe this proposal of yours came after your warning on the Capricornis talk page where you asked him to stop his behavior on the disputed project, otherwise you'd have no other choice than to propose the whole project for deletion? MatriX 23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

LactoseTI (talk · contribs)

Hi. The user has promised to stop editwarring on the topics he was blocked for. I'm inclined to grant his unblock request. Would you like to comment on it? Sandstein 04:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your comments. What I would suggest you is to have a depper insight of the intermediate agreement and not a swallow reading as you have done. The agreement as a whole defines the frame under which Skopje are recognised as an entity by Greece. When I referred to the bridging of the agreement I didint referred to the misuse on behalf of some individuals but an oficial bridge on behalf of FYROMs oficials. In this case please have a look to the context of the treaty and even better read it. Italiotis 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree to stop here. Just for your reference


Article 7

2. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Party of the Second Part shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.

Nothing more to say. Please make your own conclusions.

Have a nice day. Italiotis 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

turkish acc. to eu

I understand your reverts on other articles, certainly his behaviour should be discouraged but you are discouraging me as well given that you haven't even taken a look at these two diffs: Flavius' edits and comparison of mine vs Flavius' version. I think you should revert with an edit summary either neutral or discouraging to Flavius. My sudden re-interest on the article comes from Flavius' request on my talk page; this and my first edit summary after that might be encouraging him if he had noted, I shouldn't have done them. You can revert until my first edit there, and I can redo my first edit. If Flavius doesn't read this message that might be better, but if he reads, he should be aware of that I am against (encouraging) that behavior, as much as Future Perfect at Sunshine is. DenizTC 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Any comments, any reply, anything to this? I might soon revert. Anyway, please check Special:Contributions/ Sstakis is back. DenizTC 13:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Greco Turkish War of 1919-1922

Hi Future, with all your pro-Greek bias, you still seem to have good contributions in these Greco Turkish articles, would you be able to check this article now?..It is virtually impossible to come into terms with user AlexiusComnenus and Kekrops..--laertes d 09:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, my famous pro-Greek bias, shining through again, is it? Just the other day, some Greek editors thought I was shamelessly pro-Macedonian. And I've also heard I had a scandalous bias in favour of Turks... :)
But seriously, sorry to disappoint you, but I've really got enough conflicts on my hands right now. 1919-22 is a bit more than I feel I can handle right now, sorry about that. I know, working on that article sucks. Fut.Perf. 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, ı wasn't referring to that, ı made a reference to our old dispute concerning the massacres in Peloponnese..Anyway, ı hope the problem will be solved without much further dispute..--laertes d 15:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Could you mind translating de:Adelheid and de:Alemanol? It would be a great help, Thanks. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 22:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't got a great interest in those name articles like "Adelheid", and as for "Alemanol", I'm not at all certain that the article has merit. There's some controversial discussion about it on the German wiki. I wouldn't feel at ease writing that unless I'd read the research literature myself first. Sorry I can't be of more help right now. Fut.Perf. 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm... You seem to be full of requests today! A dispute has exploded between me and users El Greco ond Italotis regarding an infobox for Macedon that El Greco that I removed as, IMO, desperately inaccurate beyond any hope of salvation, and stated my objections in the talk. Would you mind leaving a note there on your view (and please, don't be afraid to say I'm all wrong, if you view it this way. People tend to be to sensible to criticism these times). I was thinking of asking a view also from Yannismarou, but I dislike to be interpreted like doing something that could be read as a sort of mini-canvassing. Dab has came in to the discussion proposing a new version of the infobox, with which I mostly agree, but Italiotis has just awnsered with abuse and asking that me and dab be banned from the wiki. Ciao,--Aldux 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)


Having been asked to lend an oar on getting this topic squared away (and possibly Bristol fashion <grin>), I've presented a (modest) proposal on the referenced page. I fully take your meaning about this topic being, erm, difficult. If you have any suggestions, please advise. I'm still very much the novice, and need all the help I can get.


Drieux 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP ROMacedonia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:WikiProject_ROMacedonia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AWN2 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi FP, just to let you know I have requested a review of the deletion of WP ROMacedonia, as I believe the WP itself is still valid, and the reasons for deletion are better classified as user conduct. I proposed undeletion so that the WP can be modified to reduce chances of edit wars and POV-pushing. Cheers, AWN AWN2 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

good faith

Hum sorry about that. Good friend100 14:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know he was clownface, I'm always suspicious of anon users because 99% of vandalism come from them. guess I didn't look carefully. Good friend100 15:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the notification FP. I will keep it in mind. I hope you keep it in mind as well. All the best.Italiotis 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Korean cuisine

User:Sennen goroshi is increasingly creating a negative atmosphere at this article and this diff [8] shows that he's clearly interested in only promoting the statement that all Koreans eat dog.

Saying that "Im sorry but its a fact, in Korea people eat dogs" is a clear sterotype and an often used sterotype against Korea and Koreans. Its clear that not all Koreans eat dogs yet Sennon goroshi keeps changing the article so that it seems as if all Koreans eat dog. Its a clear case of bias on his part. Also, the dog meat section is the only section he is working on, instead of the article as a whole.

Sennen's hypocrisy is also appalling. While telling others to be nonbiased and telling them to stop making racial remarks, Sennen uses racial comments himself. Here [9] and here[10], his attitude has surfaced with a fight with another editor. Its clear that through his comments, he's not here to improve Wikipedia, only to attack Korea-related articles.

So why am I ranting about one particular user? I'm not taking this to a personal level simply because he's Japanese and I'm Korean. I'm angry solely based on his contributions to Wikipedia and it isn't fair for editors like him to make a negative atmosphere while editing articles. Good friend100 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Plague"

Please accept my deepest thanks for both your help and the ego-boo {grin}. My request for a break was correctly perceived by you and Moreschi; hopefully, the wielding of the clue-by-four will get the message across to the others. I think a month's respite will give me the time I need to get at least a skeleton with some flesh upon it, ready to move into the article. I have copied the current version of both the article and the talk page to my sandbox, and will use that as my proto lab. Thanks again! Most cordially, Drieux 23:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! There are four questions for you and/or other Wikipedia editors at Scribbleman's user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribbleman (talkcontribs) 06:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another MfD


Could you take a look at this page? Wiki Raja 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

More Shup Socks

Hi Fut. Per., I hope you don't mind me filling your talk page with more Shup stuff. Nothing urgent here, but as you have noted with Shup, there are probably quite a few sleeper accounts out there. I think I found another one this morning. User:BlueEyedCat showed up in Turkey this morning, and made some ordinary edits. I am taking a fairly laid back approach to watching some Turkey related articles, essentially only rolling back the IP ranges we have looked at, and just checking up on any editors that look unusual. User:BlueEyedCat fits my "unusual" parameters since he/she is a previously blocked (one time, for edit warring in Dec 2006) editor who was was fairly aggressive, and seemed to enjoy pushing buttons in ethnicly charged articles. The editor was then absent since late spring, and suddenly appeared again this week (though making only two edits). I was perusing the contributions, and came across this thread in Talk:Nasreddin#The_Removed_Entries, which caught my attention because Shup tends to cite a large amount of Italian sources, and this is an example of User:BlueEyedCat challenging the removal, and then the actual English translation of an Italian source. Not enough for someone in my position to roll anything back, but enough to be mindful of and keep an eye on... Hiberniantears 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but BlueEyedCat was apparently arguing against Shup (aka 7th son of a 7th son) on one occasion, on Talk:Istanbul. That wouldn't be Shup's style. Fut.Perf. 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh well... just when I thought I might have a career as a detective! :-) Hiberniantears 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Three words: HA HA HA :)
Hibernatingbears, you should get a life, really (the same advice is valid for Foot Perfume at Sunshine). I don't know what's the reason for your inferiority complex, obsession and fixation towards me, but it really wasn't me who reverted your (really bad) edits in the Turkey article. And it's not my fault if they didn't make you an Administrator. At least I "contributed" many new "articles" with solid "information", while the only thing you ever did (and keep doing) is to play with the words which other people write, without adding any significant new "information". The good news, by the way, is that I'll be extremely busy until the 15th of October writing my annual PhD thesis paper, so you can get some rest and stop having Shuppilubiludibuliumamuma nightmares :) 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Project subpage

Should this page be deleted as well? ForeignerFromTheEast 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Greco Turkish war

Future, i know you are extremely bored with these endless greco turkish debates, and youre definitely right with slightly ignoring these discussions, but for this time only, could you care to read what is written in this source please? Reading just the first paragraph would make it obvious that the source is not a pro-turkish one -especially as it says that it was Turks who burned Smyrna-

That is the quotation i took form the book: "For Greek claims were at best debatable, perhaps a bare majority, more likely a large minority in the Smyrna Vilayet, which lay in an overwhelmingly Turkish Anatolia."[11]

The Mirage of Power By Cedric James Lowe, Michael L. Dockrill, Published 2002, Routledge, Great Britain ISBN 0415265975

And that is what Alexiuscommenus made out of it, giving as reference the same source: Thus the Greeks constituted a possible majority in the Smyrna area, and were a significant minority in Anatolia, where the majority population was Turkish.

Do you really think there is any chance of coming into an agreement or creating a remotely NPOV article with this user? This time he even changed the source to make it look like in line with his POV...--laertes d 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to take special issues with my contributions to Great Fire of Smyrna. I would encourage you to pay as much attention to the unilateral, undiscussed, wholesale destruction of this article perpetrated by Kudret abi (amongst others). Is it too difficult to afford the same respect to this article as for the one on Armenian Genocide? Many Turks thinks that too reeks of bias.--Tedblack 10:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Hello Future, ti kaneis? As I earlier stated, I was new in Wikipedia, and didn't understand the licenses. First I uploaded under PD-RoM, but I don't know why it was deleted. Then I uploaded it in common under self-made, because I took them by myself (scanned or photographed it), but afterwards I found out that Self-made, doesn't mean that I took them with my camera, but that I created them. And all this time while I was learning the process, the user ForeignerFromTheEast was constantly erasing the licenses, and making problems. Then I contacted the admin Riana, who helped me by proposing to take an official document of the library and send it to them, I will do that hopefully this or next week, and there will be no problem. The thing is that the photographs that are taken during WW2 and after in socialist countries are in the public domain and are not under copyright. It is the same with the photos with the folk dance, and i will prove it. Thanks very much Future. Revizionist 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Making problems" you say (bottom of diff in Cyrillic)... ForeignerFromTheEast 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Give it a rest now. A one-off outburst of anger is not something you ought to go on harking about for days after. Leave the guy alone. Fut.Perf. 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing currently going on right now, so yes. If he has to drop a few curses while getting his images licensed, why not. ForeignerFromTheEast 13:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My, aren't you the sensitive one

Going to the extent of not only apologizing on others' behalf, but deleting their comments without so much as an attempt to address your concerns to them? You might want to take a long look at your own behavior before admonishing others for lack of civility. Porfyrios 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial banhammer comment

Um, ok, I'll be more polite around users who look like they're about to get banned. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I live in a region where Macedonia is a matter of dispute from long time ago - Bulgarians says it is Bulgarian, Greeks says it's theirs, Yugoslavian proclaims the same. It is contested zone, but Macedonia is already an independent country and on my point of view it is not correct to be written that it's Greeks or anyones. In the last years here have been enough arguing with regards to this and for everyones best let them be just independent Macedonians as their present status is such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obstacle (talkcontribs) 07:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your explanation and the advices. Yes indeed I am veeeery newbie :) and still reading what and where should be done or not and yes unfortunately I have jumped into this war. It is quite a morbid issue in the region lately and still remains to be the same. Would you please refer me a short manual for working here. Thank you in advance and have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obstacle (talkcontribs) 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for helping me in the Istanbul article. I'm not on enough to both add to the Wiki and check on who is changing what with regards to vandalism and other nonsense. I'm just trying to make the article as best as it can possibly be. Monsieurdl 12:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


User:Warsword is the same person as User:Hurundi V. Bakshi. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


I saw that you tagged Image:Kinnick Stadium rendering.jpg for deletion. I thought about your reasoning, and decided that I will not dispute the fair use of the image. You're 100% right that I could go right now and take a picture from the south end zone. I will use this as a learning experience when dealing with images from now on. -- LoyalHawk 00:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


How's it going? Frightner 02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input on an userbox issue

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'd like to ask for your input on a userbox issue I've encountered, regarding the speedy deletion of several userfied userboxes that expressed negative stance toward a thing or concept (e.g. hate/despise/dislike/loathe/choosing one over something else). I've held a discussion with the deleting admin in question, and we have hit a dead point in the discussion. As I know I'm biased in this issue I'd appreciate it if you could spare a neutral look at the dispute. (Note: I've randomly pulled your name - along with 3 others - out of my hat. If I bothered you I deeply apologize - feel free to ignore & delete this comment in that case) Best wishes! CharonX/talk 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Please see my talk page section at Talk:Arthur Rubin#Category (permlink) as to the question of whether the above-named user is continuing his subtle vandalism in regard Category:German loanwords (and others) through IP addresses including and Knepflerle suggested I contact you, as you've previously blocked the named user. See also my requesting a review of the block of the second IP at ANI (permlink). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks

In the resolution to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (4th), the admin Samir suggested that I consult with a range-block savvy admin (such as yourself) regarding the feasibility of administering a range block on the abusing account The rationale behind this inquiry is the pattern of abuse as evinced in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (3rd) (for example). If you could look into this, I'd be most grateful. Thanks. Myasuda 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


I would like to discuss something with you, seriously. Jingiby is constantly reverting edits, from whomever, to suit his POV on the subject and I know you are aware of this. You may hate Macedonians, or just me for that matter, but I'm asking you on a serious level to discuss this with him, now, you've put up with me for a while now so the least you could do is give him a little nudge in the elbow for me. Cheers. Frightner 09:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jingiby is certainly welcome to revert you whenever he feels like it. Because you are a banned user. If Jingiby is reverting elsewhere, others will deal with it. Not you. Your opinions about Jingiby are of no interest here. Because you are a banned user. Get it? Fut.Perf. 09:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, even so, you take the liberty to check out the situation and act upon it, that I like. You're a good guy Future, but it's disrespectful to take someones comment and throw it in their face like you did with my request, as long as we can converse respectfully I have no reason to cuss you out. Take care. Frightner 10:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to your comment on Talk:Macedonism, National Liberation War of Macedonia was pretty much the same and this is where the problems began, the article was a mess, it had been moved and reverted constantly and the talk page, well, let's not speak if it, but I will tell you that the talk page is how my ban came about. Anyways, if you could check it out, maybe check out the history/disputes and the sources, ie. OR such as and several other propaganda sites used frequently on that article and maybe sort it out. There is alot of information there that is obviously POV. If you do sort this one out, I honestly swear to you that you will never hear from me again and the Bulgarians won't have to worry about me either. How about it? Frightner 10:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, and to be frank my offer is more tempting. By the way, how will I know this "e-mail address"?
That's why I keep saying, go to your old account (or open a new one for the purpose), register your own e-mail address (nobody will see it unless you actually mail them), then you can use this. Fut.Perf. 12:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi FP. I just wanted to inform you that i had to do 2 revert changes to alexander the great and philip of macedon as they were a bit abused. I thought to let you know as both subjects are part of the Macedon project that we are involved. Trust you are well. All the best.Italiotis 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


I tend to block with email disabled for obvious trolls, but no problem - reblocked with emailing enabled. Neil  15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ROMacedonia WP again!

Hi FP -- ahh, I actually didn't know I was in breach of the deletion order -- I guess I should read the fine print! I thought the result was that it could be recreated under new management/guidelines. Last time I created the WP and then just let it run itself -- this time I'll try and steer it down a happy path. Is there any way to let the admins know that this is a shiny new WP, which hopefully won't go the same route as the old one? Anyway, welcome aboard and thanks for your support. I guess we'll see how it goes! Cheers, AWN AWN2 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again -- thanks for the heads-up, I have let the two admins (Riana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Aecis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) know and I guess we'll see how it goes... Thanks again for your help, cheers, AWN AWN2 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

BG/ROM/GRE collaboration

As I see the WikiProject RoM is re-opening I have a somewhat interesting question. To avoid any more disputes as the last one and the sort of POV pushing co-operation that formed the last time, what would you say about the creation of a collaboration project Bulgaria/Republic of Macedonia/Greece. I read the rules about WikiProjects and I'm still not entirely convinced if this is the right form for such a thing: discussing potentially hot debated articles and avoiding endless edit- and talkpage-wars in the article proper. All controversial topics (people with contested ethnicity, disputes between countries and so on) should be discussed on this Project before editing the article itself. It is more than possible to work this out as I had already worked with Frighner (before something in him snapped) and I see a great deal of sense in User:Revizionist's positions and edits. I have the feeling it just might work - it will take tons of debates, but they won't be directly reflected on the article and its talkpage.

My proposal is either for a BG-RoM collaboration or, as some Greek contributors would definitely interested in this, a BG-RoM-GRE. I just want to hear from you what you think about the idea (and for some help if you like it ;) ). You have been involved in a lot of Balkan duels recently so I think you're the perfect man to judge this proposal. If it sound ridiculous just ignore it ;) (just kidding - any response would be welcome).--Laveol T 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am pretty sure I had spotted a Greek-Turkish collaboration project, but I fail to find it now (just when I need it)--Laveol T 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there have been both a Greek-Turkish cooperation board somewhere, and a (regional) Macedonian noticeboard, which was meant to cater for all four "Macedonia"-related nations. It's been inactive for a year or so though. Fut.Perf. 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Great - just what I meant. I'm planning to archive the past discussions and notices - no need to get inflammatory straight away - some of the things will only stir people on. And then I'll notice every user that's involved with the issue that he can put a notice for an article/issue that needs discussing/improving. Or we should avoid engaging in disputes on the noticeboard itself? --Laveol T 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have archived the previous discussions. Could you, please, look if I haven't made some mess of it. --Laveol T 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi! Could you do something about Jajce page? There is a user Visca_el_barca which repetedly deletes data from that page? Ceha 07:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Thanks :) Ceha 07:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

Gia sas

Giati nomizete oti einai SPAM to na steilw to site stis selides gia island thasos thn stigmi poy hparxoyn alloi syndesmoi xamiliterhs piotitas? Doyleyw to san hobby kai einai prwto sto Google gia thassos h thasos. Sas paracalo afiste to Jiannis potos - thassos Greece

We have a rather strict policy on external links, and sites with tourist accommodation and other similar commercial elements are usually not wanted. I haven't looked too closely into it if other links have sneaked in that also shoulnd't be there. We get dozens of these links added to various articles of touristic interest every day, and we would be inundated soon if we didn't just summarily revert them. Hope you'll understand. Fut.Perf. 09:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the pointer

Aaah...(sound of penny dropping)....thanks for the tip on auto(un)blocking.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia

My god!, this is some mess you've got here. It's true that the Serbs were pretty oppressive in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but I don't think the Macedonians wanted to turn Bulgarian because of this. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia decided to support a policy of state independence (like SR Macedonia), but some local elements wanted to join the Bulgarian Communists. In essence the resistance in that very troubled region (it was the cause of the Second Balkan War) was deeply divided on ethnic lines between the Axis (Bulgarians) and the allegedly "Serb-controlled" Yugoslav Partisans (the latter was not very much so).

I'm afraid one will be hard pressed to find any unbiased, reliable sources concerning the conflict. The main problem here is that this is an obscure part of an obscure part of history. I will do my best. DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On several matters..

First of all, hello Future, gia sas? I was occupied the past several days, and didn't enter english wikipedia so often. I wanted to inform you on several matters: 1) I read Laveol's proposal about creating a common wiki-project about Macedonia (Bulgarian, Greek and ethnic Macedonian contributions). And I am willing to participate in that project. 2) I contacted the national library officials and they told me to come after the fest (11 October is a state celebration in Republic of Macedonia), so next week the approval from the library will be sent to wikicommons officials. 3) Do you remember the photos I uploaded of facts about former recognition? You helped me obtain the necessary license for them, and even put the license on one of them yourself [12](I am very grateful for I was new on wiki). Well today I noticed on my user talk that the photos you helped on are proposed for deleting by Mr. Neutron = ForeignerFromTheEast. You can see it on the image history[13]. Please Future give him some kind of warning - you see that injustice is being conducted by this fellow ForeignerFromTheEast. Best regards. --Revizionist 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Great news you wanna help out with the Notice board. I'll figure out what to do for myself and most probably archive those old notices. And about the license tagging - Mr. Neutron has done nothing to the image you put as an example. Look at the contrib history. --Laveol T 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. Whether the images will be deleted depends entirely on whether they end up being actually used in the article - if not, we can't keep them around, as the fair use justification only works for a specific article. And I'm not sure they will end up being used. There obviously is no consensus for them, you've been reverted several times by several people, and by just reinserting them you are basically only conducting a slow revert-war, which won't help anybody. If I were you, I'd let them go at this point. -- But good to hear you want to participate in the collaborations. Could you help out at National Liberation War of Macedonia? Messy article. Fut.Perf. 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the balance in the articles about Macedonia is not the best. We are going to make them better! Every body have made something wrong sometimes. Regards! Jingby 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate userboxes

I'm a bit confused about what content in a userbox is allowed, and what is considered inappropriate, so I thought you could help. I can't see the difference between an offensive and forbidden userbox and a userbox that expresses your views over something - disregarding the fact that it hurts other people - but is still permitted. To be more specific, I was shocked by two userboxes found here and here (the ones with the fyromian dialect of Bulgarian) - I just couldn't be more offended! My question is: is it allowed, and if not, why is it still there? The content of these userpages has been discussed a year ago, but I still can't see the changes. Please do something about it, or direct me to a guideline that encourages users to use such userboxes. Thank you. iNkubusse? 05:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. It is true that there is no very clear guideline for userboxes as long as they are coded within the user's own user space, and not located in the "Template:" namespace. There's a thin line between legitimate statements of a user's political stance, and slogans only aimed at polemics and confrontation. Given the fact that these two users have been largely inactive anyway, and never did very much else than Macedonian confrontation, I guess we could safely cut the pages back a bit. Fut.Perf. 05:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hello, I have visited Wikipedia a number of times in the past however this is the first time I have joined and have not made any edits in the past as this is my only account, i am unfamiliar with "". I am interested in ancient history and ancient Macedon is particular, however I was disappointed by the inaccuracies in several pages and that is why I edited them.Ireland101

Will you please look at Jim Karygiannis, the user Xstatik is adding libels (mostly logged out) which are not in the source.22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User Myrmidon7-Pontic Greek Genocide

Hi future, this new user has been doing some extreme POV edits in some articles, could you just check the Pontic Greek Genocide article..And as usual, Alexiuscomnenus showed up and reverted the article back to Myrmidon7..[14]

The only "sources" for his edits are "" "", "", ""..Plus he added his unsourced, private opinions into the article..

Btw, i also want to point out why i prefere blockquotes instead of summarizing the source, when one adds a blockquote people tend to not change the wording of that source, however that is often not the case with the texts incorporated into the article..See what happened to the citation from Arnold j. Toynbee..--laertes d 10:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi! Please have a look at the recent history of Olympiacos article and do something with User: What he does is changing "the most popular" to "one of the most". On the contrary in Panathinaikos article he does exactly the opposite in another occasion. Thanks! - Sthenel 15:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a more-or-less legitimate content dispute. Have you tried talking it out with him? I see you reverted him several times without comment or discussion before finally leaving a note on his talkpage. Actually, you are beyond 3RR yourself, if I'm not quite mistaken. Fut.Perf. 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that this kind of editors want to discuss anything? He is a typical fan-editor. If you know what I mean. - Sthenel 12:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could well be. But now that the page is temporarily locked on "his" version, I'd strongly recommend you try to initiate a discussion nevertheless, rather than just go on reverting as soon as it gets unlocked. I mean, if someone prefers to say "one of the most popular" rather than the absolute "the most popular", that's not obviously a totally wrong choice; a point might well be made for it. (Not that I care, personally.) Fut.Perf. 12:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm always trying to start a discussion with editors like him, but 90% they don't talk about anything because it's not their point. When something is strongly-sourced, saying something else may not be wrong but it's not "more neutral". In this way Olympiacos is not the team with the most titles in football, but one of the teams with the most titles. - Sthenel 12:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A minor correction for the Greece article

Byzantine Era

When the Roman Empire finally split in two, during the late third century, the Eastern Roman Empire centered around Constantinople (known previously as Byzantium, today Istanbul, Turkey), remained Hellenistic in nature, and came to be known as the "Empire of the Greeks" or "Greece" to its western European contemporaries.

It should be "the late fourth century", as the empire was divided between the two sons of Theodosius I in 395 AD.

Cheers :) 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And "remained Hellenistic" is wrong (it should be "remained Hellenic") because the Hellenistic Age is the age of the successor states after the death of Alexander the Great, and "Hellenistic Culture" is the name of the mixed eclectic "local culture + Hellenic (Greek) culture" which took place as a result (one good example being the Kingdom of Commagene in Eastern Anatolia) 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange Edits

Although I have only been editing Wikipedia pages for a day I have already seen a lot of things that I did not expect. Such as extremely fast revisions of my edits. One user ForeignerFromTheEast deleted my edits on the Philippic's of Demosthenes without explanation. He also deleted my edits on other pages without explanation. When I went to see his other contributions it was almost identical to the page of Laveol, they also seen to be promoting one view point. Unlike ether of them, I always provide expiations and have even attempted to contact them threw their talk pages to explain my edits. Almost right after ForeignerFromTheEast's edits I got a message from Laveol claiming I have been waging "edit-wars" I do not understand this statement and consider it an attack as he has been the one deleting my edits without explanation. He also accused me of being connected to some banned users, I have no clue what he is talking about and would appreciate any assistance you could provide.Ireland101

Laveol is also claiming I am using my "IP to avoid breaking 3RR" which is an absolute lie. He is also going around posting that I am actually some blocked member on other editors talk pages. Does Wikipedia have a policy about making such slanderous accusations?, as I believe this needs to stop. Ireland101
I am having trouble on the article "barbarian" as I am trying to add sourced material and user PBD55 keeps on deleting it. I tried to make dialoge with this user however he deleted my message on his talk page. I do not want to be accused of starting an edit war and would appreciate any advice you could offer on this situation. Ireland101

Tourism in Sri Lanka

Fut, can you please comment on the article on its talk page. I wanted to have the here instead of the current version of the page. My reasons for the addition of extra text is to make the article more of a wikipedia article (encyclopedic with the addition of the paragraph). I added the fact tags because the claims are missing an RS backing them up. I understand that the citation needed tags are over done (per Haemo) and thus I agreed with a single tag on the top of the paragraph. However, I am still looking for an opinion on the inclusion/exclusion of the paragraph. I have asked for a RFC but no one seem interested. Since your one of the complainer of my account I hope you can free up some time and have a look. Watchdogb 13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Change article name

I seem to remember that we had agreed on a name for the current article Greek Briton. I think it was British Greeks or something. Can we get back to someting more palatable? Politis 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not familiar with that article, don't think I've ever seen it, so I don't know what discussions there have been. Apparently somebody recently moved it from Greeks in Great Britain. Technically, there's nothing preventing you from moving it back. Just make sure you check on the talkpage if there's consensus one way or the other. Cheers, Fut.Perf. 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

About Arvanites article and trolling

Καλησπέρα. Σε βλεπω τοσες μερες να προσπαθεις να εξηγησεις σε διαφορους τυχαρπαστους χρηστες οτι η σελιδα των αρβανιτων δεν χριζει περαιτερω αλλαγων, ποσο μαλλον οταν αυτοι οι χρηστες μπαινουν με μοναδικο σκοπο το τρολλινγκ (βλ. Dodona και PIRRO BURRI). Μιας και εισαι διαχειριστης, γιατι δεν βαζεις semiprotected την σελιδα, ωστε τουλαχιστον να σταματησει αυτο το φαινομενο; --KaragouniS 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Αχ! Οχ! Δυστυχώς, δεν έχω το δικαίωμα, εφόσον είμαι ο ίδιος μέσα στη συζήτηση, και ο άλλως, όσο βλακειώδη κι να μας φαίνονται αυτά που γράφει, δεν κάνει βανδαλισμούς (δηλαδή, δε προσπαθεί θελητά να καταστρέψει το άρθρο.) Οπότε, δεν έχουμε άλλη επιλογή παρά να τον κάνουμε ρεβέρτ μέχρι να σταματήσει. Κι έτσι κι αλλιώς, το σεμιπροτεκτ δε θα βοηθούσε, γιατί είναι πια "παλιός" χρήστης. – Αχ, που 'ντα μουστουκούλουρα του Δαρεμά να παρηγορηθώ? ;-\ Fut.Perf. 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Λολ! Τι περιμενεις; Στειλε γρηγορα τους δικους σου να παρουν 2-3 κιλα να στα δωσουν και να βγαλεις το αχτι σου :D --KaragouniS 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reforming username blocks

I agree with your sentiments about username blocks on AN/I. Would you like to help by joining the discussion at WT:U on reforming the policy and the way it is applied? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Appreciate the help with Cleander. Ronnotel 17:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


I wasn't trying to imply that Vartan was wrong or anything, but it's been pretty messy in there for the last few days, and he's starting to sound awfully paranoid. Of course, as an outside observer, I don't know the whole story. HalfShadow 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. It's been messy al right. Just go and block away, and earn yourself one of those Whack-a-Mole Stuffed Tiger Prizes too. :-) Fut.Perf. 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Can you actually block the socks please? His filling 3RR reports on me [15] and is using user:Makalp as a meatpuppet. VartanM 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear FPaS,I wait your decision on my meatpuppetry:).RegardsMust.T C 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Makalp, you showing up at 3RR board out of nowhere to accuse me of something which I didn't do is very suspicious no? how about reverting articles in his favor? how about your conversation about emailing each other? I only gave you a fair warning if you proxy for him, you are most likely to get yourself in trouble. And that in my opinion is not worth it. VartanM 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Flags and socks

There seems to be an organized push to remove Yugoslavia from the templates of people born in SFR Macedonia prior to 1991. I'd like to hear your opinion on this section of the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations. It says that the flags should generally be those of the sovereign state, and not of the subnational entity. ForeignerFromTheEast 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether sub-national entities should be used, the question is whether Macedonia's now being an independent nation-state should be the criterion for using it as the categorisation unit backwards in time. I have no strong opinion either way, but it seems we do this, uncontroversially, for many ex-Soviet nations and ex-Yugoslavians, so why not here too? Look at Category:Ukrainians and Category:Croatian sportspeople, for instance. If you want consistency, you might need to initiate some centralised discussion somewhere.
That said, sorry for being personal now, but I must say your editing is beginning to go on my nerves. There's only one thing more annoying than The Plague of nationalist editors, and that is editors whose sole focus it is to curb the nationalism of one specific neighbouring ethnic group. You really could try, for a change, doing some edits somewhere whose sole purpose is not that of annoying Macedonian fellow editors. Fut.Perf. 06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on two things: need to curb nationalism, and lack of consistency in templates. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sstakis is back

He's under the IP: Special:Contributions/ I've reverted most of his edits. El Greco(talk) 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

that is not the only ip this time. I asked for semi protection, but only Izmir is protected, possibly due to my lazines and not writing a better comment on WP:RFPP for other pages commonly attacked by Sstakis DenizTC 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like all the pages he attacked are now semiprotected. El Greco(talk) 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Future Perfect, please be careful when you add a warning on Tedblack's page. He seems to be 'forwarding' similar warnings to other editors. I don't want to be warned every now or then for no valid reason. Also please read the section "suggestion" on the smyrna fire page, if you haven't done so. DenizTC 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Help Find a Cure for The Plague

Well, maybe not a cure, but glad to be on board to help in any way I can. Once I get familiar with all these new buttons, I'll be coming to you for all kinds of help. Thanks for all the support (and very timely comments)... and for helping me get here, from where I was! Hiberniantears 17:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Greco Turkish war, again

Hi future, do you know any particular cure against Alexiuscomnenus` centuries old habit of reverting anything that he dislikes, often without any explanations, even if the material added was properly sourced from neutral academical works? Check this: [[16]]

What is the problem with citing Michael Llewellyn Smith`s book of Ionian vision : Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, if there is one single source which claims that this book is written by pro-Turkish perspective, i would not use that book as a reference..Regards..--laertes d 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Articles?

Dear Future Sun, you left a message that said, "we do not normally encourage editors writing about themselves, especially not in a way that could be construed as advertising their own achievements." To which articles are you referring? The articles I have authored (which are few) are ones for which I am either THE expert source or at least AN expert source. In most cases, I was asked to write these articles by others for the benefit of others. Are you saying that one can not write articles if they happen to have association with the subject, or are the world expert on the topic? I know that I would prefer to read an article about the "artificial heart" that was started (stubbed) by Dr. DeBakey or Dr. Jarvik, than something written by an unknown second-year medical student. If Dr. Jarvik wrote a piece about the artificial heart he personally developed, that would certainly tout one of his accomplishments, but it would be of interest to the wider community of Wikipedia users and people should realize that the article is not only useful but better for having been written by THE expert on that particular subject.Firewall 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saw you starting off an article about (apparently) yourself with a sentence like "A true renaissance man, Robert C. Michelson is involved in everything from collecting marine specimens on the bottom of the ocean to flying his personal one-seat rotorcraft;" - From then onward, I couldn't help but get suspicous. Then I saw you editing an article about a prize which (o coincidence) had apparently been won by you. And your articles about that entomopter invention certainly have a lot of scholarly references (to your own works describing your invention), but no independent sources describing its notability. (Is it comparable to Dr. Jarvik's artificial heart? If yes, there must be tons of coverage in independent sources, both general-public news media and coverage by other academics.) -- To be certain, quoting yourself if you have published about a topic as an academic expert is okay, but promoting yourself and your work (however admirable it may be) is highly problematic. Fut.Perf. 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the "renaisance man" reference is not mine. That is wording provided by the Fernbank Science Center for a lecture series I was asked to give several years ago and is a moniker which has been reused since then by others... I don't think you'll find any of my web pages stating that. I hold the patents on the Entomopter and if you check the web presence on the topic of Entomopter, you will find many many independent articles (most recently about a week ago in the Washington Post). Not only that, but NOVA, Discovery, Scientific American Frontiers and others have done television shows about the Entomopter. Having said that however, the most authoritative references are ones coming out of Georgia Tech and my lab, most of which are co-authored I might add. Is it only acceptable to have people not associated with scientific endeavors speak to them? Regarding the Pirelli Prize, I was the FIRST EVER, to receive that Top Pirelli Prize, and was asked by Pirelli to publicise it in every way I could on their behalf. That article mentions me, but it also mentions everyone else that won the prize. This week, it ws suggested by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems (as a past President of that intl. organization) that I write up some things about them... but I was a past President... and I happended to win their Pioneer Award a number of years ago... does that disqualify me from writing about something for which I am eminantly qualified to write and are you going to have a problem if I create a stub for such a article? For completeness and accuracy I will certainly be mentioned in it. If so, I won't waste my time writing it and it will probably never get done (to the detriment of those Wikipedia users who might like to have learned about it). I promise you, I won't be writing articles about things for which I know nothing or have no association. The fact that I have been very successful in certain areas should not be a problem for you.Firewall 18:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Arzap Drogue Stones

How about we tack on the drogue stone article to the Durupinar article and have a redirect from "Arzap Drogue Stones" and "Drogue Stones" to "Durupinar"? You can argue that drogue stones are not notable, but the Durupinar site is notable. TuckerResearch 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. It seems whatever notability the stones have comes in connection with Durupinar. "Drogue stones" should probably better be redirected to Drogue though, the generic article about the navigation technique. Fut.Perf. 18:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War

This edit[17] was made to a page that is currently protected due to edit warring. If you are going to be editing the page in issues directly related to the edit war it should not remain protected. With that in mind I am un-protecting the page. I assume you did not notice the page was protected, please be careful about using admin tools in content disputes. 1 != 2 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded on 1!=2's talk page. Fut.Perf. 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese shadows"

I am the editor who was responsible for that.

  • It was not "vandalism."
  • It is a direct quote from the acclaimed Trotsky biographer, Isaac Deutscher's The Prophet Armed, Vol I, p. 373.
  • Deutscher in turn quotes it from a work by Antonov-Ovseenko, who was ordered by Lenin and Trosky to "disperse" the Russian Constituent Assembly.
  • I actually believe that the above article should be deleted on the grounds of (1) Non-notability, and (2) Original research.
  • Nevertheless, to the extent that some editors appear interested in the subject, I found it ironic in the extreme, and absolutely relevant, that though the White Russians, and anti-Bolsheviks, claimed that the Chinese were instrumental in the Russian Revolution, Civil War, and the dispersal of the Assembly, it was the view of the chief military authority who led the dispersal actually, in his own words, that his adversaries in the dispersal "had disappeared like Chinese shadows." This is an exact quote.
  • I think you are doing the article, as well as Wikipedia great dis-service by assuming Bad Faith on my part and accusing me of "Vandalism."
  • Please reconsider what you have done, and then take any corrective measures you deem appropriate.
  • Under all the current circumstance, I think it's better if I lie low for a while.
Sincerely, --Ludvikus 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is simply beyond me. Just this minute, I was going to write to 1!=2's talkpage, literally, the following: "I thought, and still think, that nobody in their right mind could seriously entertain the notion that the casual use of this expression (of somebody "disappearing like Chinese shadows") could be in any way relevant to an article about actual, real Chinese people." I still think the same. Either you are still just trolling, or your mind works in a way radically different from that of the rest of the world. Either way, I don't think it would be wise to let you edit further, and I can't see why anybody should be expected to engage you further in discussion, so yes, lying low is indeed highly recommended. Fut.Perf. 16:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tose Proeski, Socialist Republic of Macedonia, Germanos Karavangelis, Ivan Vazov

(Moved to Wikipedia:ANI. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Please read the last message from Wickedpedian to ForeignerFromTheEast and tell me, isn't this fighting a war? This is not what Wikipedia should look like... Just read it, please! iNkubusse? 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a reasonable amount of consensus on the talk page that Yugoslavia must be mentioned (including Evlekis, SWik78, etc). ForeignerFromTheEast 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"reverted over an over until the end of time" Inkubusse, comment on this: [18]. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Later on the discussion, we find phrases like "admins are bribed", and "they (bulgarians) will burn in hell for this, Guaranteed". ForeignerFromTheEast 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Please everybody see my warning at Talk:Toše Proeski#Warning. Fut.Perf. 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Foreigner, just how is that connected with me? Hmm... iNkubusse? 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

Hi Fut.

Can you please take a look at the state of this article. The handywork of Kekrops, Niko, Yannis and Plouto has made a genocide of Kurds the theme of this article, including two ugly blockquote from two non descript authors. Cheers. --A.Garnet 10:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your nationalistic frenzy in the run-up to the Turkish invasion of Iraq, but the article has been stable for months. Let it go, already. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is indeed relevant considering recent events, all the more reason to to do away with the pov ridden material. --A.Garnet 12:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Fut, can you give me an idea if you intend to get involved? --A.Garnet 11:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Toše Proeski page protected

May I just ask one kind favour, since you are physically able to edit the page; on the infobox, would you be so kind as to restore the country name Yugoslavia where it says he was born in Prilep. I know that it was the source of one of the edit wars but really, that only came up after he died. All of a sudden, people are revising things and from out of nowhere, new individuals assert their preferences contrary to unchallenged practice. User:Zorla is not producing anything remotely constructive when he/she removes it, it is factual information; it is down to the reader to determine whether he or she finds it relevant, and if they don't, well it still didn't hurt to mention it. Obviously, this does not involve this subject in particular more than it affects thousands of articles exising on English Wikipedia. The user Wickedpedian favours this usage, as does Foreigner from the East who even messaged me with Wikipedia's guidelines in including sovereign states. Neither of them are my sockpuppet, I assure you. Zorla stands alone in altering longstanding principles which are widely accepted. It would be appreciated if you helped here. Evlekis 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No way, sorry, the reverts about this issue are precisely why the page is currently protected. Obviously it's m:The Wrong Version, as always. And please see my warning on the article talk page, which would still apply if the article wasn't protected (and will remain in force after protection expires). Fut.Perf. 08:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. Surprising amount of traffic since my edit! I am not editing anything in that article in case I missing something. However, to the best of my understanding, the official reports have him as being buried in 'his native Krusevo'. Also, he is reported as a Vlach. According to the preamble of the Constitution of the "Republika Makedonija":
  • "The citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian people, as well as citizens living within its borders who are part of the Albanian people, the Turkish people, the Vlach people, the Serbian people [...] have decided to establish the Republic of Macedonia as an independent, sovereign state..." Therefore, according to the Constution, Tose was a 'Macedonian citizen' who belonged to the 'Vlach people'. If he belonged to the 'Albanian people' would that have been omitted...? Politis 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


I don't want to make too big a thing about this, but after returning from block, Cleander is apparently canvasing support to carry on his fight over Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. It's Greek to me but I interpret these: [19], [20], [21], [22], etc, as possibly an attempt to rally the troops. Can you have a look and let me know if I'm imaging things? Thanks. Ronnotel 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. You read right, and there were personal attacks in it too. Indef-blocked, this was the last straw. Fut.Perf. 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Fut. I stumbled upon Eversman (talk '· contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and gave him a stern warning after I deleted a number of his copyrighted images falsely uploaded under GFDL. I'm not sure what to do with Image:Sanader Ivo.jpg: it is obviously not a photo he took either, but I can't track the original. Should it be deleted as well, under "it quacks" principle? Duja 10:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let 'em quack. You could also just remove the copyright claim and let them sit as {{no source}} until the user comes back to explain. Fut.Perf. 10:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Phaistos disc

Are you being too severe with the newbie? She claims her world-shaking translation is published by the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, which I presume has heard of peer review.

Am I missing something? We have Phaistos Disc decipherment claims precisely so that all the published "decipherments" can go in one basket; and it would be hard for this "neo-Colchian" to be worse than Fauconau, on whose crank theory we have a whole article. (Not, I admit, from a Sympathetic Point of View.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did she claim it was published? I only saw her claiming she was herself a member of the Academy, not that they had published it. The only sources she ever gave were her own Wikipedia userpage, and a Georgian version of the same text hosted as a 19-page pdf media file on the Georgian Wikipedia. Neither of them bore any signs of having originated at the Academy, let alone as part of a peer-reviewed series or something. Fut.Perf. 05:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Your last reversion removed (among other text): Kvashilava, Gia D, "The Phaistos Disc _ Colchian Goldscript", Georgian National Academy Press (2006, 2007, 3-42; 131-147), which looks like a claim of publication to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, he (it is a he, actually) linked to online copies of that paper, or at least a paper under that name, and it had no sign of being published there and doesn't look like anything a reputable outlet would publish. (If they did, I'd take it as prima facie evidence that they are not reputable, circular reasoning though that may be.) He did mention an upcoming book published by the Academy - but I've yet to see evidence that such a book exists. The Academy's website is down, or we might have a chance of finding out. Fut.Perf. 07:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Posible arbitration by Ethnic Macedonians

I think and thank you [23] !!! Jingby 12:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the welcome. I couldn't stay away for long. Wikipedia is an interactive form of study, I notice that it helps one organize ideas. Lisa the Sociopath 19:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Navy

I corrected numerous errors in the article, why did you revert? 07:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Why don't you google it and see? ;)

It's the natural habitat of the Mediterranean Monk Seal and the namesake of "seal" in many Mediterranean languages. 07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah, pseudo-etymologies. I looked it up, the words are unrelated. And you are still banned. Fut.Perf. 07:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not what they say in Italy :) 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Luzic ist spahe in uualhum, mera hapent tolaheiti denne spahi. Fut.Perf. 07:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC);_ylt=A0geu6NLPiRHAlAA5mFXNyoA?p=fo%C3%A7a+seal&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=IT 07:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. They may be there, but the words are unrelated. Fut.Perf. 07:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course they are. Ask your Greek friends, or check the Mediterranean Monk Seal article. 07:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked a Greek etymological dictionary, silly. Fut.Perf. 07:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you are saying that Foça (Phocaea) being the natural habitat of the Mediterranean Monk Seal is just a coincidence. :) 08:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And I thought German universities were good... 08:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The city of Phokaia was named after the region of Phocis, where its colonists came from. Phocis, in turn, may have a link to a mythical eponymic founder, Phocus (there were several personalities of that name; I'm trying to disentangle them). One legendary "Phocus" apparently was linked to a story involving a seal, but I haven't found out where and when that story is attested. It may all be a later folk etymology. If the words were originally related, we would have to assume that people in Phocis named their region after an animal that lived some hundreds of miles away from them, centuries before they were themselves going to settle there. Fut.Perf. 08:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Luther's handwriting - thanks

Hi, FP. Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for the help with the Luther's handwriting business. Sorry I didn't get by sooner; guess I'm the world's worst (best?) procrastinator. Anyway, glad the matter's resolved. And now, thanks to your vigilance, Wikipedia is that much more reliable! Keep up the good work! All the best. Delta x 09:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Ooops! I made a mistake and I moved it to Dorianσ. Please fix it! Thank you! - Sthenel 19:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops :-) Sure, I'll have a look. Fut.Perf. 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Invalid link

Sorry to bother you, I was wondering if you could tell me what's wrong with this link. ForeignerFromTheEast says it doesn't open, but I asked a few other guys to open it and it's pretty fine. Can you please take a look and let me know? Thanks. iNkubusse? 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can read it alright. If you want to use it, why don't you just upload it? It's probably early enough to be PD, isn't it? Or, if you need just the information as such and not the image itself, just include it as a bibliographic citation to the newspaper. Fut.Perf. 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did include it as a citation in the article about Boris Sarafov, but Foreigner overruled it as an invalid link. There's no need for that picture though, the newspaper "Macedonian voice" (Македонский голосъ) was published in Sankt Petersburg, and I believe that's the only reference we need (and here's an already uploaded picture of the first page). It seems that Foreigner doesn't really care about what I say, can you please join the discussion? iNkubusse? 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't notice your last message on the discussion page. iNkubusse? 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Future Perfect - Thanks for the quick response to my message on the Admin notice board! I got in and removed that javascript out of my list! Thanks again ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 23:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on 0RR and new rules on WP:AN

Thanks for the links to your "new rules" on two articles. I think your definition of "uncooperative editing" is very nice and will try to remember that for future use. Regarding 0RR itself, there is sometimes confusion about its purpose. In my mind, the point of 0RR is to stop an edit war dead in its tracks without protecting the page. Once the edit war is stopped for a couple days, it would be unreasonable to continue 0RR, so switching to something like 1RR or "new rules" is definitely appropriate. Personally, I see little reason to protect pages when the dispute consists entirely of experienced users who should know better than to continue reverting. I think it makes more sense just to warn them to stop. If they don't have the self-control to stop the edit war without protection, I don't see why they will have the self-control to stick to 1RR later. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Daddy II

Hi! How are you? I have not forgotten our discussion here (and this is not a threat!). I will soon go through the book and the article and you will have news from me. Ta leme!--Yannismarou 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I imagine you know how to make the photo in this article( not to overlapp some sentences (and make reading difficult).Can you adress the problem;Thanks in advance

Talk:Zajdi, Zajdi Jasno Sonce

I kindly ask for your moderation. The argument is reaching a dead end. Thanks. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is going on?

I was informed by Kutlumus about a paragraph referring to the Greek and Armenian genocides being removed from the Mustafa Kemal article. You have decided to delete the message Kutlumus left on my message board instead of first explaining to me what is going on. I admit that I do not know the full details of what is happening on the Mustafa Kemal article, but I do not appreciate anyone deleting my messages without at least providing an explanation. If you decide not to explain to me what is going on, then I recommend you do not make a habit of violating my message board even if you are an administrator. If there is a message that you feel slanders you needlessly, then ask me to remove it. Otherwise, stay out of my affairs. Do I make myself clear? Deucalionite 17:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion on the noticeboard

Any ideas on the ethnic disputes resolution proposal? --Laveol T 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

re: External links

Hi Fut Perf. First of all thanks alot for your help with NisarKand. This website has some very informative articles that you won't find anywhere. That's why I post links to these articles. The website might have a few articles that seem hateful but most of the articles are just copied from other news sources. The website's intro might sound a little racist, but in since its just a collection of articles from various sources I really don't think it is hateful at all. As long as the individual article that is being linked is not about a group of people, I think its ok don't you think? -- Behnam 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. All the pages I've seen are heavily POV, promoting an ethnically driven contempt of Pashtuns. None of them would qualify as a "reliable source" if cited as a source. If they don't qualify for that, they don't qualify as standalone external links either. I mean, seriously now, look at this [24]. Terrible quality really. Fut.Perf. 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well a few of Soraab Balkhi's articles might seem POV, but they are well sourced and I don't find anything historically inaccurate with them. Other articles from this site are from other news sources written by Western journalists. Yes, the quality is not perfect since the writer is from Afghanistan. Other than that I've read and its all accurate and I can't really find a racist statement in it or am I missing something? -- Behnam 21:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I admit Soraab Balkhi is not shy about calling Pashtuns "tribal". That might seem racist, but its accurate since the Pashtuns are mostly tribal. -- Behnam 21:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, thats arlight. For the future, can you please direct me to a guideline for External Links? -- Behnam 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


I'd like an explanation of why you are threatening me with a block for pointing out Hxseeks persistant problems. Thanks! --Ronz 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple. As I said, I see your behaviour as stalking. You have never done anything constructive about the disputes Hxseek is in; you just jump on him, piggy-backing on other people's complaints, whenever you see an opportunity. This is unhelpful. Fut.Perf. 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I've been involved in any of the disputes Hxseek has been in the past two months. Given the persistant problems in these articles, I've taken to making very simple and uncontroversial edits to the articles in question since. However, since I am still monitoring and editing these articles, it's apparent to me that Hxseek's behavior has not changed. Am I not allowed to mention this? --Ronz 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I only just recalled what the background was to that "sockpuppetry" allegations you saw fit to repeat on ANI today ([25]). Remember, your spurious sockpuppetry report (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hxseek) through which you managed to get your opponent blocked, and how it was then pointed out multiple times to you why that report was bogus (User_talk:Ronz/Archive_8#Hxseek, User_talk:MastCell/Archive_10#An old block). That you now bring up that old canard again in a devious, malicious attempt at discrediting Hxseek, would in itself be enough grounds for blocking. My warning stands. Stay away from the guy. Fut.Perf. 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While I still disagree with you on the sockpuppetry issue, I apologise for bringing it up.
Is that the extent of the problem? --Ronz 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I just saw your additional comment after I refactored my comments in the ANI. I'm going to leave it with my refactoring. --Ronz 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd hoped you would refactor your comments. Since you have not, I've asked in ANI for you to take this personal dispute between the two of us to a proper forum. --Ronz 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on the ANI! --Ronz 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Byzantine-Seljuk Wars.PNG

All except the top left one are on wikipedia. However the top left one - I can't remember were it was from and in all likelihood its made by Angus McBride so it should be removed I suppose. Tourskin 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Absar has gone around removing everything Cyprus related from articles that relate to TRNC. See: Special:Contributions/Absar I have notified the user on their talk page and also revert their edits. El Greco(talk) 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldova-related sock

user:Moldorubo: Judging by his contribs and knowledge of who Mauco is, this one day old account is likely yet another sockpuppet of Bonny or a wannabe. --Illythr 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems you forgot to administer the block so I went ahead and did it for you with the diff of your edit to their userpage in the block summary.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, of course. Thank you :-) Fut.Perf. 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One more. Same stuff. --Illythr 11:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


you have to be kidding me. i came on wikipedia on 10/31 and this guy was telling this new user that i was an italo-extremist and all sorts of other personal comments. that is what insigated this new stupid fighting. i'm going to post that on the ANI board, along with a highly provacative e-mail rarelibra just sent me. singling me out like that after i was blindsided like this is just downright wrong. Icsunonove 07:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That is fine you can't remember who has been on what side. But, after this guy shows up after 2 months of peace and starts making accusations and legal threats, and then you come after me, and me only? You think that is correct? I was hoping that we had finally brought some calm to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, and also Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol has had no issues for ages. Just because I'm not on the side of calling the page only South Tyrol, doesn't mean I get to be attacked. Icsunonove 07:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I get overly concerned you may be biased. It comes a lot from what I've witnessed on these pages over the last year. Look, I showed up after taking a break and I find Rarelibra back making these hurtful comments towards us. Then on top of that I get his e-mail and these threats of legal action. THEN, I see you make a request that I be indefinitely banned from the subject I am most interested in, and accuse me of being the big trouble maker who instigated another fight on here. Seriously, how would you feel? I'm happy to get back to my real-life work, but you aren't really protecting the people who have been attacked first. I want nothing more than a neutral solution to these pages, something that explicitly shares the cultures of this region. Geez, mostly I just want these pages to be calm.. Icsunonove 08:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I can forward the e-mail. Is there a best way to send it so all the header info is there, or whatever? Apologies to you if I made an unfair accusation of bias. It is just that I'm aware of certain biases users from Italy or Germany might have with regard to "Alto Adige" and "South Tyrol", respectively. I was personally impressed with the civil dialog that brought us the current title and intro paragraph. Have you looked at it some? Anyway, it becomes obvious that whenever these discussions begin, we need someone to moderate... o_O I just felt it a bit offensive to single me out is all; especially since I already get the brunt of attacks from Gryf, PhJ, and Rarelibra -- as they somehow see me as the focal point in getting these new conventions setup. So, have some sympathy if I feel defensive. regards, Icsunonove 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


I just recently reverted an edit to {{Aegean Sea}} which removed the TUR template from it. User: Special:Contributions/ El Greco(talk) 16:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He started to make me suspicious of other editors that are probably not sock puppeteers [26]. DenizTC 10:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies

I have emailed you, as I feel it most prudent not to continue this negative trend of posts. Rarelibra 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And note his long apology at ANI. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


You commented on WP:AN last week concerning a proposed 0RR/1RR regime on the article Northern Cyprus, which is being disrupted by a SPA, User:3meandEr. I've posted a request for a block or community ban on this user at WP:AN/I#User:3meandEr and Northern Cyprus - your comments would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 11:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lan Yunan dölü

Geberemedin mi daha? :)

Possible edit warring

I would like to inform you as an admin, that User:Kékrōps is repeatedly removing valid tags from Germanos Karavangelis article without explanation. Dzole 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your quick intervention, however I see that you left the NPOV tag only. the problem is not only my personal disagrement with the article but also there are some general issues, for example there is only one source, and that is Karavangelis' own authobiography (represents the perspective of the author only). no third party sources have been provided. should i bring back those tags? Dzole 19:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Overloading an article with tags is not a solution. Just go to a library, get some better sources and rewrite it. I can see how the one-sidedness of the perspective is a problem with this article, but revert-warring about tags is really the last thing we need. Fut.Perf. 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Closure

Oh, that's no problem, I was just trying to be bold. I just thought that the article was going to be a snow close anyway, so I thought it should have been closed. Thanks for explaining your reasoning for me. I'll just participate in the discussion for now instead of closing it! Thanks and happy editing! Icestorm815 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call

Thanks. - Francis Tyers · 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Skopje edit warring

Is it worth putting up a renewed block warning? The warring is back. -Bbik 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If not protected, you may want to start handing out blocks to people arbitrarily adding and removing the Albanian name from the article. Some of these guys seem pretty determined to have the last word and I think at least two have qualified for a 3RR block.SWik78 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In this instance, it seems to have been one single user edit-warring against a consensus of at least a couple others, and he posted that he was leaving wikipedia just the minute I was going to block him for 3RR, so let's first see if it will be quieter without him, okay? Fut.Perf. 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to have worked. I hope it stays like that for a while. SWik78 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Byz empire

Hullo, as I know you've helped out in similar cases before, I wonder if you could keep an eye on Byzantine Empire. A new user, User:AdrianCo, seems bent on eliminating any "Latin influence" from the Infobox, and has been consistently inserting unsourced or improperly sourced text on the faith of the "majority of the people" in the later empire; now in addition removing sourced material on the "Catholic phase" of the emperors. I'm not sure how best to respond, but it does seem to be devolving into an edit war. --Javits2000 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the filioque again, I'm afraid. How many editors does it take to convince the aforementioned User:AdrianCo of his folly? Ugh.
By the way, I think it should be continent=Asia, not Europe. The vast majority of the Empire was Asian, I think.. was it not? :) Monsieurdl 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It has both categories, and if you like you are welcome to add Africa too. The field in the box is not displayed at all, its function is just to automatically insert the category. But you can insert only one category this way, so the other(s) are manually inserted the normal way. It makes no difference which you choose.
By the way, I'm not too convinced the attempts at ecclesiastical union were anywhere near fundamental enough to deserve mention in the infobox. But that's just why I'm saying, making the decision either way is essentially arbitrary, that's just why we shouldn't have such entries at all. Fut.Perf. 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I get for not examining the entire edit. Personally I don't care for the entire affair as it is pretty clear to me the article itself clarifies everything, but consensus is consensus. I'm just frankly tired of the whole religious fight. Monsieurdl 01:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria again, he-he

Hi! Here are user's contribs. The editing style is rather familiar. Could you take a look at it? Alæxis¿question? 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Right of a defense

You swoftly deleted my appeal to you on this page,Perhaps, I understand to hide it from others here. Please I am not trying to cause you upset. You explanation carries no basis, I am an expert on International Law and have something to offer Wiki. Just because we differ in opinion is no justification to silence me or ban me. I never breached the 3RR rule. You banned me without trial or reason. Look at my edits on Wiki,

Much of the UN and OSCE, and Kosovo pagee are mine.

I wrote very little on Transnistria, but I did the military section and it is still there. The reason I was disliked was because I inserted economic items that made Transnistria look like the place it is - Normal.

I explained to you that many people, a great many people use this IP number. I never met Mark Street in my life. Even if I did, he hasn;t edited from this IP number, if at all , in nearly a year, he stated his account was closed and it has been.

Also, Mark Street never made ONE edit on the Transnistria page. He was never allowed a single edit and spent most of his time appealing with the other edits to calm down and seek consensus. Mark is hardly a monster for that, even though the Romanians hated him because he was a voice of calm reason and knew more about Transnistria than they did.

You gave me a ban of eight months and then extended it. Why?

Everythig you accused me of was untrue, if there was a grain of truth, I would have just assumed a new IP number and started afresh, I didn't.

Please allow me to return. If I do something wrong you can ban me.

Everyone desrves a chance


Go and e-mail the Arbitration Committee, that's the only path you have. As for myself, I'm not going to deal with this, but frankly, I don't believe a word of what you say. Fut.Perf. 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There are always other paths in life, going to arbitration solves nothing per-se, people should talk things through, to reveal the source of my IP base would endanger not just me but others, see Transnistria page archives for other editors being threatened by email etc, Note the Moldovan editors never emerge from the cover either. Note they never edit on days when the Romanian Ministry of Foriegn Affairs have state holidays, or during last year's ministerial change of guard, when the PMR budget was suspended, the editing stopped completely, as soon as the budget was reintroduced by the incoming minister the editing started again. I ask you not to believe me, but believe yourself, and open you eyes and listen to someone who can systematically talk you through things, with your own checks and balances system of weighting truth in place.

I never did this for money.I believe in what I write and edit. I believe the facts should be presented about all countries on wiki. Moreover, we, you and I should assume good faith. Please do say you disbelieve me unless you have some evidence to back that position. There can be none as I am being truthful with you. Buffadren

This went too far

ForeignerFromTheEast continues agenda pushing in the living person's biography: Kiro Gligorov particulary regarding the claims about Gligorov's alleged self-declared "Bulgarian ethnicity". Certain poorly scanned documents are provided in the external links section as "sources" (Gligorov allegedly signed them during the Bulgarian control of Macedonia in the WWII). They documents are hosted at the official site of the nationalist poltical party in Bulgaria VMRO-BND (its Plovdiv office). The douments: [27], [28], [29]. Copy/paste from the homepage (Bulgarian): © 2006 ВМРО-БНД - гр.Пловдив Всички права запазени. (transl. copyright VMRO-BND, city of Plovdiv, all rights reserved). Whenever i try to clarify the origin of those "sources" in the main text, Foreigner reverts me without providing any valid reason. He claims that the party itself "doesnt say such thing" about Gligorov although those documents are hosted on their server. Asked at the talk page about where such claims originate from then, if not from the party, he avoids answering and providing sources, but he insists on keeping the statement. Now he even warns me about the 3RR on my talk page.--Dzole 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User: Jingiby returned the questionable Bulgarian links that you removed yesterday from Kiro Gligorov and he or she added newspaper articles which are completely irrelevant to the subject of Kiro Gligorov [30][31]. They cover former Macedonia's PM Ljubcho Georgievski recent obtaining of a Bulgarian citizenship, Jingiby uses this fact in an attempt to justify the Bulgarian claims for Gligorov in a sence "Georgievski, Macedonia's ex-PM took Bulgarian citizenship, so why couldnt Gligorov too?". He absuses the fact that many third party wikipedia readers or admins do not understand macedonian and bulgarian to smuggle-in irrelevant sources that they can not verify. He also added another questionable scanned document too [32]. Kiro Gligorov is not the only article where they use such stuff, others include: Lazar Kolishevski, Blaže Koneski and many others. They also insist on keeping such claims in ASNOM without providing citation (even without those scans). This is going nowhere, thats why I had to report them, as a group at the incident page, its imposible to work like this. Btw now Jingiby messes with Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo again. --Dzole 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

More info: Im not sure if you understand Bulgarian or Macedonian: The second newspaper, "Struma" (Bulgarian)[33] reports about Georgievski's Bulgarian citizenship and, btw claims that also Gligorov declared Bulgarian ethnicity but during WWII. The first newspaper (Macedonian)[34] reports about what Struma said without any confirmation on the veracity of these claims. --Dzole 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

detailed info about this issue was added to: Talk:Kiro Gligorov#Jingiby

Bad-ish close

Concerns noted, WP:SNOW read in full. Thanks for the advice.

I thought that everyone except the nom had voted keep, and that the nom had all but withdrawn it because of the added sourcing. I had missed your "conditional delete" above. I apologize for that.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pirelli DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pirelli Internetional Award. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Firewall 05:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

more disputes


The disputes never seem to end. Shortly after you blocked users Jingiby and ForeignerFromTheEast a user called Li4kata began to start new edit wars. He began to delete links to ethnic Macedonian revolutionaries in the following articles: Boris Sarafov and Yane Sandanski. I explained the dispute with Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia to him yet he continues to remove the links. He is now claiming that I will be banned. I don't want to get into an edit war and I think it would be a good idea to let him know to stop deleting the links as I have tried and the vandalism continues. Ireland101 21:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for letting me know about the arbitration case. I must say you are a fair administrator, so thank you. Am i allowed to put my point across ? Hxseek 10:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In the Arbcom case, which is now open, is it just about the editing war situation etc. Ie do we put forward cases as to the content of the articles, ir references, proofsHxseek 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Thank you for your message. Should I know present an overview on the case at WP:RFAR#Macedonia as I already did in the Incident Page? --Dzole 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To Dzole (and any others who might come to ask the same:) At this moment, you can enter a statement which should mainly concentrate on why you think Arbcom should or should not decide to take the case, i.e. whether you think there is a problem that needs dealing with. Such statements should be as brief and matter-of-fact as possible (not more than ~ 500 words). If the case gets opened, there will be opportunity to submit detailed evidence. Fut.Perf. 18:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I allowed into the discussion without a former invitation? Why did you miss me :) --Laveol T 21:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Your hands are obviously not as red as those of the Greek users. NikoSilver 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tose Proeski

I've been reverting an edit from an unregistered user whose IP seems to change all the time. It starts with 70.52.178 and the last part changes(so far it's been 29, 203, 180 and 43). He keeps adding a link in the references section that really doesn't belong there. First of all, the link is never referenced in the article and second, it seems to be nothing more than a link to a site with some wallpapers, one of which is a wallpaper (or "panorama" as the site calls it) of Tose. You've reverted the addition of this link from the user yourself once. I'm just wondering if there's anything that can be done because he can't really be blocked (because of the changing IP) and I don't want to get in trouble for revert warring even though it's basically vandalism. Thanks. SWik78 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

doing a checkuser on new sockpuppets of NisarKand

Hi FutPerf. Thanks for your help again. Unfortunately, there are many many more sockpuppets of his. Can you please give me some instructions on how to use checkuser? I tried using it many times but I've been having trouble with it. For example, let's say I want to do a checkuser on User:Stronghold22? That one is old and he no longer uses it. This new one however, appeared right after you banned Khan182, User:Sodaba. He is familiar with my past blocks and he is familiar with FlickR, just NisarKand. And he has the same type of edits, like on the article Malalai Joya, which NisarKand was also editing. -- Behnam 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to go to WP:RFCU and make a request. They will need the name of at least one proven sock that has been active during the last one or two months, such as Khan182, and a link to the ban history of the main account Nisar. Fut.Perf. 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried that last time but I'll try it again. By the way, he is making threats against me on other websites. On one site he wrote: "ALSO FUK USER:BEH-NAM, THE SILLY FAG ON WIKIPEDIA. I KNOW YOU WILL READ THIS, BICH IF I SEE ON THE STREETS IN TORONTO, I WILL BREAK YOUR JAWS THEN FUK YOUR SISTER.".
I just wanted to mention it to you so you know what type of person where dealing with and also because I found it funny lol. -- Behnam 02:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You tube links..

I've never said in respect of the recent batch of link removal that any of them were actually copyvio,

My approahc has been to label as :

Removed by You Tube ( usally for ToS vio),
Removed by uploader  (which DOES NOT imply copyvio, often it's quite the reverse)
(C) Status unclear. - Which means that the (S) status could noy be definitivly confirmed.

In some cases clips got left because I couldn't assume it wasn't genuine footage from the uploader. Sfan00 IMG 13:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Li4kata doesn't seem to understand some things here. Check their latest edits on Boris Sarafov, Gotse Delchev, Yane Sandanski, Dame Gruev and Ilyo Voyvoda. Please do something, there's nothing I can do. iNkubusse? 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbërishte or Arbëresh?

What is the correct name of the language spoken by the Arbëreshë in Italy? Do they speak Arbërisht like the Arvanites? If yes, then there must be two articles, one on Arbërishte (Italy) and another on Arbërishte (Greece).  Andreas  (T) 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember someone (Telex?) once told me the one word was really the demonym and the other the language name, or were they just different inflectional forms of the adjective? I forget. In any case, the words would be essentially identical for both the Greek and Italian variants; the specialisation of "Arbereshe" for Italy and "Arberishte" for Greece seems to be an artifact of the Ethnologue listing. Fut.Perf. 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an article without any reason

A while ago you deleted a page called Martinus Thomsen, and i wonder what you're reason for deleting it would be? If you deleted it just becouse somebody else earlier did, you should have asked what their reason was. As far as I remember, nothing was wrong with it, and i even added a picture of him on the page, but a week later it had been deleted and i couldn't find any explanation to it on the page where people deside to delete .... pages. --Nabo0o 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There were several deletion discussions, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual science by Martinus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Testament, about this and related articles. The result was there isn't enough information from reliable, independent sources about this figure and his belief system to write a neutral encyclopedic article about him. As long as that is the case, you are not allowed to recreate the article. You also must not write an article that advertises or advocates his beliefs or the organisations that follow him. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:COI for an explanation of our policies. Thank you, Fut.Perf. 17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to me it wasn't becouse its lack of credability that the article was deleted, but rather becouse a majority of the voters who voted for deletion din't want anything related to spirutal information to reach out to people who could have read this article, it was newer any NPOW issue with it, just people who didn't like the tone of the article.

And as a bit of information to you, this book has nothing at all to do with either Cristianity or relligion. The books goal is to guide you to a higher spiritual level and not to make you belive in dogmas that it has created.

I really think it would be sad to let an promising article down just becouse you got something against the tings its trying to explain about, and not the explanation it self. --Nabo0o 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Arb Com

It seems the statement by Chris O in the Macedonian arbcom section has randomly dissapeared. There was only one edit after his statement was placed and when if you look at the changes of that edit, Chris O's statement is still in that preview page. I think there's a glitch in the saved page. Do you have any idea how to fix it? Thanks. Alex 10:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, seems to be fine. I can see it alright. Fut.Perf. 10:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please stop that

If you consider it "spamming other users' talk pages with those youtube links and political rants", ok. But I can't understand why things forbidden by greek government are so frightening for greeks.--strich3D 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Tajik

Hi Fut.Perf. I hope you're doing good. Are you aware the user: Tajik got banned several months ago on an accusation that he was using a sockpuppet user: Tajik-Professor? I know both of them personally and Tajik has told me he knows you personally. I know they are not the same user. There is lots of evidence to prove this, but most of the admins keep ignoring me and also keep ignored Tajik. Can you please help? user: Tajik was one of the finest editor's here on Wiki and without him all Iranology and Afghanistan articles have stopped improving and haven't changed much. It's really unfortunate that he got banned with a wrong accusation. I've contacted lots of admins, and I've stopped trying because I was ignored, but I know you're a great responsible admin so I decided to ask you instead... even though I didn't want to waste your time. To start off, his friend left me this on my talk page:


-- Behnam 08:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Behnam, I don't see much room for action here. While I do believe that "Tajik-Professor" was not Tajik, the others very likely were - including the anon "friend" who posted on your page. A Checkuser test wouldn't help anything right now, for technical reasons; the accounts are too old and a checkuser wouldn't turn up any information that we don't already have. Fut.Perf. 10:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
But he was banned for being Tajik-Professor and if now all admins agree that he was not Tajik-Professor then why was he banned? -- Behnam 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

me mate.I have two accounts but i use only one and i want to delete the other.In fact i want to delete this one Black Horseman.Can you help me and delete the account for me because i don't know how. Black Horseman

And how exactly can i redirect it to my new account; Black Horseman

I am Eagle of Pontus.If you can do it for me please.Thanks in advance Black Horseman

Thanks a lot mate. Eagle of Pontus


Can these informations be used as evidences? And is there a permanent solution for User: Jingiby's behaviour, which you could see yourself at Mala Prespa talk page? Having no valid counter-arguments to justify his questionable sources he just (cynicaly?) said Good night!(?!). Thank you for your time ---- Dzole (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And excuse me but one more. Can Wikipedia BOTs be programmed to consider those frequently used personal nationalist websites such as or as spam and to remove them everytime they are added to an article? And just one more, the website's links page reportedly has a trojan. Im afraid to check this myself, its here [35]. Do you/or someone you know have a well protected computer to check this? That website as I explained before is used/or was used as a "source" in several articles. ---- Dzole (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is a good start. It would be helpful if you could condense this into a list as concise as possible and put it on the "Evidence" page (more likely the arbitrators will read it there than on the main case page). Also, in order to make this actionable for the Arbcom, you want evidence of who has been inserting these links, or who has edit-warred to keep them. Same goes for the counterparts from the pro-Macedonian or pro-Greek sides, of course.
As for technically blocking such links, we do have the technical means, a blacklist that cannot be linked to, but it's usually employed for fighting things like commercial spam; I'm not aware of a precedent where it's been used to keep out political POV-pushing. Preferably that should be done by way of editors consensus rather than by a technical block imposed from above. Fut.Perf. 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia

Future, ich denke dass es hier um eine uncorrecte Behandlung geht! Niko Silver probierte den Editkrieg abzugrenzen, aber das war unmoeglich! Die letzte mode jetzt ist neue fotos im Articel zu einsetzen mit 50 Jahre dauerndes Copyright. Ja, aber in RoM das Copyright dauert 70 Jahren nach dem Tode des Authors. Vielleich du kannst den Wege und Balance finden! Gruesse dich! Jingby (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Your German sucks :-)
But seriously, revert-warring like this wasn't a very smart move at this moment. This goes straight to the Arbcom case. Fut.Perf. 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ich denke, dass unser Bekannte "Feuerchterer" einen neuen Name gefunden had - "Liljak". Das sind seine provokationen. Ich kenne Liljak, er ist tollerant and not so agresiv! Jingby (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Du meinst, Liljak ist gar nicht der richtige Liljak, und der Fürchterliche hat sein Konto gekapert? Das ist ja fürchterlich! Fut.Perf. 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ja, das ist die Wahrheit! Du sehst, er folgt jeden meinen Gang! Das ist nicht Liljak. Solche psychopatische Behaltung hat nur eine person und das ist unseren Bekannten! Jingby (talk)

Und noch etwas. Dieser Kerl ist die gleiche Person - Scribewire ! Jingby (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, wieso sollte das Schreiberkabel auch der Fürchterliche sein? Aber egal, ich werd das mal checken lassen. Fut.Perf. 12:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wenn du kannst seine Personalseite, die mehr nicht existiert wieder sehen, du wirst kuken die gleichen Interessen - hip hop, ninja and so weiter! Aber sehe hier, bitte - [36] Jingby (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Im Allgemeinen, ich denke, dass er manipulliert Wikipedia, Wikipedians und den Administrators wie er will! Jingby (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Entschuldigung Future, hast du erforscht ob unser Freund ist der zweite Liljak und ich sehe die Theme ist nicht mehr geschlossen im Moment? Jingby (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Future, I reworked the article and think it sees now more neutral and objective. Pleace, chek it! Regards! Jingby (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions

to the "bass violin" entry. They helped to put the instrument in context with the cello, but were out of my area of knowledge. To bad I can't read German, or I would read the Schmid article.


Hi FP. Just to let you know that Fatmanonthehorse is getting into edit warring position and contiuously contains the Alexander the great article with propaganda material which will turn the article no healty. Can you have a look at it and upgrade ALEXANDERS article to Full protection for a couple of days?. thanks all the best Italiotis (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FP, as a wikipedia administrator, you must surely know all the rules of wikipedia apart from having common sense. Tell me, am I really damaging, vandalising, or adding "propaganda material" to the article as Italiotis here is claiming i'm doing? Because he seems to have been spreading this to other users as well. Fatmanonthehorse (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to realise that you have been tricked

You of all people need to open your mind and face reality. This report relates to wiki and inadvertantly to you.

You banned me for adding a newspaper that the editors agreed to include. Can I please be unbanned ?



I've been outreverted by Kekrops, Niko and Yannis who all of a sudden after 9 months (from your removal) feel some obscure author (Levene) is a reference for a genocide of Pontians. This is exactly the kind of conduct that you complained about in the Macedonia arbitration, heck maybe I should submit some evidence there of this kind of stuff right? Please take a look if you can. --A.Garnet (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note for you about recent discussion at Talk:Northern Cyprus

Hello FPS. Since you previously blocked one of the editors involved, and restored his editing privileges due to a promise of good behavior, I just wanted you to be updated on some recent exchanges over there: [37]. No action is needed unless things take a turn for the worse. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 21 November, 2007, a fact from the article bass violin, which you recently nominated, was 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.

--Carabinieri (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

that e-mail

Hey, I was too busy to deal with Wikipedia for awhile again. I'll just let that e-mail go, it was nonsense anyway. I saw he said that he has issues at home/work and that made him behave so, and I'm very easy to forgive and forget. I disagree with your push for censuring individuals though, I find it not useful. You would have to ask for a censure of many users in that case, not just a random two, and s till it wouldn't be useful. :-) But do as you please. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Macedonia case

Well, under the draft sanction, admins will be able to impose anything that the Committee could; so I'm not sure I see the need for things to go through us at this point.

(If the discretionary sanctions don't pass, we may fall back to needing evidence for specific parties, though.) Kirill 21:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonia (Republic)

Future, I think this article is for speedy deletion! Jingby (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand has banned me again

Hi FutPurf, sorry to bother you again... this is the 3rd time now that the same thing has happened :(

Please see my talk page. They have blocked my Talkpage so I can't ask for an unblock there.

But here is my response and I have clearly explained each edit and after reviewing it there was no reason for User:Rlevse to block me. Once again (this is the 3rd time) he has blocked me by being manipulated by another sockpuppet of NisarKand, now it's User:Hurooz.

Here's my response, please forward it to another Admin or place it as an unblock on my talke page:

I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (user: NisarKand/user: Dilbar Jan/etc). I am very sure that once again this user: Hurooz is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you.

  • 1) [38]Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
  • 2)[39] This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
  • 3) [40]I explained that edit on the talk page here
  • 4) [41]Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
  • 5) [42] This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
  • 6)[43] The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
  • 7)[44] I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
  • 8) [45]I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock my talk page so another admin can see my explanation.

-- (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, everythings ok now. Sorry to you bother. By the way, I've now learned how to use checkuser and have reported this highly suspected sockpuppet. -- Behnam (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Narodna muzika

User: Evlekis repeatedly re-adds personal POV and arbitrary statements to the Narodna muzika article (the title means "folk music" in several south slavic languages, its not an article about a particular type of music or folk dance). I asked him to provide sources for his arbitrary statements and personal definitions of "what narodna muzika is and what is not" and about the other info he added, and correct me if Im wrong, but it seems that he doesnt care. See: Talk: Narodna muzika. Thats my perception. He justifies his edits by some logical explanations like (not an exact quote): "no one complains about my edits except you", "oh c'mon if you are from the Balkans you should know that, its a known fact there". He treats this article as a personal essay on the subject. His completely unencyclopedic behaviour must be sanctioned. Having no sources on hand at the moment I dont know what to do with the article. First I added appropriate "unreferenced", "OR" and other tags, Evlekis didnt respond properly, then I just reverted it to what I call "bare-bone" state (just the most basic information that no one can dispute), that includes removal of his personal POV on the subject. BTW this case is not "political" like the others. Its just Evlekis' misconception of what encyclopedia article should be. please check it --Dzole (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For your personal information, everything I have to say is on the talk page itself. Evlekis (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonia

Can you please post the link to the talk page as I cannot find it. Ireland101 (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The numbers don't lie

Google has moved over most of their pairs to statistical machine translation, see the translation for the Slavic languages article :) I'm pretty sure that its SMT, because with most other forms you wouldn't get artifacts like translating "Greek Wikipedia" as "English Wikipedia" (on the front page). - Francis Tyers · 13:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the translation of Σλαβομακεδονική to "Macedonian" even more amusing. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Kiro Gligorov

I see you've put up the case at the Arbcom and since I'm not a party in the discussion, I'll write my position here. All my reverts were reverts of Users who appart from being obvious socks, had hmmmm... well, User:Tatarska putka ... no, I'm not gonna translate it, but in the more offensive way, and User:Namajkati is the second part of the sentence "F*ck your mother". It's worth mentioning. --Laveol T 14:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And just another point (tell me if I'm too bothersome) - I'm starting to get the impression that Macedonian editors are tending to make strange edits and then edit-war on unsourced statement just to prove a point at ArbCom - maybe edits like this one, immediately after which followed the report. Something similar is developing on Macedonia naming dispute - a certain sentence was added on a number of times and finally I reverted it as well as it is unsourced and really gives me the impression of someone trying to prove something. It might not be true, but as I have already experienced such a case with User:Ireland101 I tend to think it is this again.
Yeah, I know I'm too helpful etc, but I just had to speak out my thoughts. --Laveol T 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Macedonian editors are tending to... is just too general. Some might find themselves offended. This is off-topic, but please mind. iNkubusse? 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it fair?

For User:Icsunonove to violate the agreed upon topic ban for South Tyrol/Province of Bolzano-Bozen? I thought a few weeks ago it would be understood that he and I would never again edit there... but he feels he must contribute. So what happens now? Rarelibra (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Rarelibra has been banned from editing this topic because of the edit-war between him and User:Icsunonove, it indeed raises questions. Either User:Icsunonove honours the agreement, or User:Rarelibra is free again to edit as he pleases. Gryffindor 09:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but as far as I can see, my proposed ban on both parties didn't at the time gain the consensus support it needed, and there certainly wasn't an "agreement" he subscribed to that he could be expected to "honour" now. I guess that's mostly due to Rarelibra's freaking out as he did, and his offence overshadowing those of Icsunonove in the perception of other admins. So, upshot is, Rarelibra's ban was a no-brainer, Icsunonove's not (unfortunately, I'd still say.) Right now, I see him editing more or less constructively, so there's nothing much to do. Fut.Perf. 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Until the next time... and the time after that... because it will happen again, with regard to his off-topic slandering and personal insults. I'd weigh that half (if not more) of his edits are useless and negative banter chasing people around various talk pages for his own agenda. You get several people interested in something (for example, a separate page for South Tyrol) and suddenly he tries to rally his socks and push it down, rather than actually discuss (and consider) the facts and reasons why such a move is necessary. Let's hope that his actions stay focused on "more or less constructive editing"... Rarelibra (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well that's settled then, everybody back to work. And Rarelibra, please promise to not let yourself get pulled into fights and keep calm and cool, even if it is very challenging at times as we all know. Gryffindor 15:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea

Actually I have no idea what happened there. I just thought I was bringing a silly entry to the attention of admins and clearly stated this in the entry and the edit summary. Can you shed some light? It must be a 'jumpy' day on wikipedia... Politis (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point and well spotted. You learn something every day. I though red links were just article that had been initiated in their title only with no entries. Now back to work finishing a paper on the possibilities of a war within EU border in the next few decades. All ideas welcome :-( Politis (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2 years... And what an interesting journey it has been and is! A truly unique place. Politis (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Thatcher131

Hello. This is [user: Beh-nam]]. Tatcher has banned me indefinitely because I was asking User:Dmcdevit about user: Tajik's ban and he says that I am misrepresenting the case but really I was asking questions so I can get answers and understand why he was banned. Also he accuses me of working in proxy with user: Tajik while Tajik doesn't even edit most of the articles I edit. And he says I'm banend because of edit warring, but all I was doing was removing really silly edits by a brand new user on the Kunduz Province article. Can you please look into this for me? I would greatly appreciate any of your time right now as Tatcher is not being reasonable. Also, I have noticed he blocked me right after he noticed that I did a checkuser on one of his friends ( see here). I just thought I'd mention that.


I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Future i need your help

In the topic about Pontic Greeks i want to put in the infobox the photos of notable Pontic Greeks instead of one painting that there is right now.I selected these famous Pontians ( Stelios Kazantzidis,Dimitris Psathas,Fyodor Yurchikhin,Giannis Ioannidis,Dimitris Diamantidis,Giourkas Seitaridis,Lazaros Papadopoulos,Basilius Bessarion,Dimitris Salpigidis).Can you please help me put their pictures the way for example Armenians did in their page about Armenians;(i just like their format).I am counting to you help.Thanks in advance. Eagle of Pontus

I haven't got much time working on this myself. What they have done in the Armenians article is to create a resized version of each of the source images, all at the same size (they chose 60x95 pixels, you need to do that with your own imaging software on your computer), upload them separately, and then create a table inside the infobox. Look at the source code of the article to see how they did it. An alternative is to combine all the component images into a single image file (again, using your own software). But I like the Armenian technique, it makes it more flexible, for instance if later you want to exchange components. Fut.Perf. 13:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad thing is that i am not a computer expert and not familiar with these procedures.Anyway thanks for your time and info. Eagle of Pontus

Can you manage resizing the images offline? Then just upload them and I can help with the rest. Please make sure you choose only truly free images (GFDL etc. or public domain), and add a note of the source. Fut.Perf. 14:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC relating to my conduct

Regarding your comments about me reverting the removal of jjk82's unacceptable comments on the south korea article, it was pretty stupid of me, but it was also an honest mistake, i have seen so many edits reverted on certain articles, even when the edits are NPOV and cited correctly, I did not take the due care that I should have done, I saw removed edits, accompanied by seemingly reliable sources, and assumed the removal was the sort of POV edit I have seen a million times before. I won't sit here and claim to be an angel, because I am far from it, I do edit controversial articles, and probably annoyed more than one editor, however I have tried to stay within the rules and the spirit of the rules, and don't wish to get a bad name due to what was an honest mistake. I would have no problem if you disagreed with my tone on wikipedia, or something else i had done intentionally. thanks Sennen goroshi 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you distance yourself from that type of edit, that's good enough for me. I wouldn't bother too much about the RfC, it's probably going to go the way of the Dodo soon, for lack of genuine certification.
Having reviewed the situation a bit more, I have also given a strong warning to Patriotmissile about bullying. Fut.Perf. 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a blocked user 774townsclear

Ok. you blocked me indefinite. you believe or not. i am not Bason0, really. see 774townsclear talk page. I can't put unblock tag in 774townsclear page. because, IP blocked. Talk Page Blocked. I made new account, too. Because, I can't recover previous account forever. You killed indefinitely. I made new account. This is only way revert Hoax edit. I move to other place. This IP is not My home. In this ID's talk page, i metioned that I'm a 774townsclear. WP:SOCK If someone uses alternate accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternate account identification). 774townsclear is me. It mean I'm not sock puppetry case.

Independence Gate‎ Yeongeunmun Gate‎ Anti-Americanism‎

I must rv. from This Hoax and POV edit. I can't patientnce Hoax edit. especially Yeongeunmun Gate‎ I only rv. 3 edit. except 3 article, I will never touch Anything.

It is really important is sock or not?

Really Important thing is True or Not.

Peasreach5 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the randomness

Republic of Macedonia

There is a problem between me and my colleague Fatmatenhorse about the ancient history of RoM. Pleace for your intervention as ballance! Thank you! [46]Jingby 17:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, RlevseTalk 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am having some problems

I was helping out in the Macedonia naming conflict page when this member called Ireland undid all my edits and called them useless. I went to his page to ask why for example saying the new yugoslav state was lead by tito was useless. I am awaiting an answer.

I see he has had many problems in wiki, can we vote to remove him? Reaper7 21:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look Reaper7

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia closed

The above arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be found here. Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on Balkans-related articles if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Someone has vandalized Pontic Greeks article.He ahs deleted everything but the first paragraph. Eagle of Pontus

User talk:Giovanni Giove

I agreed with your unprotection at the time. Unfortunately, since then Giovanni has, instead of discussing the ban, been accusing people (namely me) of lying and being biased in his usual not-so-polite fashion, see [47] (Italian), and there's been all kinds of other trouble there too in the past couple of days. I think protection is an idea worth revisiting. Regards, – Steel 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, do as you see fit. Fut.Perf. 06:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe

I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Template:Countries of Europe. My recent change seems to be well within what WP:MOSMAC establishes as the convention, but Kekrops (typically) is objecting and, ridiculously, is moving the country to be listed under "R". (Remind me why we haven't already blocked him for incessant nationalist silliness?) -- ChrisO 09:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I, sir, am simply following the spirit and the letter of the manual, which expressly states that Republic of Macedonia is the name to be used in related templates. Why aren't you? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the bit in question about "related templates" and the intention was never to mandate RoM as the form for all templates mentioning the country - merely those subordinate to the country-level articles (e.g. Template:Towns in the Republic of Macedonia). There is no point in using the long form of the name in a summary template that lists only European countries, since there's no possibility of confusion with the Greek region. We don't, after all, list Luxembourg as "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg" in that template to disambiguate it from the Belgian province of the same name, which isn't a country and isn't going to appear in a list of countries. The convention states that "Macedonia" by itself can be used where "the meaning is unquestionably clear", as it plainly is in this case - there's only one country in Europe called Macedonia. And could you explain why you're trying to list the country under "R"? -- ChrisO (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation of the manual is that precisely because "Macedonia (used by itself without modifiers) should not generally be used to refer to the country", and because "Republic of Macedonia, being the self-identifying name, is the established term" on Wikipedia, the prescribed name for the country is Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia, and should therefore be alphabetised accordingly. Yes, "the meaning is unquestionably clear", but "even then, the first mention should normally be a link to Republic of Macedonia (exceptions see below)." The Luxembourg example is irrelevant here because that is Wikipedia's name for the country; Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a simple redirect. The two cases are simply not comparable. Furthermore, Luxembourg's name is not fraught with the kind of controversy that necessitated the manual in the first place. Indeed, the very fact that Macedonia has its own manual of style makes it a special case by definition. Finally, changing the text of the manual ex post facto without consensus is neither fair nor constructive. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The link does go to Republic of Macedonia via a pipe, so that condition is plainly satisfied. But let's be honest here: do you seriously think that in a list of European countries, someone is going to be confused between a Greek province which isn't listed and the only country which calls itself Macedonia? As WP:MOSMAC#Background makes clear, the whole point of the manual of style is to avoid confusion. The fact that the name is controversial simply isn't a relevant factor - we're not in the business of creating special rules to satisfy nationalists of any side. Where there's no possibility of confusion, there's no need to invoke a rule created solely for the purpose of disambiguation. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
But you are creating a special rule, by piping so as to favour your preferred name over the "established term", potentially causing confusion with the unpiped Macedonia. Why? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What confusion? What other country in Europe calls itself Macedonia? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The confusion that arises from having both a Macedonia and a Republic of Macedonia on Wikipedia, which is why "Macedonia (used by itself without modifiers) should not generally be used to refer to the country". Why are you so intent on avoiding the established term? Why is the pipe necessary at all? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't avoid the question. We're not talking about Wikipedia as a whole, we're talking about a single template listing only European countries. Why do we need to disambiguate on that template between the only country in the world that calls itself Macedonia and a Greek province which isn't listed on the template, and isn't ever going to be listed there? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not avoiding anything; I've already answered your question. "RoM" over "M" is what the manual expressly tells us to use when first mentioning the country, even if the meaning is unquestionably clear. Your suggestion that "even then, the first mention should normally be a link to Republic of Macedonia" could possibly sanction the Macedonia pipe, especially in the context of the two preceding sentences, is plainly disingenuous, if not downright silly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Now how about you answer my questions? Why make an exception for this template? Simply to prove a point against those pesky "nationalists"? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


You must delete 1963 Skopje earthquake and Suge Knight Represents: Chronic 2000 because I created them when I was banned.

==HELP! Well not me,wikipedia! ==

I whent to you becaouse i liked the sharp way you settled some disputes in the Byzantine Empire article. Not i`m struggaling in the Polymath article with someone if Ataturk was or was not a polymath and i do think that he uses an unreliable source and that it`s affirmations are somewhat phantasmagorical(i do hope i spelled it right) while he says that i have to prove that his source was incorect!Hope you can visit soon and settle this dispute as you see fit! AdrianCo 13:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo

Please at least take a pic! AdrianCo (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo


Was it Ireland you backed in the Macedonia naming Dispute discussion or me? He thinks you backed him? Reaper7 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't "back" him, but I criticised you for bullying him, yes. Fut.Perf. 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


HI FPS. I hope u have been well. I know u do a little bit of mapping. Is there any blank map templates here on wiki that have some geographic detail (ie rivers and mountain ranges) ? Hxseek (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a link list to some useful templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject maps. In addition, commons:Category:Maps has a good lot of material. Perhaps you can find something there? Fut.Perf. 07:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Appletrees

This user is requesting unblock, can you please review it? Thanks (for all the work there)! -- lucasbfr talk 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I also reviewed the block, which was apparently due to violation of 3RR, however, Appletrees has only appears to have edited the article twice since September 27th. I'm a brand new admin, so I could be wrong, but I don't think User:Appletrees should be blocked. Please consider his unblocking and let me know what you think. Useight (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Palatal plosives

You seem to know a bit about these. [48] Maybe you can help with the voiceless palatal plosive. On the talk page page people have been discussing about whether the examples are wrong and whatnot. It seems we are dealing with two different sounds here: one based on /t/ and similar to /tj/ like in Hungarian and one based one /k/ and similar to /kj/ like in Macedonian. The sample isn't that great - I can't hear it well enough but it doesn't really sound like the Macedonian ќ should. Any help/ideas would be appreciated. Alex (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pashtun People

Hello there!, there are a couple of broken ref's on the article Pashtun people that you recently fully protected, 37 and 92..¿any chance you have the spare time to fix it?. Btw, this is by far the largest talk page I've seen :).--Seba5618 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pashtun people

The section I added was all referenced. So why did you delete it?

  • Thank you for protecting the Pashtun people article. On 19 December 2007 TheNewPianist asked that it be unblocked, but TheNewPianist has been determined to be a sockpuppet of Beh-nam. So, I believe, the threat of edit warring by sockpuppets remains. For the record, I have only made two edits to this article, both in November 2007, the first added the ancient references of Herodatus and the Rig Veda, and the second edit remove unsubstantiated (unsourced) population changes by an IP editor. --Bejnar (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Bejnar removed sourced material and you locked the page to his version. That makes no sense. See the talk page Bejnar is acting on his own and removing these sourced terms just because he doesn't like them because he is a Pashtun and wants "Afghan unity". Wikipedia shouldn't be here to promote "Afghan unity". So please put back the other two denonyms, which are referenced by American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet

Oh, come on Beh-nam. You know the rules. You got yourself banned. I was somehow still sympathetic to your attempts at getting the ban at least reduced, but with your socking now you are really burning the bridges. This is destroying all prospects of getting anybody, Arbcom or admins, to reconsider your ban any time soon. So, please, just stop it. Fut.Perf. 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I emailed ArbCom so many times and they just ignored me. I've been waiting for a response for 2 weeks now. No one is listening. That is why I am editing with my IP. I can't stand Bejnar doing what he's doing while I'm banned (removing referenced content). And I can't stand that Thatcher gets to do whatever he wants and ban anyone he doesn't like. And I'm angry that NisarKand's sockpuppets ruined my block log which helped me get banned. But ok, if it will help them to reconsider, then I'll stop. Thanks for the advice.

By the way, the version that you have the Pashtun people article locked on right now is by NisarKand. He placed that Zalmay Khalilzad picture there.

Bejnar is removing sourced material. And it's just me that is against this. Several other users are against this, so please add the referenced terms back.


I thought you might be interested about a possible sock/meat puppet. User Laveol was upset about images posted of artifacts found at Samuils fortress in the Samuil of Bulgaria article so he sent me a message on my talk page saying why he thought they do not belong there. Minutes after he did so User:Gligan reverted the article back to Laveol's edits without the images. User Gligan has not made changes on Wikipedia for days and out of the blue made the change Laveol wanted withing minutes of the message posted by him on my talk page. I really think User:Gligan is a sockpuppet. Ireland101 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand back again

And once again all the admins ignore him and let him do whatever. But when I fix vandalism and people like Bejnar remvoing sourced material, the pages are protected.

The user who filed this report is the banned User:Beh-nam using IP to evade indef block [49], making racial jokes involving death [50], vandalise pages and more... just check his few recent edits, espcially the one he left on my talk page. By the way, he was socking under User:KabulHospital and User:HariRud, which are now indef blocked by admins. [51]Travler (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt

Hi FPaS,

After your move-protect of Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt I started a discussion thread (here) and invited the other party in the move-war to participate (here), without any response. What steps would you suggest for getting the page un-protected?

Cheers and many thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 10.12.2007 08:57

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ploytonic unicode

excuse me, you mean that IE does not appear the accents and shows these boxes? Other programs show them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimboukas (talkcontribs)

  • God bless you! I just installed Mozilla and I can see everything! Dimboukas (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Could you please take a look at Bulgaria? The user keeps inserting a statement about the "longer than 6000 year history of Bulgaria", a statement that doesn't really belong in the intro and is mentioned in prehistory anyway, not to mention threatening to get me banned for removing it. Looking at his talk page, it seems that he had been doing the same with another user, until that user gave up. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by user Tsourkpk

User: Tsourkpk has been deleting any image of Ancient Macedon related to the Republic of Macedonia. It is clearly NPOV as it removing related content just because it is related to RoM. Here are some examples:[52] the user simply moved one image into the place of the RoM image. Also [53], as soon as the image was added the user changed it. There are many other instances. Any help would be appreciated. Ireland101 (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If that were true, I would also have done it here, even though the addition of the image was poorly implemented and ruins the formatting of the article. Rather, I would argue that Ireland101 is the one who is POV-pushing, by aggresively (and clumsily) adding RoM-related images to every article related to ancient Macedon he can possibly find, without consulting anyone. Some of the images he has added are completely irrelevant to the articles, such as this one [[54]], so it seems he is solely intent on pushing a certain POV by insinuation. This behavior is also also reflected in the large number of aggressive edits he has performed on articles related to ancient Macedon, seldom consulting the talk page before removing whole chunks of material he happens to not like, such as [[55]]. It's also reflected in his talk page.--Tsourkpk (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Tsourkpk if you are not POV-pushing then why do you believe that all content on Macedonian related articles has to be exclusively from Greek Macedonia? It would only be neutral to allow the inclusion of at least one image from the other part of Macedonia in Macedonia related articles. Ireland101 (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The sole purpose of adding images to an article is to inform readers and enhance an article's quality. This should be the only criterion used for adding images. The images you have added, such as this one [[56]], are of peripheral significance to the articles in question, thereby creating confusion. The additions were moreover performed in a clumsy manner that ruined the formatting of the articles. This shows that you are not interested in improving the quality of the articles in question, but have ulterior motives. I therefore removed them or replaced them with more relelvant images in order to enhance the articles' quality. Your above comment reveals that the only criterion you use to insert an image is that it be from the "other" Macedonia, which proves you are inserting them to make a political point. The deliberate and systematic manner in which you have gone about inserting the images is further proof of this. I also resent the accusation of vandalism, which you seem to apply quite liberally to anyone who makes edits you don't like. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This [[57]] is the perfect proof that you are trying to push a particular POV. By modifying the internal link, you are clearly trying to imply that the modern day slavic Macedonians are the heirs to ancient Macedon, a claim that is universally regarded as ridiculous and unscientific. Furthermore, the manner in which you have done so smacks of wikistalking. I would like that noted for the record. As for your images, I will let the admins decide on them, since you seem determined to turn this into a revert war. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikistalking? Is this not how you revert every edit I make? Sorry but editing an article you also seem to have edited a month ago does not classify as Wikistalking. On the other hand the fact that you go and ether change or revert any edit I make is Wikistalking. As for the Slavic Macedonian thing, the images that I added were created by the Ancient Macedonians. The fact that they are in a country other then Greece does not make them un-Macedonian. Unfortunately this is a prejudiced lie popular in Greece, similar to the belife that modern Greeks are direct descendants of Plato and Apollo. Ireland101 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The articles in question are on my watchlist, therefore any change made to them will immediately show up. This in no way constitutes Wikistalking. On the other hand, I HIGHLY doubt you stumbled on my edit to the Legacy of the Indo-Greeks article by accident. Rather, it seems to me the only way you could have found out about it was by going through my contribs log and looking for edits I made to Macedon-related articles. It doesn't matter how long ago the edit took place, it is Wikistalking pure and simple, and I would like to lodge a formal complaint of WP:Harassment for the record. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Tsourkpk please stop with the personal attacks about your unproven accusation about me being a "Wikistalker" the evidence points the other way. Now claiming that the articles are on your watchlist is amusing as you only started edeting them by reverting my changes. The fact that you have advanced knowledge of Wikipedia terminology is remarkable as you have only been a member for a few months, This defiantly deserves a compliment. I suppose this change [58]was also on someones watch list. Please lodge a formal complaint of WP:Harassment "for the record" as I do not have the time to so we can discuss Wikistalking and Personal attacks. Ireland101 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as comformation that this is typical behaviour from this user, a few days ago he made these edits [59] which were reverted by me and then after Ireland restored them - by User:Gligan again. He is basically putting images of some Macedon stuff (it's nothing other, but the Vergina sun off course) dated from 3BC in the article about a medieval ruler from X-XI century AD. I had a little discussion with him (again) as have many others and this is what he did [60].

He is adding the same stuff to a number of unrelated articles. --Laveol T 15:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, sorry everybody, but I'm rather too busy and too tired to deal with this right now. Can y'all solve this some other way please, without getting yourselves caught in the nets of the recent Arbcom decisions? Cheers, Fut.Perf. 23:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Brendan unblock request

He's saying he didn't do anything wrong and that discipline was unevenly applied. Since you were blocking admin, I'm consulting you. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish to add that User:Skyring (Pete) has told untruths on the ANi board, trying to bolster the case against Brendan. Skyring previously linked from his Wiki userspace directly to 2 external websites which contained personal information about him. On one site '' he had posted his wikiname Skyring alongside his full real name. The other blog site he links to contains blogs about his personal activities, under the same username. Skyring has encouraged users to go to these sites, and provided the links to both of them. It is inevitable that people will cross-reference the two sites, and connect the activities listed on one site with his full name listed on the other. I always assumed Skyring deliberately intended people to know about his activities and identity. It bothers me that on the ANi thread Skyring denies it. I saw it there myself, his full name was on that website for ages, and I can prove it was there. Problem is, I don't know how I can present this information (links and cached files) without it being said I am also revealing new information. I have no desire or joy from outing Skyring (Pete), but I also want to prove that Skyring (Pete)'s published his full name on the BookCrossing site, which he now denies. I'm not sure how I can go about this. Regards, Lester 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. Many Wikipedians have given out private information on Wiki at some time or other, for instance by contributing under their real name, and then had second thoughts, for whatever reason. Our policy is that their wish for privacy must be respected as much as possible. Unless there is some compelling need for talking about Skyring's real-life identity (for instance if somebody needed to discuss a COI problem with his editing), all this info is off-topic, whether it is publically available or not. I cannot see any motivation in Brendan's post other than a cheap, gratuitous ad personam attack. Fut.Perf. 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Odst violated new rule of the Liancourt Rocks

The interpretation of Japan and South Korea about a map is different. [61]

  • I changed to a neutral description. [62]
  • Odst reverted my edit. [63]
  • Though I heard him about his reaon of revert, he did not do a concrete answer.[64]
  • Then, I reverted.
01:08, 14 December 2007 [65]
  • He reverted again without passing seven hours.
02:09, 14 December 2007 [66]

I think that Odst violated this rule(Slow it down and Blatant POV).[67]--Opp2 (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Maedi and Spartacus' origin

Dear Future, there is a clear POV pusher stating I am lol [68]! He tries to change the location of the thracian tribe Maedi from Southeast Bulgaria, with his map where they are located in Chalkidiki's coast.

Thracian tribes & Spartacus tribe,the Maedi

All my proves he states were old and biased which is something strange! Plewse see the talk pages of the both articles. Regards! It began something as Edit-war between us! Jingby (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maedi location from by Hoddinot,Fol & Cah..Where am i wrong?Megistias (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I made one with both locations and will upload as soon as the commons get unsctukMegistias (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Map updated

Thracian tribes & Spartacus tribe,the Maedi

Megistias (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also after comparing our sources you seem to be the Pov pusher JingibyMegistias (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Old issue again

Hi. Sorry to trouble you with this again. Since the Ethnic Macedonians article has been re-opened for editing, I endeavoured to improve the 'identities' section. Laveol and Jingiby (the 2 old culprits) are reverting NPOV, directly quoted and referenced points; and simpy state that I am POV-pushing. The tone of my section was neutral, and I totally beleive that I cannot even reason with these 2 as their entire aim is to push their own personal agendas, no matter how disruptive it is. Can something be done? Hxseek (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Louisiana Baptist University

I have no objection to your making a case at Afd that Louisiana Baptist University is not notable. I do take offense at removing three-quartes of the article with the claim that every single item you removed was "original research", and doing so while the article is at AfD. If you have specific issues that fail your standards of sourcing, feel free to tag them as such, and I will be happy to provide appropriate sources or remove the content in question. Alansohn (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally didn't participate in the AfD and currently have no intention of doing so. And my (one) edit was made before the AfD started. What I removed ([69]) was very clearly OR, so much so that I didn't consider prior discussion necessary. Please read WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and then tell me how the pieces I removed were not an exact example of what that passage proscribes. Your "helpful hint" that "if it has a source, it is not OR" ([70]) is plainly wrong.
But I'm off for now, going on vacations. Won't be around much the next days, happy Christmas. Fut.Perf. 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello! Please do NOT, edit my profile without reasons. I clearly put UCK and I wrote albanians because UCK is made of albanians. First of all I made many, many contributions that stopped separatism and nazism spreading here and you banned me for what? Hate speech? When I spoke to that member he asked me something, I answered what I know is truth, and you banned me? It's like we talk about rock music and you like rock and I don't then you ban me for 2 weeks and say other reason. Please tell me why did you do this? I am going to give contributions like I did to Brigandine, Resident Evil 3 etc. but tell me why did you ban me? I don't know how much you like albanians I have right to believe in truth, and while I'm not insulting anyone with my userboxes you can't delete them just because you are an administrator. Please, answer this time with an answer not ban. Good luck! --Србија до Токија (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I notice you've indicated that Frank Campion contains copyright violation, but haven't indicated where from. I found the one for Mitchell Stevens but I'd rather not have to re-find everything if there are others, could you give me a URL? Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Future, how would I go about having images deleted from Wikipedia that I own the copyright to?


Hi, In the article Bryges, several users have been tag-teaming to add a paragraph[71] that is un-sourced and makes several very controversial statements which are incorrect. The paragraph is basically a critique of Academic John Shea's views on the Macedonian issue. All the critisizm is un-sourced and NPOV. Ireland101 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

John Shea is married to a girl from Fyrom nad he shows his support with pseudohistory.Megistias (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
What's very controversial and incorrect are Ireland101's repeated POV-pushing attempts to link Slavomacedonians to the ancient Macedonians every which way he can, whether it be through image warring about the Vergina Sun or on the articles on theBryges. And then screaming vandalism and sockpuppetry whenever someone undoes his edits. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Please end the personal attacks. Your comments speak for themselves. There is not one source to support your views in the Bryges article because it is just fundamentalist nonsense that should have been forgotten in the 40's. Ireland101 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

William Mauco revisted

Greetings Future Perfect at Sunrise, If you recall, a while back you ran a checkuser against me due to allegiations from a bonaparte sock that I was William Mauco. I didn't really see how this checkuser was needed however I don't have a big problem with it as there seemed to have been a sock infestation in Transnistria so I could see how everybody might have been checkuser trigger happy. The problem now is that everytime I have any minor content dispute, people trott out that checkuser as a form of wikilawyering. See here. I respectfully request that you confirm that you don't believe me to be Mauco. If you still have some concerns, I can do what I will to alleviate your concerns short of giving up my privacy. Thanks in advance Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't currently feel I could give the confirmation you request. I haven't been following your editing much though, so I really have no opinion either way. Fut.Perf. 20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Besa Arvanon,Pirro burri , Attack of the Clones

besa talk.His last insult to me is "What you can expect form self hating people without clear ethnicity as you are".Can someone do something? He is cloning himself all over the place.Megistias (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Sure, I can help keep an eye on it. Do you think it should be reprotected to any level?   jj137 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Request 2

I request: it's possible to reduce ban of user:Giovanni Giove? He is a capable editor in 3 versions of Wiki: Italian, English-third level- and French-second level-! There are few capable editors like as Giovanni in Wiki!!!! I thnink so: 6 months of block is a balanced punishment; I propose 6 months of block then administrators can block Giovanni for 7 months and more but to ban indefinitly Giovanni is damaging action against Wiki!!!! Regards--PIO (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi Future Perfect,

User:Ireland101 is getting really on my case and is trying to frame me for vandalism. None of my edits constitute vandalism, as you can see for yourself. All I did was remove weasel wording and original research which he inserted to push a particular POV. He has tried to get rid of me in the past and is now stalking me and taking it to the next level. Please help, I don't know who else to turn to. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I only presenting facts as I am tired of seeing blatant vandalism going against what the arbitration committee tried to stop. Future Perfect please see the thread yourself [72], Tsourkpk in fact started it with false accusations and personal attacks about myself. Ireland101 (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not only you only harass and annoy but truly Ireland101 you havent offered anything to wiki.Megistias (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


If zou dont like it fix it, dont destroy the hole thing.