User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives
– July 2006 – October 2006 – November 2006 – January 2007 – 12 March 2007 – 5 May 2007 – 8 Sept 2007 – Dec 2007 – Feb 2008

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Dodona

Probably should have asked you first, but I've blocked him for 3 months. Just couldn't believe he went straight back to Arvanites with more nonsense after you gave him a final warning to stop. Selective hearing, I suppose. Best, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. It's sad after all the efforts, but he seriously didn't seem to be getting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the posted material on Arvanites and Polyphonic Music of Epirus, I am positive I stated where the material came from. I don't think that is plagiarism. (Epirjoti)

Language Map Greece

Why are we not inserting the map in the articles? Because of some user with their alledged claim that its wrong? They have provided no sources and have done nothing to fix the situation. Whereas I have found another source that contradicts their claims (see the discussion). I think its unfair that this user has to prevent us from using the map. Polibiush (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they do have one point, the map in the present version has some minor factual errors, mostly misplaced locations. I hope to be able to make a replacement some time this weekend. Let's discuss the matter again then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ancient map

You promised me a map from a modern source on antiquity and its friday!!!Megistias (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's Friday!!! Yay, Fridayyyy! Working on it. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Which means it must be Caturday tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanians of Romania

Hello, I kinda need your help on this cos` I know that you are quite familiar with ethnicity and linguistics. I got into a sort of a fight with User:Dahn, the hole discussion was in Romanian, so I don`t belive that it will have any relevence to you. So, here`s the deal: last night for a few hours we fought over the use and value of a source. To be more precise in [[1]] at page 34(in the third column left to right) we found that "According to certain studies,there are approximately 3,000 Muslim Albanians in Romania.", however the author(George Grigore), while a credible source , does not state what sources state so(I have been accused of WP:OR by Dahn because I stated so)! He does have some sources for the Muslim comunity of Romania:

Ekrem Mehmet Ali, 1995, Din istoria turcilor(my note: "Turks") d o b r o g e n i, Bucuresti, Editura Kriterion;

Ð Mehmet Ablay, 1997, Din istoria tatarilor(my note: "tatars"), Bucuresti, Editura Kriterion;

Ð R. Florescu, 1976, Prezente musulmane ”n Rom‰nia / Muslims in Romania. Past and Present / Maca l i m Islamiyya fi Rumaniya. With a Preface by Iacub Mehmet, Mufti of the Muslim Cult in the Socialist Republic of Romania, Bucharest, Meridiane Publishing House;

So the first two are about turks and tatars....the next reference, that is about general muslim comunities in Romania...is from 1967! There are some notes that I might add: there were other arguments (like a speculation I made that maybe they were displaced as the article was published shortly after the Kosovo War, my bad) that were dropted and are irelevant. Another thing that I must mention is that in a short 3-4 hours I`ved been accused of : trolling, not respecting certain wikipedia policies like WP:VERIF and WP:NPA( althogh I didn`t attacked him, I just mentioned that I undid ONCE the article at the time), starting an edit war, laking experience and threatend to be mentioned on the noticed board. I must add that he did not insult me and that I did try to stop the aggresion, though I did got a little lighten-up myself upon his refusal of ameliorating his conduct. And in the end he refused to talk! So in a nutshell, we currently have the following issues:

• The given source does not state that it personaly made a study, nor does it gives the references upon the alleged studies were based on.
• If the hole of this arguments are based on the references that given on the bottom-right of page 34 of the "isim"(the institution that made the hole paper) article, then the most "fresh" of the sources if from 1976, and for demographics that is very old!

The source is credible: so I modified the page to state that there are "alleged" studies that state so(because it is clear that Professor George Grigore did not made those "studies" himself), but he modified it back!

As he refused to talk, there is no way we can stop this without mediation and as stated above, you seme to have the required experience: so if he is wrong, please make him stop my edits; if I am wrong, then explain to me were, and I will stop modifing the page.Please respond quick, if you can of course. AdrianCo (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Future perfect. Let me just touch the main points that i do believe make this discussion futile and its proponent turn around in circles without seemingly wanting to inform himself on the basic tenets of wikipedia.

For starters, what he did first was to erase the number cited from the source, because, you see, it looked to big to him. He wasted several pages of written text to tell me that the reference was not precisely indicated, and that it is not reliable - both of which, as it turns out, he has come to see were not the case. I have indicated to him that the source is academic, that it fits the most rigorous criteria outlined in WP:RS, and that (contrary to his repeated speculation about the impact of the Kosovo War being responsible for this "too high" number - go figure!), the author is a Romanian scholar. At any point in this discussion, the info was attributed, and not presented as an absolute truth. It does so even more at the moment, where, due to AdrianCo's persistent attempts to have the info questioned or rephrased into a weasel-worded manner, it is attributed directly to that Romanian scholar (which, to my mind, is too much on the safe side and too much of a concession to a person that wants this detail removed or trivialized at all cost).

Note that this person attempts to do the following: from a short source text that does not provide page-by-page references (nor needs to), he looks at the titles of books and makes personal speculations about whether or not the info could be found in the sources used by the source! He then pretends that, because he finds it unlikely, he can question the scholarly source and present the researcher's argument as a reference to "alleged studies" - because, you see, if he is not aware of them, they must be alleged. Adding that "alleged" is WP:OR, because this user manifestly draws on his own conclusions to dismiss a source that is not dismissed by any criterion on wikipedia. It is also unfair representation of the source, thus going against WP:NPOV. Even more so, the info presented, as you will see from the text, does deals with tatars and Turks, because the author indicates that the number of Muslim Albanians in Romania may be higher than recorded due to the fact that many may be counted as Turks/Tatars - since it takes two to tango, I don't for the love of me understand why AdrianCo cannot see it as part of a text on Turks or Tatars. Furthermore, given that the source is reliable and the author has academic status, the info may just as well not be present in any source cited, but in altogether different studies - if simply mentioned in such a source, there will be enough reason to cite it in a wikipedia article.

Furthermore, he repeatedly asks me why I would think that, "as nationalist a people as the Albanians are, why would they discard their national identity?" Leaving aside the several fallacies and the stereotype contained in this phrase, a possible answer is indicated by the source itself and passed into the article in question not one phrase after the info he keeps removing/twisting around. With or without that, the essential that this person is missing, although he repeatedly claimed that I am the one in breach of WP:V (!), is the very first line of that policy: "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth". The info is verified in the source cited, and the source cited is beyond reproach. That is all that wikipedia cares about, and this is why I shan't be spending any more of my time explaining myself to this guy. Dahn (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Response to Adrian, before reading the response from Dahn:

• I don't know where you get the idea from that the most recent source was from 1976. Since these Muslim Albanians are said to be closely integrated with the Turkish-Tatar communities, I don't see why the two recent sources, about Turks and Tatars, could not be the ones that contain the relevant figures. Why don't you go and look them up?
• Of course, the fact that the writer doesn't disclose which source exactly he got that figure from is somewhat unsatisfactory, but since you yourself grant he is generally a reliable scholar, and by quoting the estimate he has to some extent endorsed it (as being at least plausible), I don't see anything wrong with a statement like "According to one estimate<ref>Quoted in George Grigore....</ref>...". By quoting the estimate, and especially because he isn't explicitly attributing it, he is making that estimate his own, so we can quote it as if it were his.
• I fully agree with Dahn that "alleged" is not a good solution. It has far too negative overtones; basically it carries a strong implication that there are reasons to doubt the claim.
• The article as it currently stands lacks a source for the other, much more prominent figure, the "477" in the lead. If that's a census figure, I'd recommend integrating it into the demographics section with an explicit attribution, because numbers of self-reported members of a minority doesn't automatically mean really existing numbers. So, I'd arrive at something like: "In the census of 2002, 477 persons described themselves as ethnic Albanians. According to one estimate..." etc.
• By the way, the article also comes across as self-contradictory with respect to the religious affiliations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1)I did only once state that thing about nationalism! Dahn inflated it! I did not did so repetedly, but quickly dicarded it as it was my mistake, how many times must I say so? AdrianCo (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

2)There are also many other problems in what Dahn wrote...but to make everybody happy, what is wrong with a formulation like: "according to scholar George Grigore, there are supposed to be various studies show that about 3,000 members of the Romanian Muslim community may in fact be Albanian" AdrianCo (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't like having names of authors explicit in the article text, unless they are extremely notable. Also, "according to" and "are supposed to" are redundant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Playing down one's person scholarship by infusing needless doubt when an information is already attributed, and implying that the person may be wrong because, to you, the info may not be found in the sources used by the source, is in breach of wikipedia guidelines. "Supposed" is exactly the same as "alleged" in this respect: it is one editor's attempt to editorialize with what he thinks about the nature of the information. In this case, both words and all their synonyms are infringements of WP:WEASEL. Furthermore, wikipedia's policies on verifiability do not and cannot possibly ask users to verify the verifiability of a source that is already reliable (with a reliability you yourself do not question). Dahn (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how about a formulations such as : "there are some scholars that claim there are various studies show that about 3,000 members of the Romanian Muslim community may in fact be Albanian". If i remember, you, Future Perfect, had a similar problem not a long time ago: Dodona, or someone else, but I think it was him gaved a source, a dictionary of some sort, that stated that the "albaninans were Epirotes"(or something close), you refuted him by saying that the problem with the source is that the author, while credible, does not give us the place were he took his research from, and that "this is the problems with dictionaries", I think you recall better than I. I think this is the case now, the aricle is not a very profund research on albanians, but a more general view on muslims world-wide, and the problem is that he does not give us the source, but maybe Dahn knows it, as he says that it is clear and verifieble where those studies came from. AdrianCo (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if AdrianCo would not twist my words. I'm also growing really tired of improper analogies (a dictionary is not an article, and there is no indication that the dictionary itself was reliable, or that the user in question was not using it to say what it did not say - neither of which is the case here) and of circling around the issue by moving the problem around (now using the exact same weasel-worded approach, but not mentioning the author). I'm also getting tired of canards such as the claim that now the article is too focused on Muslims (!) - with the implied fallacy that is. alas, common among POV pushers that one should trim an article that exposes something they cannot refute, but dislike to see. I for one consider the matter closed. Dahn (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah... i did not say anything about muslim-centrism, where did you get that, Dahn? AdrianCo (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect, would you please read this edit summary? Could then inform this user of what wikipedia is not? Thank you. Dahn (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a battleground, i know, so please give us your prefered formulation Future... AdrianCo (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one more thing, I rememberd, another exemple of Dahn`s statemants: he said that the number appered to great to me(sic).Here was what the article looked like before I edited it, after numerous edits by Dahn:[2] "Around 3,000 Romanian Albanians adhere to Islam." AdrianCo (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, can you two please just give the article a rest now? I'm sure you must be over 3rr anyway, I don't dare to count. If you want a concrete proposal for a new wording from me, let me sleep over it and give it a try tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well?It`s just a phrase. I would like to make a note though: the article is from 1999! Now, the UN makes demographic estimates so often just because a time span of more then 2-4 years can mean serious differences in ethinicity(and the 2002 census appears to me as a more recent source thent those cliamed in the isim article(if they exist)). Anyhow, it`s just a sugestion to mention this as well of course. However I am still waiting for your decision on the issue I had with Dahn("various sources show" vs "various sources claim" vs "Romanian scholar...claims there are variouse sources" vs "in a 1999 study....(any of the 3 mentioned above)" vs any other formulation that you prefer). AdrianCo (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Two issues

Sorry to bother you I see you have a lot of work with the whole Kosovo thing going on right now, but I really need two pieces of advice. I can surely take things in my own hands, but I really need to know what you think and what you'd advise me as you're practically the only admin that knows what's the problem with us. So by the virtue of importance

1. Nostradamus - I think you saw what I posted on the Administrator's noticeboard, but you didn't give your opinion on the subject. For some reason he keeps trying to force his own view to lots of articles. He has really messed up the whole Turkic-Turkish thing. Not only what happens in Turks in Bulgaria (I'll describe it a little later), but he's continuously forcing his view that practically all Bulgarian and Wallachian rulers were Turkic - although in all cases there is a dispute among historians on the origin of those people and the Turkic (Cuman) theory is certainly not prevailing. So bla bla bla (I'm getting too lengthy) just look at his contribs and the Cumans article where I removed a repeating sentence and was labeled a vandal once again. As for Turks in Bulgaria he keeps calling everything that doesn't suit him as some communist etc etc propaganda and at the same time he keeps adding the stuff about Turkic people in it despite the fact that they have nothing to do with the Turks in Bulgaria. Yeah, I think I'm too lengthy - just look at the article if you have the time and Nostradamus contribs. If I'm wrong in this case, please, tell me, but I'm getting the impression he just dislikes Bulgarians judging from the tags he put on the article about the country.
2. This image - what should I do if I question what is allegedly displayed on the image. This is certainly a controversial matter and should I (the one who questions the image) should provide some sources that the content is mis-presented. I do not question that it comes from the source given, but I question 1. The credibility of the source and 2. The way it represents this image - Bulgarian soldiers (although you cannot tell this by the photo, but you can see a German uniform) have cut the heads of Macedonian partisans (it is a clear case of Bad guys killing the good). This is certainly POV and such an image can cause every reader to have this Bulgarian aggressors as the Devil's servants.

Sorry for the lengthy questions and just tell me if you don't have the time or the nervs to look it all up :) --Laveol ^T 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A little update - despite I pointed out there's almost an exact sentence in the article Nostradamus still restored it. This is in connection with him forcing his own view: Look: The Cumans were the founders of three successive Bulgarian dynasties (Asenids, Terterids, and Shishmanids), and the Wallachian dynasty (Basarabids). is what he's adding and It is generally believed that the Bulgarian mediaеval dynasties Asen, Shishman and Terter had some Cuman roots. is a sentence located at the end of the History section of the article. Am I the only one feeling that the second one is more like NPOV? --Laveol ^T 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really won't have much time dealing with this. Just a few notes. The "Turkic"-"Turkish" distinction is pretty much anachronistic when applied to pre-modern times, as far as I know. Please be careful to not project it back into a time when these groups were all called simply Turks, and a more specifically Turkish nationality connected with the Turkish state didn't yet exist. How to deal with such historical groups in modern terminology is a thing intelligent people might legitimately disagree about. On the Turks in Bulgaria article, I just noticed Nostradamus removing a section about "Turkification". That section indeed strikes me as very heavily tendentious, certainly not up to quality standards of modern historical scholarship. About those "Cuman" dynasties, I really couldn't comment without spending a considerable amount of time first reading up on stuff. As for the photo, again, I wouldn't know, you'd have to provide some argument about what other groups besides Bulgarian police forces were there (uniforms, etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm could you give me a hand about the Turks in Bulgaria issue - Nostradamus doesn't seem to be willing to discuss anything. I removed both of the contested items with a will to discuss things and eventually figure this out. We've already asked him a close to a million questions and given him enough reasons for why the section about Turkic people is irrelevant, but what he did was to ignore everything we've wrote and just restore the section, leaving a comment that we should provide reasons. Is this an arbitration case and if not - could you point me to an admin who might be available and willing to assist us. --Laveol ^T 08:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrgghh. Looking into it. Thanks for doing the sensible thing and removing both contested passages, they are indeed both of terrible quality (and the anon who reinstated the one was of course our banned friend Jingiby :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it just didn't work. Nostradamus re-aded the section with a new name. And it is even more POVish than the one before. No discussion, no nothing. --Laveol ^T 08:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you forgot about this......

Cut-n-paste involving Uhrana (history) and Ohrana (history). I can has history merge :D?

My mad adnim skillz. Let me show you them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kthxbai. BalkanFever 08:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Confused

User:Dimboukas seems to like putting Greek Macedonia above the Republic of Macedonia in Macedonia. [3][4]. I reverted him once - I don't know why, because it is a dumb superficial thing, but it begs the question: why would he change it in the first place? I honestly have no idea how to handle a confusing situation like this. BalkanFever 08:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How about rotating it every so often? Or is not being on top at all times such a threatening prospect? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope

I hope its not someone familiar,[5],[6]Megistias (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And he changed computers,[7]Megistias (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

popit

Poppit isnt new and he falsely nominated my image for deletion.[8]Megistias (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

Thanks for taking the initiative of redrawing the map. Your work is appreciated. You might want to consider locking articles in the future if annonymous users start to revert again. Polibiush (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take look...

...at Talk:Kosovo#PROPOSAL FOR THE HISTORY SECTION and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption on Kosovo article, potential abusive sockpuppets. I think protection is the way to go. BalkanFever 08:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: this has increased the size of (the already long enough) history section. And it doesn't seem very NPOV....BalkanFever 10:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Brace yourself

I knew I should have changed it back BalkanFever 10:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question?

Are these two the same thing: Macedonian language and Slavic language (Greece)? If they are then fine, but if they aren't then can the latter (Slavic) be added to Image:MapOfMacedonianSpeakers.png as a claim for describing Macedonian language speakers? _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As you are certainly well aware, it is a somewhat politicalised topic, but the international academic literature basically agrees that, yes, the Slavic idioms spoken in Greek Macedonia form part of the Macedonian language. That is the case even though some of their local speakers may use different, local names for it, and may not identify ethnically as Macedonians (ethnic group). I was discussing this with Niko right now.

Even though linguists are generally aware of the political and theoretical intricacies involved, as far as I can see, counting the speakers in Greece among the worldwide speakers of Macedonian faithfully reflects what's usually done in the literature. Open any linguistic encyclopedia or catalogue of languages of your choice and look up what countries "Macedonian" is spoken in. I bet you a pound of moustokouloura that it will include Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just checking. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Mouses"

Yeah, I knew all along it's "mice". I don't know how it slipped, and I can't correct my edit summaries retroactively. I know you know I know and I know you know I hate I can't change it and I know you know that if I didn't post this redundant message I wouldn't be able to sleep tonight. Afta. NikoSilver 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, for lolcat-style communication "mouses" works just fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, and the real non-sentimental argument should be: "every time you disregard people's self-identification..." Glad you chose not to deal with it in the end by combining the two and by acknowledging that the line is not clearly drawn. The mice are so happy! NikoSilver 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece

Okay, I'll warn that IP for the image removal and I've protected the page for a week. Thanks for the message and good call on not taking any admin action yourself. Take care and don't hesitate to message me if you need anything, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this do?

Why did he do this? changing the number of the block,what does this do?Megistias (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:88.252.64.238

Can you please block Special:Contributions/88.252.64.238 or atleast lock the pages that the user has edited. The user continues to make POV edits in these Cyprus related articles, not to mention change the name of templates to those that don't exist, and has been warned multiple times. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for a day, explicity not because of the POV pushing, but because the edits were technically harmful. For him to want "... is a town in Northern Cyprus" in the lead of location articles strikes me as a legitimate position, indeed, I'd say it makes a lot of sense. So please be careful not to level "vandalism" warnings against him when it's just a mixture of not-so-out-of-the-ordinary tendentiousness with technical incompetence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now the ip user appears to be Special:Contributions/83.66.22.10. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And that one turns out to be a longterm banned sockpuppeter anyway. Bingo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And the IP's just keeps on coming....User talk:88.232.137.79] _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One of your edits in October

Larissa (disambiguation) - why did you remove the persons? --KnightMove (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because these were entries where the dab term was merely a person's first name. I don't see much sense in including those in such pages. There are thousands and thousands of individuals named Larissa. I can't see that a list of such people either contributes to encyclopedic coverage of "Larissa" as a first name (as per WP:NOT a directory of random information), or that it has a useful function specifically on a dab page. Can you imagine a reader typing "Larissa" in the search box, and expecting to come out at Larissa França? People in western cultures are not normally identified by only their first names; readers know that they need a person's family name to identify them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands and thousands of individuals named this way, but only a fistful of relevant ones. It is done this way in Wikipedia, maybe with selection fpr frequent names. See Jane#Real_people_with_Jane_as_a_given_name. --KnightMove (talk) 23:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Kosovo naming guidelines

I've drafted a set of naming guidelines for Kosovo, loosely along the lines of the earlier WP:MOSMAC, which I created ages ago. Could you possibly take a look and see what you think? It's been a pain drafting them, and I'm sure I've not got everything right first time around, but I would very much appreciate your views in the light of your experience with ethnic conflicts. Please see User:ChrisO/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look....

Wikipedia:WikiProject Illyria. Creator:ArberBorici. BalkanFever 08:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

language map greece

Great map. Just wondering with what program you made it with. Polibiush (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Inkscape. It's a bit involved until you get the hang of it, but with a bit of practice it does get the work done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Its good but the map looks as if only those languages are spoken in those areas........Megistias (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)'

Arrrrrrgghhhh, not again... :-p No, it doesn't, not with the right caption. Seriously, without wanting to offend you, I believe that concern is only an issue when seen with the eyes of those overblown national sensitivities about ethnic homogeneity characteristic of the Greek mentality. People elsewhere in the world generally understand that more than one language can be spoken in the same location, and if the map caption simply tells them that this is the case, they'll be cool with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue has a legend just for this reason i stated below and they dont have greek sensitivities.So it would be good if you put one in.Megistias (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll do all that. Either as a legend within the map or in the caption. Let's first finish talking about getting the map itself in its final shape. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to offend your work as well you should understand that most people on the planet earth are idiots.They wont think of this as you put it.Thats why people put legends in maps.Megistias (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that concern is only an issue when seen with the eyes of those overblown national sensitivities about ethnic homogeneity characteristic of the Greek mentality. You took the words right out of my mouth ;) Polibiush (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We will clarify that in the caption. It seems you aren't the only one to have that concern. Polibiush (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw F.P., the Albanian, Slavic, and Romance languages look very accurate, you obviously did your research. Just look at whether we should add rhe Turkish language in some of the islands. Polibiush (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dutch lakes

I'm halfway through fixing them and now I'm confused - can you hold off for a few minutes? Neıl ☎ 15:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, I'm confused too. There were other cutnpaste moves, and now I've stumbled over that special "IJ" letter, apparently. Let me do Ijsselmeer, you do the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Please revert anything I did with Lake IJssel or whatever it is. But they need to be at "Lake X", not "Xsee" or "Xmeer". Neıl ☎ 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually too certain about the latter point. I'd personally want to listen to local consensus and see documentation of actual English usage in such a case, these are not hard-and-fast policies that can just be pushed down on editors. Let me first just figure out how that terrible Unicode letter works (both you and I moved the thing to titles with "I-J" in separate letters, but they were previously using the Unicode character "IJ", now we have a chaos of multiple redirects.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the points you make below - WP:UE demands we use what is most used in English (what could be more "English" than that?); these translations are practically neologisms in the case of "Lake IJssel" and "Lake Chiem". I find it worrying that these articles have been moved without any discussion or providing of evidence of usage yet to move them back to what English-speaking people actually use is much more fraught. Knepflerle (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of these moves have been discussed, and with one exception have been restored to their original titles on arguments of English usage. Given this, ou may be interested in the message I have left here; there are still a large number of articles left at unreferenced and unrepresentative titles, and I think there's a strong argument for restoring them to their original titles given the cases we've looked at in detail. Your thoughts would be appreciated, Knepflerle (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help

I was wondering if we(you,to be more precise) could block the Skanderbeg article.Lately people have been changing it according to their own agenda,making him serbian,illyrian,and God knows what else.I don't know if such an action(block) is possible but,until further notice, seems like the wisest thing to do.Thanks in advance.Amenifus (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Map assistance

Tell me what you need on your map ??

Also - I put in several other move requests - you'll see I am up against a wall here with germanic users insisting to keep articles in german when there is a suitable English translation for English wiki. Rarelibra (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted your expert advice on how to improve the design. Color scheme, how to place the legends, that sort of thing. How do I best link up the legends with the color blobs? Especially in the cases where it's several small blobs all over the place - is it okay if I just place a legend right in the map near the most visible of the blobs, as I did now, or is it better to have a list of color codes with legends at the bottom? Or do I link the legends with the blobs through joining lines? Also, what is the expert's opinion about the idea of coding one of the blob groups with a color gradient? (there's a serious issue behind it, it's supposed to be a dialect continuum, and the identity of the dialects in between is politically contentious.)

Regarding the map - I took a look and it looks fine the way it is. I don't understand the insistence for a legend when the areas are clearly marked and understandable. But if a legend is needed, you can create one to coincide with the various colors and place it in a corner, typically where there is less 'real estate' to cover up (on this map, I would say the lower left in the ocean area). I don't like the idea of assigning a color gradient to a politically contentious continuum, unless there is an established standard for the representation of such colors (like the standard of blue for hydro features, green for vegetation, etc - no matter what language a map is in, it is intuitive to understand the usage of those colors). So if there is a color standard for such, then follow the standard. If you are attempting to create one, then you will always have the critics come forward. My maps aren't always perfect - but they fill the void until someone improves upon them or offers me constructive support to improve mine. But things get twisted out of context - I was accused of being racist by someone once because he said "the text on my African maps was smaller than that on my European maps." My God, was I shocked to see such an attempt. So be prepared. Nice work, though! Rarelibra (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One example of this is on my talk page currently - where a user is criticizing two different maps. Ugh. Rarelibra (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, it's very much appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

About the lake names, I agree in principle that translations are common practice, but I'd always check that against a less rigid, more practical application of WP:USEENGLISH: if a non-translated version is actually the more common in English usage, I'd stick with that. For instance, "Lake Chiem" seems rather rare compared to untranslated "Chiemsee". Perhaps it's because in German these are one-word units, English sometimes adopts them untranslated. Also, in the case of some items in "X-er See" (like Plauer See), the format "Lake X-er" just grates in my ears, as a native speaker of German. The suffix -er is a derivative suffix that turns the underlying placename into an adjective, and that makes only sense syntactically if the adjective comes before the noun "See". Plauer See could be "Lake of Plau", but "Lake Plauer"? Well, some English speakers apparently do that, but you'll have to excuse me, my linguistic gut feeling just breaks down at that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying, then, is we can go to French wiki, German wiki, etc and change "Lac Michigan", "Michigansee", "Lago de Michigan" back to "Lake Michigan" (etc. for all English name lakes) because they would be referred to more properly and can easily find the non-translated version more common? It is ludicrous to imagine these don't have translations - because they do! :( Rarelibra (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the comparison with the other wikis is particularly helpful. The logical other side of the coin of WP:UE is that other, non-English wikis will have their own conventions about how much to translate and how much to borrow in a native form. That's very much a language-specific, cultural thing. Incidentally, de-wiki happens to have de:Lac de la Gruyère, and de:Category:See in Nordamerika is pretty evenly split between names in -see and names in Lake.... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is some more evidence. Google Scholar search, in English, presents 373 hits for "Lake of Gruyère". Google Scholar search for "Lac de la Gruyère" in English gives us the following statement:

• There were no results in your selected language(s). Showing worldwide web results for Lac de la Gruyère.

In other words, NO USAGE in English for the French version. Rarelibra (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

IJsselmeer / Lake IJssel

Oh lordy. There's a mess there. As I said, I won't touch it again as two people fixing a move at the same time is a recipe for disaster. Neıl ☎ 15:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind where the articles sit, but WP:UE, I think, is pretty clear - it was created specifically to resolve issues such as this. Perhaps a discussion at WP:RM is appropriate. Neıl ☎ 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovska Mitrovica

Hi! Could you semi-protect this article? This seems to me the only way of engaging anons who keep reverting it in the discussion. Or maybe you have some other ideas that could help... Regards. Alæxis_¿question? 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we need this?

Illyrian words with Albanian cognates do we need this? We already have albanian language and illyrian language articles with such materialMegistias (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful material, but it's unsourced and "Lisa the Sociopath" seems to have gone back into trolling mode for the last few days, so I don't know if she'll be available to fix it. {{Prod}} it if you like.

this is a duplicate too Taulant,this is the correct one TaulantiMegistias (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

These are duplicates too.Erseka, ErsekëMegistias (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting these. They can be fixed by simply turning the one into a redirect to the other. Like: #REDIRECT [[Erseka]].

Also could this be renamed to Roman legionaires?[9]Megistias (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Images cannot technically be renamed the way articles can. You could only re-upload it under a new title and then propose the old one for deletion. But it's one of Taulant's likely copyvios, so I'll probably just delete it anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok i redirected taulant and erseke articles.Megistias (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

this article here Malësia is not about ancient history but has more then 50 times mentioned illyrian elements all unsourced and most pov fantasy to the highest degree.Megistias (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Hello there!

First of all, thanks again for the rollback a while back now. It's really come in handy and it's more useful than I had originally thought.

I wanted to see if you would maybe get a chance to look at this post I left at the ANI. I know that most of the Wiki community is quite reluctant to touch any Balkan related political/ethnic issues with a 10 foot pole so I am not surprised that there's been no response on it yet. Believe me, I'm not canvassing, I just wanted to maybe get your opinion on whether I made a good point and people really are reluctant to get involved because of what it's about or if I maybe am exaggerating and I should leave this well enough alone.
Your opinion is appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Peace! SWik78 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, I saw it, but was too busy to deal with it. And now it's late... I certainly agree divisive political rhetorics shouldn't be tolerated, especially not in the climate we have in the Kosovo articles right now. But I'd need to have a look a bit more at the contexts where he said it. Several of the links you gave were actually to a discussion on his own talkpage, where other users were voluntarily engaging him in such a political discussion, right? I don't think we should hold that against him. If he continues with problematic behaviour, he can easily be topic-banned from the Kosovo debates under the conditions of WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the discussions on his own talk page and no, it shouldn't be held against him. I wanted to paint a complete picture of his activities but I admit I may have been a little overzealous. Either way, I believe his editing is disruptive hence the reason for my report to the WP:ANI. What do you suggest we do now? Do you think I should keep an eye on him for a few days and see how it goes? SWik78 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The great illyrian revolt

There is some confusion in some articles about the leaders of the Great Illyrian revolt.Wilkes says that Bato I was of the Daesiates(who were pannonians) and there is the Bato II of the Breuci(who were pannonians as well).The "dalmatian" bato Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology" fought not in the illyrian revolt but in a war against macedon.So Bato I (or Baton of Dalmatia) is not of Dalmatia a i have written in the text.I want the Dalmatia removed and if there is a redirect or something that shows the page is this is written removed as well.Daesiates were pannonians(wilkes) though wrongfully "Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology" writes they are dalmatians.The real bato of Dalmatia was a dalmatian Longarus son.I am confusing you ?

• So they are 4
• Bato I
• Bato II
• Bato of Dardania
• The real Bato of Dalmatia was a dalmatian Longarus of the Delmatae son(not Longarus of the dardanii)
• I dont know if this has been written in other articles as well.......(i am reading so much)

Megistias (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dalmatae has such errors.Please clean it up so i can reference properly with material.Megistias (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you want me to clean up that you can't clean up yourself? This is not really the type of article I normally edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If i remove something wont it be reverting?Megistias (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's why... :-) quite forgot about that revert parole. Well, yeah, removing somebody else's text would probably be a revert, but that's no problem as long as you don't do it more than once, and explain it properly, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You gonna do it? Megistias (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Belgrade_Kosovo_is_serbia_protest_Obraz_flag_Karadzic_portrait.jpg

Would you be willing to undo your speedy deletion of Image:Belgrade_Kosovo_is_serbia_protest_Obraz_flag_Karadzic_portrait.jpg? Though the use does have commercial ramifications, this is true of all non-free/fair use images. In this case, I feel the educational purpose is valid and there is are legitimate grounds for its use on Wikipedia, despite the commercial ramifications. In addition, the image had already been tagged {{di-replaceable fair use}}, and I was challenging this. Typically, this is a 7-day process, as noted by User:Pegasus when he changed the tag from {{speedy}} to "di-replaceable fair use". I believe the image should be undeleted now, and a neutral admin should evaluate the "di-replaceable fair use" claim on 4 March, as planned. I intend to bring this to deletion review if we are unable to agree. Superm401 - Talk 07:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, see my comments at Talk:2008_protests_in_Serbia#Non-free.2Ffair_use_images. Superm401 - Talk 07:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

About procedure: I am myself the neutral admin evaluating the fair-use claim, in this case. I added the "di-" tag before seeing that the image had previously been discussed, so as to give the uploader time to respond, but when I noticed the uploader had previously been notified that the image was problematic, I reckoned that the 48h waiting period had already run out.

About substance: Our use of this image is in direct factual competition to its use by the owners. They want to use it to attract people to their commercial website; if we use it, it loses its value for that purpose. See WP:NFC, examples of unacceptable uses: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos". As clear a case as you can imagine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Image:Belgrade Kosovo is serbia protest Obraz flag Karadzic portrait.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Belgrade Kosovo is serbia protest Obraz flag Karadzic portrait.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Superm401 - Talk 08:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He made 2 more

He made 2 more after you reverted DobermannpMegistias (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. BalkanFever 11:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This too.Some are still in.[10] from the previous ones i thinkMegistias (talk)

hey i know the history okay, many illyrian words are used in albanian language y can i wright that fact, tell me what do u know more about illyria and albanian lands,

This too [11]Megistias (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/images

You seem to be deleting my point of view from the discussion, can you elaborate why? Abdallah (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention to remove your point of view specifically (in fact, I find it very humane and reasonable), but the whole thread seems to be of little value for the concrete development of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So, can you delete the other stuff, leaving my comment?? And why did you reply on your usertalk page. I refreshed this by mistake, and found your reply. Abdallah (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, you misunderstood. I respect your opinion, but I think neither your opinion nor the responses by the others were really focussed on how to improve the article, that's why they have no place there. As for answering here, well, I usually do it this way, different people have different preferences in that respect. Guess I ought to put up a notice somewhere, like many people do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No I did not, Talk:Muhammad/images is not a talk page to the article, but is to discuss the debate about the images of Muhammad within the article.

"This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Wikipedia talkpage guidelines." Abdallah (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Adnanmuf

Future Perfect, there is a current unblock request pending for Adnanmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you placed a one-year block on for disruptive editing. To allow me to handle this request, can I ask for some further information on the specifics of the disruption which promoted to you block the account?

I'm looking for diffs, etc., here, but anything relevant will do :) If there is anything of a private nature, feel free to contact me privately. On a related note, are you positive that a one year block is necessary to prevent further disruption, and that it is absolutely not a penal measure? It just seems rather long, is all. Looking forward to your response, AGK (contact) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Well, yeah, it's long. I maintain it is preventative, not punitive. The length of preventative blocks is calculated according to one's estimate of the likelihood that a user is able to mend their ways on returning from a block, right? Now, my estimate of this user's potential of ever becoming a constructive editor is close to zero. What I've seen from him is wild ramblings about "Zionist conspiracy" [12], and racist rants about white Europeans being cannibalistic vampires (that have been described by several others as bordering on the insane, and these posts are evidently not one-off slips) [13], [14] etc. Add to this block evasion through ip 75.72.88.121 during my previous 48h block on 19 February, and the fact of general POV-pushing. A thoroughly disruptive, tendentious editor, ideologically far far outside anything open to rational debate, evidently fixated on his agenda to such a degree that constructive collaboration is impossible. I just don't see a reason why we should ask of other, saner editors in the field to put up with this nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Explain what you mean. Evlekis (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm still on Kosovo as we write. I thought I had been making edit summaries; the occasional one will slip with no remark but the changes are so small that it is evident from a single visual intake what precisely my intension was. Do you not agree? Evlekis (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'll bare that it mind from here onward. It is certainly better when an editor explains himself, and I accept that the Kosovo article is a hot topic these days. Sorry for having caused an inconvenience until now. Evlekis (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion

Dobermannp is at it again. [15] BalkanFever 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of divided nations

Looking at it now - deletion? Pointless article only causing edit-wars and stirring the spirits. Confirmation? --Laveol ^T 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as I wrote you made a change - so removing all countries and leaving only countriless (so to say) nations? --Laveol ^T 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's going to be a stable solution, but to my mind it just might work. Ethnic groups like Basques and Kurds, and divided nation states like the two Germanies before 1989. But there will always be silly borderline cases, and nobody has actually ever made an attempt at including a (non-OR) working definition on the article itself. If this were to go to AfD, that would be my line of reasoning: Currently it has no clear criteria at all; even if we were to come up with clear criteria, these would most likely be OR. Go ahead and nominate if you like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

• Hello, I saw that you are an admin that is willing to consider requests for rollback, and, I thought I would ask. Currently, I spend a fair bit of time partolling the recent changes, and doing my best to fight vandalism, and this tool would make vandalism fighting easier. I would not actively use the feature, however, until I have practiced with it here. Your consideration is appreciated, thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Understood, I was actually told by someone that removing comments from a talk page was considered vandalism. It was something I was not properly aware about, but I'm aware of that now, thanks. And in regards to the non-free image on my user page, I actually did not place it there. The person who made my navigation bar also added my task list to my user page, and that non-free image was on my task list. The image was on my task page, as the task page was originally a page to demonstrate I have learned the basics of Wiki-Markup, and I needed to demonstrate I can add images to articles. I will remove the non-free image from my user page, per your request. Steve Crossin (talk)

• Just making sure, is it OK if I remove that image from my talk page? Oh, and just to clarify, were you granting the rollback request? Steve Crossin (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I'll be sure to use rollback wisely, but first, I think I will test it out here Steve Crossin (talk) 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you know the newbie is a sock?

I don't understand your blocking policy. The newbie didn't do anything wrong but left his opinion one time at the talk page of Liancourt Rocks in which people try to gather a consensus. Regardless of him/her looking suspicious, he follows the valid method to express his opinion at the page. But you immediately blocked him who hasn't even edited the main page.[16] with the unreasonable reason:(blocked sock, of whoever)

You just blocked the newbie very contrary to your conduct to Japanese users. You know that I'd been stalked by Amazonfire (talk · contribs), Mochi (talk · contribs) but just blocked the first one for 2 days, not indefinitely. I've seen you're only hard on Korean editors and very mild on Opp2 who caused more than disruption to the article after even he is proven as a sock of the old disruptive another account. You blocked more than 3 seemingly Korean editors without any proof that they're socks. Your blocking is also punitive. I've always wanted to say this but I couldn't because I also have been afraid of your inconsistent blocking policy. You may know that I've reported RFCU files on obvious socks/meatpuppets from Japanese 2channel who caused the poll fraud and disruptive POV pushing to Korean related articles. Thus, Namdaemun had been under semi protection and South Korea is still under full protection. However, they're not of course, not blocked because I can't match so many sock/meats to existing editors. Without any confirmation, I believe you can't block any user with your administrative power.

Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Rename_the_Article

Talk:Sea_of_Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21

I'm very disappointed at adimins condoning the ongoing meatpuppetry. I must raise this issue at AN. And you also edited Sea of Japan, so you may already know of the matter. I wonder why your didn't block the disruptive SPAs --Appletrees (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your perception is skewed, I believe. My blocking policy on J/K articles is simple: I block as many contributors from both sides as I can find good pretexts for, for as long as I can get away with. In the case of the new account on Talk:Liancourt Rocks, it was plain obvious it was not a newcomer to Wikipedia, because their posting showed familiarity with previous disputes. Given the history of socking on that page, there can be no initial assumption of innocence in such a case. The posting was also objectively disruptive, because it was arguing a personal opinion about which side is right or wrong.

As for the Japanese, I couldn't block more of them because the situation back a couple of weeks ago was simply too confusing to see through, and I must say, your continuous flood of sock reports and complaints didn't much to make it easier for me and other admins. What I did was I banned the known contributors from posting through IPs, and indeed just today I blocked a stable IP for apparently being one of our usual suspects. Please give me notice (brief, if at all possible) if such IPs return. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I perceive and what I believe is right. Please don't insult me. The newly blocked sock is suspicious but did he or she do wrong? Nope. I considered to discuss 2channel with you, but already knew how you react. Of course, admins and you feel uncomfortable with my RFCU files on Japanese editors. Because if only one or few people just bear the disruptions by sock/meats, the wiki world looks seemingly peaceful. So just let one Korean whine forever? Tracing back to the root of the disruption is a tedious, uneasy and annoying task and needs more attention from people, I think you blocked Korean editors much more than Japanese editors. It is so obvious that the new Japanese editors who voted at Sea of Japan are not new comers judged by their knowledge of Wikipedia and so many recent disruptions to Japan-Korean related articles. I think I've been very patient to give them to rethink about stopping meat/socking but new socks keep coming. Apparently no admin do anything to them. I found out yesterday that my finding their two threads about plots to Sea of Japan and Namdaemun is just partial of their long time project on English Wikipedia. Google this keyword, 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ It has begun about over 3 years ago. It is a series of articles stating how to fight against Chosenjin (racial slur to Korean) in English Wikipeida. They have analyzed Korean, pro Korean editors or even admins as keeping monitoring English/Japanese/Korean Wikipedia.

I did found Forestfarmer is not only a meatpuppet from Japanese Wikipedia but also from 2channel per his user page. Kusunose also left at 2channel, so wikistalked me for a while. What would you suggest me to do while I'm being monitored by the flood of Japanese meats? I was wondering why Mochi suddenly intervened me and wikistaked for 2 month, because he saw 2 channel and decided to chase me. The tread say so as well. I guess Wikipedia really needs to watch them closely and change the sock policy. --Appletrees (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence that Forestfarmer, Mochi or Kusunose are linked to the meatpuppet campaigns, please let me know. I'm sure prepared to block for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I have evidences on their behaviors, and I will provide it with translation. Aside from meat/sockpupetry, I want to ask about sock policy from which I don't see any good purpose. I want to raise the issue somewhere but don't know where is a good place to be. --Appletrees (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Post it here if you like. If it's going to be a lot, you might want to create a subpage for it. I'll get other admins to give it proper attention if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I should report Japanese Meat/Sockpuppetry to ANI to get wider attention from people and admins but what I asked you above is where I suggest to change or mend the current sock policy. --Appletrees (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I misread that. Well, policy discussions would go to WT:SOCK, with an accompanying notice to WP:VP/P Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. The latter place is very new to me. --Appletrees (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Image:Serbs_burn_US_embassy_in_Belgrade.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Serbs_burn_US_embassy_in_Belgrade.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mikebar (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mario Scolas and BogaertB

First, my well-meant congratulations on your daring, but great block of User:Mario scolas. By the way, do not be fooled like I was for a long time (see the talk page of Mario, mainly) - these two are one and the same person, trying to create Wiki street credibility by creating artificial conflict and telling as many third users as possible that the other guy was editing in the name of a Belgian political party (Mario claimed Bogaert was Vlaams Belang, Bogaert claimed Mario was Parti Socialiste). They went to the point of adding and deleting badly sourced BLP material to Laurette Onkelinx. On the English Wikipedia, BogaertB was the one who was always adding the disputed material, evn against BLP concerns. On Dutch Wikipedia, at one time, BogaertB actually deleted the same material, claiming "this can be interpreted as racist, but it is fact". Obvious trolling to muddle the waters. And at one time, Mario scolas deleted the text on en: with a summary that was completely ridiculous and obviously ironical ("mensonges de BoegartB, Onkelinx est un ange, BoegaertB parcourt les rues de Molenbeek avec un cousteau!")

I would not be surprised if BogaertB (not blocked and inactive for some time on en:) were to come back, possibly from another computer and with a new provider (some of the last edits by Mario Scolas seem to have gone through Tele2 rather than Belgacom), so that he is not hindered by a block on IPs. Again, congratulations on this action and keep up the good work!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad copy and paste move

Looks like someone copy and pasted Kerameikon to Kerameikos and vice versa, and the page histories look like their all over the place. Can you fix it and move all the content to Kerameikos? _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Future! _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Caturday, another copy-paste move

Greek investments in Macedonia to Greek investments in the Republic of Macedonia. MOSMAC cat says: ur doing it wrong :). BalkanFever 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, can you help with Ethnic Macedonian music to Music of the Republic of Macedonia? Not a copy-paste, just both of them have histories. Discussion for the move is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ROMacedonia. BalkanFever 07:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you've started doing some work on the Macedonian salad (sorry about the move, at least I realised that a tab named MOVE exists now), how about taking a look at United macedonia salute as well? A neutral opinion regarding recent edits on Macedon wouldn't hurt either. What's with the abuse of 4chan memes, anyway? Completely un/b/ecoming of serious editors. 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but right now, before I tackle the dessert, I'm afraid I'll have to digest some kimchi first. It gives you stomach ache. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL I'm only doing it on caturday. It's just a way of lightening up the mood in the sometimes sickeningly serious Macedonia-related articles. Besides, we don't do it when we edit the articles - that would be stupid ;) BalkanFever 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry did not see you

Being the kids are not alone you can take care of your little clan, and I go about my business. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing about Appletrees

This Appletrees' statement "I googled my name and found out the 2channel's plot for the poll" is probably false. Try google search "+Appletrees site:2ch.net" and you get only one hit which has got nothing to do with the user or Wikipedia ("Oranges on appletrees... The bugs that mate with bumblebee").

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2BAppletrees+site%3A2ch.net

The name "Appletrees" has never been mentioned anywhere on 2ch.

The name "Appleby," on the other hand, has lots of google hits in conjunction with "site:2ch.net" and "Wikipedia."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2BAppleby+site%3A2ch.net+%2Bwikipedia

He could have used a different name than "Appleby," but he most definitely did not use the name "Appletrees" when he allegedly found out the 2ch threads.

Hello, Engage31 (talk · contribs), whoever you are, didn't I say I can speak Japanese? My account name is Appletrees and ja:リンゴ is Apple and tree is ja:木 in Japanese. So Appletrees is equal to リンゴ木. See the google result below. Very simple.

リンゴ木 Wikipedia The returns shows the relevant 2channel at the second. 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21

However, I'm commonly called as あっぷる without "tree" or rarely called a りんご by your 2channel friends. I'm also called 新りんご (new apple in Japanese)[17] And ID:GuIJurZZ is you, right? So far one edit of yours to inform the wrong information. Thank you for your support. --Appletrees (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

567 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/03/01(土) 11:43:20 ID:GuIJurZZ

自分の名前でググってここ見つけたとか言ってるが、

りん朴の名前なんて当該スレのどこにも無い罠。

ビーはあるが、それともビーと同一人物と激白してるのか。

Although he said, he found out here by his name,

Nowhere his name is shown in the relevant thread which is a trap

Appleby is mentioned, if so, he is the same person as Appleby?

568 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/03/01(土) 11:52:35 ID:GuIJurZZ

つうか、2ch.netでドメイン制限してりん朴でググっても、

一つもかからないぞ。かかるのは関係無いスレばっか。

こりゃびー確定だな。

While searching 2ch.net and his name in only the domain,

I can't :find :any result for his name but just get unrelated threads.

It is conclusive.

That sounds like an ex post facto rationalization. It's more likely that Appletrees learnt about how he was referred to in those peculiar Japanese expressions after he read those threads, not before. Coming up with such an insight from the beginning is unlikely even for a native speaker of Japanese, much less for someone reading Japanese with machine translation.

Ha, did I ever say I found the thread "by first try"? Whatever assumption you've got, I have no reason to talk you unless showing how the 2channel meat/socks affect Wikipedia. So you prove your relation with the site and have watched ANI which is exactly what I've said. So, bye bye forever~~ --Appletrees (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Future Pefrfect at Sunrise, can you tell your thought on this 2channel sock? Thanks --Appletrees (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record

Just to avoid any possible confusion, I'd like to make clear that this edit was not contributed by me. Köbra ⁸⁵ 15:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly

I honestly think that if you use dots and legend the languages image will be understood and not attacked as it is now or at least less attacked.Megistias (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but the Slavic nearing Salonica seems a bit too purple. Looking at it objectively/ignorantly by the shade, I would conclude it's more Bulgarian than Macedonian, which isn't what the linguists say. BalkanFever 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you lock the Greece article from new and unregistered users? Polibiush (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles about Ancient Greece have been vandalized

...i didn't do reverts. i just added truth about ancient Macedonia. and you block truth. are you guys allergic to truth? for tribes like Molossians and Chaonians it's ok to put "Molossians were an Ancient Greek tribe", but for the Macedonians it is not? there are hundreds upon hundreds of ancient writings of Macedonians calling themselves Greek, Greeks calling Macedonians Greek, Persians and other foreigners calling the macedonians Greek. is the cheap skopian, slavo-bulgarian propaganda entering Wikipedia and your brains? this is disgusting.. blocking the truth... DefendEurope (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Boubaker polynomials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please protect it from recreation? The author recreated it 3 times on :fr. Barraki (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Me again!

I had left you a note earlier about Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, again, I really feel obligated to report his recent behaviour when it comes to articles related to Kosovo.

I really feel that he is trying to excite the editors involved in those articles by his comments. I apologize if I am coming across as overzealous but please do take a look at these edits ([18], [19], [20]) and let me know if it doesn't warrant some sort of a warning under WP:ARBMAC or even just plain old civility. As well, the article on Kosovo is under ARBCOM probation and I honestly don't think edits like "I am going to get my champagne and celebrate Serbia's loss of Kosovo" are helping anything.

Your input is always appreciated.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing a redirect

Could you remove the redirect from Labeates? It takes you the illyrian tribes list and i want to make the tribe article.I dont know how to remove a redirect.Megistias (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just go to it through this link and edit normally. (BTW, when you go to a redirect, the target page will show you a small link back to the redirect page right at the top. That's how you get there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a sort of reverting and i would get banned and i dont understand it anyway...Could you do it i ll just make the page on the tribe then.Megistias (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Expanding a redirect into a proper article is not a revert. No reason for trouble. Just follow the link and click edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I did it and made another tribe page!Megistias (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Did this fella remove a redirect? diffMegistias (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging one line articles

Idea/question. The illyrian tribes ,the "proper" illyrians here List of Illyrian tribes are for the most part 1 line pages and having see many of the sources-really- most will remain every small.Could and should we merge them into one article on "proper" illyrian tribes? The List of Illyrian tribes can remain of course.Megistias (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's basically just undoing what you just did with the Labeates? No problem with me. Why don't you just expand the existing List article into such an article? You could add a brief paragraph to each line in the list, giving a bit of information about where they lived, how their name is attested, what ancient writers mention them, etc. It could all be done on that page, couldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right and it will be more practical.I ll start looking into it.Megistias (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have placed all the material of the tribes in a text file with internal charakters [ and all of that stuff.The small articles will have to redirect to the list and according section? The names of the tribes on the list will have to become section names right?Megistias (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good, you could do it that way. If your main article has a section, say, ==Labeates==, then you can edit Labeates and say #REDIRECT [[List of Illyrian tribes#Labeates]] {{R with possibilities}}, and the reader will be sent directly to that section. (The {{R with possibilities}} is not obligatory, it's just an editorial hint that somebody might later re-expand it into an article, in the unlikely event that a lot more information is found.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I ll keep delmatae and autariatae out since they are normal size and require major cleanup any ways and one is in a sort of edit war.I ll put the other tribes now in the main article.I am slightly confused from the obvious technicalities.....Megistias (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel completely lost and confused.How do i make the internal links for the tribes as they are now?Megistias (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly the problem is now. If you want redirects that lead the reader directly to a specific section of the list, rather than to the top of the list article, you just need to format the list in such a way that each target has its own section title, like "==Labeates==? Then you go to each of the subarticle/stub locations, like Labeates. If it currently is a redirect, you'll be sent back to the list; in that case, simply click the link at the "Redirected from ..." line at the very top of the page, below the page heading. Then you'll find yourself back at the Labeates page and can edit it. Then just click edit and paste in the line just like I quoted it for you above:

#REDIRECT [[List of Illyrian tribes#Labeates]] {{R with possibilities}}

And you're done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to remove the tribes with [[]] but that would be reverting.And then put the == things in the tribes to make the subsections.Inside the list of illyrian tribes pageMegistias (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Making constructive technical edits while developing a page is not revert warring. No administrator in their right mind would interpret it like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the list check it out.Also please tell this fellow to behave [21]Megistias (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Just noticed that I accidentally removed one of your edits when I wrote mine. Sorry for that, I didn't see that there was a newer version of the page. JdeJ (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A potential problem editor?

Procrustes the clown (talk · contribs) has popped up on a number of articles adding reams of dubiously or unsourced content, with some obvious OR and POV animus against the ICTY. I'm monitoring his edits (and rewriting Joint Criminal Enterprise, which is a horrible mess) - if you could keep an eye open as well, that would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do to request the suspension of a user like you?

I would like to know which is the correct and formal way to request that a user like you in your condition be indefinitely banned and suspended. Thank you. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You could try at WP:RFC/U, but they'll tell you you must first try to solve your problems with me some other way. So what's your issue, let's hear? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can log your request here. BalkanFever 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So what condition is Future Perfect in? Pristine, slightly foxed or rough around the edges? Enquiring minds wish to know... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I said like you, not you, please retract everyone. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if you mean him, not me, you could lodge an appeal with the Greek Wikipedian Chauvinist Junta, who will probably look on it favourably. I'm their co-founder, actually, so you may register your complaint here with me. Apart from that, though, you will be topic-banned from all Macedonia-related pages under the rules of WP:ARBMAC next time you personally attack another user or misuse talk pages for ethnic soapboxing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ants/Antes

I think the blank article was already named ANts(people). Yes, it should be antes, but i was not sure how to changes the article title. Hxseek (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you're in the mood for page moves.....

Can you help with Ethnic Macedonian music to Music of the Republic of Macedonia? BalkanFever 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not Caturday today, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, don't worry, I'll save you something for then ;-). BalkanFever 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want it moved? The article is not only about music in the Republic, but also elsewhere, isn't it? I mean, I don't care personally, but is there consensus? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I've cleanup out the page history of the target location, so it's now a clean overwriteable redirect. It's yours now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion was on the WP:MKD talkpage, so if anyone wanted to give 2 denar they could have, but it ended up being between me and Kobra85. He gave a good example of the Music of Serbia intro. It's ethnic Macedonians (country and diaspora) and minorities in the country.

Moving on :-), it seems to me that Talk:Republic of Macedonia consists only of nationalist trolling, troll-feeding (mostly me) and Samuell's attempts at explaining why the title is as it is. Should it be cleansed? BalkanFever 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavic toponymes again(!!)

Dear Future, your help is highly requested and appreciated. I am in the edge of an edit war and I do not wish sow. User Carlossouarez is using Simovski book in order to create articles about every settlement in Greece. Please refer to talk page as it seems that this is becoming unintentionally a POV. He is probably thinking that he is fighting nationalists but he has reached the other edge putting supposed “Slavic” names in every settlement that appears in Simovski list. Lithoksou list completely contradicts Simovski book and I have tried in many occasion to point the differences and the highly controversiality of the source. Carlosouarez has suggested in a messege to me that “And as for your edit summaries that because a place didn't have a Slavic population that no toponym could exist - I suggest that you look at the article exonym as in why do Greeks call Florence Φλωρεντία (Florentia, a Greek toponym, when no Greeks lived there) and Kharkiv Χάρκοβο, and Lausanne Λωζάννη, and Chicago Σικάγο etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seleukosa In his above statement he suggests that he uses “exonyms”. Why the article is still named as “Slavic toponymes”? In a another messege Carlossouarez suggested : “Or are you ignoring the fact that this area was inhabited and named by people other than Greeks prior to the population exchange? Carlossuarez46” This statement is exactly the Slav-Nationalist POV. Please refer to talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places#this_article_is_becoming_POV and check the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Slavic_exonyms_for_Greek_places thank you Seleukosa (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See here simovskiMegistias (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got much time to look into the details of the case right now, but from your statement above I get the feeling that you are not really approaching it very reasonably, whatever the problem with the other guy's approach may be. You are evidently still hung up about your misunderstanding of the very term, "Slavic toponym", thinking it must imply "toponym of Slavic etymology". It doesn't. No, really, it does not. Just imagine, it doesn't. It means something else.

As for the statement you quote, "this area was inhabited and named by people other than Greeks prior to the population exchange", well, beyond all nationalist feuds, as far as I can see, this much is obviously the pure and simple factual truth. I cannot imagine how this statement could in any way be contentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Future please check the talk page of the article and all the links provided. None has dispute the presence of Slavic/Bulgarian population in Macedonia. But using as a source a highly controversial one (Simovski) the supposed "Slavic toponymes" have appeared in every settlement in Macedonia. (Even in known Macedonian Greek villages and even in the new villages founded by refuges of Asia Minor). Especially when a second source (Lithoksou list) totally contradicts the first source (Simovski). Since we have total confusion about the sources, and not any reliable source that can give us some help then we should use only the known ones as they were used before. Carlos has reacted in an extreme way and has created more and more articles based on the Simovski book and has added the supposed "Slavic toponyme" in every settlement in Macedonia(not to mention that he had used in many bold letters and multiply versions of the supposed Slavic. WP:PLACES says "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.". WP:NCGN 2b: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Have the above been used? And with which source to back it up? 2 condraticting ones? I hope you see the problem. This is not about historical truth but abuse of a highly controversial source. None of the editors who have disagreed with this matter are pushing nationalist POV. I personally want to see reliable sources. (Should I start to use Liakopoulos book? or Georgiadis book? or even Pleuris???) The list we can say is that since the first article (and the source) was under dispute (and we have all suggested a different structure of the article and a different title) Carlos should have never created more and more articles out of it and should have never added controversial information in every settlement. Seleukosa (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the article talk page.Simvsiki's claims are absurd.Megistias (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid

I am afraid this is from here directly.map off wikimap in wiki and not made from the book.Megistias (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the above the map is not made but copied??!Megistias (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to work out whether they took it from us, or we from them. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd assume the website borrowed it from us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC

one month ago about the Pindus Principality's name [22] Balkanfreezer (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giorgos

Thanks, for the advice. I am afraid that it is just too early for me to begin any serious editing whatsoever, so I' ll take it one step at a time. I don't even know whether I should be posting this in your talk page in the first place. The other day, I was trying (in vain) to insert a missing citation to the Cyril and Methodius article and Kaboom!... I ended up deleting a whole sentence. I couldn't get it back and fricked out fearing that all hell would soon break loose... I've been browsing through talk pages since and I 'm just beginning to understand the kind of havoc a deleted sentence can wreak. So I' ll stick to looking around for a start... P.S. Thanks again

...oops! There you go... Did it again... I forgot to sign :? The above comment was mine--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No but someone else did the job for me after a few hours to my great relief. I was trying to figure out how and where to post a message asking for somebody to fix it, but luckily they got there first. --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks disruptive edit

Just like to draw your attention to this disruptive edit by User:BongGon :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liancourt_Rocks&diff=195041664&oldid=193908228

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.101.78 (talk) 2008-03-07T13:16:59 (UTC)

I don't see any disruptive edit by User:BongGon who is an trustful administrator in Korean Wikipedia and regards rules and policies in English Wikipedia as well. The source is a Korean source in English run by The Korean overseas Culture and Information Service (KOIS) and has no mention of Japanese names except the courtesy of Takeshima, Japanese proclaimed name for Dokdo. The Japanese anon with (spacelan.ne.jp) knows that I'm currently active in Korean Wikipedia and notified about this ongoing meatpuppetry of Japanese 2channel because the matter is also related to Korean Wiki. And the andmin, BongGon takes an interest in the matter, so the Japanese anon is talebearing to you. I think you should really take an action to this highly disruptive activities of them.

• 221.133.86.163 (talk · contribs)
• 221.133.86.254 (talk · contribs)

In addition, I also paste this user's contributions with the rare ISP at Liancourt Rocks for your information. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S And this anon is likely this person[23] because right after leaving the note, the user reverted the article. --Appletrees (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a sock-puppet of anyone. I'm not even Japanese though I live there. I never use 2channel. I'm just an occasional visitor to this site, but I believe BongGon's edit was disruptive. Here are the clear rules on Liancourt Rocks:

"Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden,..."

Since BongGon moved a Korean name before a Japanese name I would call that 'Naming Lameness' which as the rules of engagement says: "Any user who disrupts this article is liable to an immediate article ban by any Administrator without warning. To avoid running into trouble you are requested to observe the following rules of engagement at all times" 221.133.101.78 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. if you're not a sock or foreigner to Japanese as you allege, you don't need to hide yourself with the RARE ISP. (you must be at home at this time) Your contributions are VERY interesting like Japanese toilet and Glay (band) aside from Liancourt Rocks. I don't think your taletelling is surely from good faith because the change has been over one week.--Appletrees (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia users are not required to join. Don't make assumptions about what times people work, and whether or not they may be on shared computers. Rather than worrying about IPs, 2channel, making childish sarcastic remarks about whether edits are interesting or not, perhaps you could look at the point in hand. I didn't break a rule. I pointed out an edit which did break a rule. Stick to the facts that you know. No wonder the Liancourt Rocks article has such trouble. A rule break is pointed out, and suddenly it's 2channel this, 2channel that etc etc. I've never even visited 2channel, but you do seem obsessed with it. How childish. Since BongGon has refused to revert despite now knowing the rule, it seems that my original decision to point out the disruptive edit has been vindicated 221.133.101.78 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're speaking contradictions. Wikipedia surely suggests and encourages anyone to register, so they can participate more freely with several privileges and take following responsibilities for that. That's why a Wikipedian created this template, {{subst:welcome-anon}}. No matter how many times you deny the simple fact, you already has joined in Wikipedia as editing around here. You have been also deeply involved in editing highly controversial articles like Liancourt Rocks, Pinnacle Island and so forth. Your knowledges of those articles proved that you're not mere a visiting occasional editors which is also contradicotry. How childish? You're making personal attack on me which can be a ground for requesting for checkuser, so I let you know of this if any chance you don't realized. --Appletrees (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You got to be kidding, the editor changes the order from Japanese first to Korean? Wikipedia is not a political battle ground! What is the diference what country has the claims to the two rocks in which order on Wikipedia article. Will that change the global international perception of the issue at hand? We all need to step back and try to find a middle ground of comprimise! Igor Berger (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. The matter is deeply related to 2channel. Besides, the source is no mention about Japanese name for the specific geographic names in the rocks. The ip anon and the editor show the similar edit behaviors which matter a lot. --Appletrees (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No you've missed the point. Here are the Liancourt Rocks' edit rules ""Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), ... are strictly forbidden,..."" BongGon broke this rule, by doing a 'Naming Lameness' edit. End of story. 221.133.101.78 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I currently can see from you is just an ill-faith taletelling which is undoubtedly a fact. We dont' know who really you're as you said. Why are you so eager to block BongGon after one week in which the two admin didn't even care if you're not a Japanese or pro-Japanese? You seem to try to turn admin's attention from Japanese 2channel.--Appletrees (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he should be blocked. I just pointed out there was a disruptive edit. Rules are rules and pointing something out to admin is not 'ill-faith'. What does 2channel have to do with anything here? You seem to be obsessed with the site. There's one fact here: someone broke a rule. It's been pointed out to them. They have not reverted it. I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word fact. 221.133.101.78 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're claiming that BongGone has a supposedly making disruptive edit which suits an immediate block but I don't think so. Am I obsessed with 2channel? That is not even a new theory of the people. They have done "anything" here as I pointed out already several times with patience, so please carefully read what others previously talked. You can do it yourself joining legitimately in Wikipedia that is a spirit of Wikipedia, so practice it by yourself. But you just strongly repeating that BongGone broke the rule and you're simply speaking it. If the change is so significant like the suggested new rule, the two admins took action already. It is not changed that your taletelling is not a good faith. --Appletrees (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Appletrees, My English ability is so poor that I can't reply this talk page... BongGon (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy hunting! Igor Berger (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? and Happy hunting? What does it mean? Do you cut off me? BongGon (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BongGon, relax. He is an ordinary editor who can speak of what he wants to speak in suggested guidlines just like anyone here. That is a spirit of Wikipedia. --Appletrees (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the anon who posted here. I read his/her comment here and then reverted the edit. By the way, BongGon reverted to his version. I hope he now understand the new rules of conduct and self-revert, start the discussion for the change. --Kusunose 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you can say that you're not the anon. Nanshu strongly denied that he is not related to 2channel which proved false. It is no doubt that the anon is a frequent contributor to Liancourt rocks per his records and one of the typical 2channel people.--Appletrees (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• One week ago, User:BongGone changed the name orders of the specific geographical parts consisted of Liancourt Rocks. I assume it is because the sources are all from Korean websites and has no mention about the Japanese name like Nishi-jima, and Higashi-jima. The reading without sources are weak to place its order that I guess.[24] After it has been changed, none edited or pointed out and you and the other admin let the change. [25][26] Todya, a mysterious Japanese anon came to talked to you. And Kusunose reverted the page just like the anon's claim. [27][28]

Well, BongGone and Kusunose has not discussed the silly matter because the names are not even major issues of the article. If BongGone is to be blocked, so should Kusunose do.--Appletrees (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries..., are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once.

Kusunose did not break any rule (Such edits may be reverted, once). BongGong did. You can assume all you want about the reasons, but then he MUST discuss them on the talk page which he didn't. What is it about the words strictly forbidden that you don't understand? 221.133.101.78 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so defensive for Kusunose if you're so strict to the rule? You're proved contradictory and making another mockery on me as you rebuking my understanding of the rule. So did Kusunose discuss the matter at the talk in advance? He just simply reverted the article without any discussion because he may be you, or felt encouraged by your taletelling. His edit summaries do not constitute near "discussion", so he should've come to the talk page if he really wants to discuss it. The newly suggested rule says that let things discussed for at least 8 hours, so did he bring in the matter? Nope. In addition, if sources are not missing oneside's claim, that can be changed because technically, the Japanese reading is not proved by the citation. Besides, the naming is not a significant like Dokdo/Takeshima, J-K or K-J order, or Sea of Japan (East Sea). Your self-definition on disruption is not so conspicuous. Accept that you're already violating WP:AGF with the repeated urging and implying that BongGone is a disruptive editor. --Appletrees (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the rule says Such edits may be reverted, once so Kusunose didn't breaks the rule. However, it doesn't seem such a big deal. Why don't we let it lie.Macgruder (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Suggested Rules of Engagement" at Liancourt Rocks

Future Perfect, I just wanted to point out that this version was suggested to you by Spartaz on January 29, 2008. Since you didn't object, many of us assumed it is the currently effective version.--Endroit (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, works for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And it's the 'Naming Lameness' rule that BongGon broke. 221.133.101.78 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm so so curious as to who this anon might be. Macgruder (talk · contribs) and several people with fair English edited the same articles. This behavior is just like the above sock, Engage31 (talk · contribs) from 2channel several days ago. The anon also used to use "de facto" like Engage31--Appletrees (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I did't break the rule. And I have a question for you "who are you?". BongGon (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why 221.133.101.78 would like to block me. I don't know the rule exists, and its problem is not important. There is no reason that I'll be blocked by admin because I am not vandalist, so Korean wikipedia users elected me. If I'm blocked, English admins will regard All Korean Wikipedia users as a vandalist. BongGon (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I tell 221.133.101.78, If you want to bully me, You will come to my talk page OK? BongGon (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bullying you. I didn't suggest you get blocked. I simply pointed out that you broke the rules (other users have been blocked for similar infringements). The problem is important because that article suffers from Naming Lameness, and the rules are strictly enforced on it. Since you weren't aware of the rule, that's OK, but now you do know: so once you revert of your own accord then I can believe that the mistake was unintentional. 221.133.101.78 (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're surely bullying him because you repeatedly imply as such and also violate WP:AGF. Your excessive and obsessive taltellings are productive for the article and people who do not know of the new suggested rule? I guess not. You don't want to give an opportunity to Koreans because you don't want to. Your generosity is only toward Kusunose who has not participated in discussion for the change. That is called contradiction. --Appletrees (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion I think that we should simply let it lie as it's not such a big deal :-) Macgruder (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As I expect, you are Japanese. Hahaha. So you want to bully Korean who has the opponent opinion. I saw the TV program of Seoul Broadcasting System last night which exposed Japanese who are conservatives. They uses Korea-Japan conflict to agitate their people. Anyway, I think you are a part of them. If you aren't them, you wouldn't bully me who is a Korean wikipedia admin.(Once I said, wikipedia admin had a lot of a good repute on their wikipedia.) If you really don't want me to be blocked, why do you accuse me of this unimportant problem? You must do this on purpose. BongGon (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Japanese. Read the rules: "Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries..., are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance." + " If another editor disagrees with your edit, the edit may be reverted... and may not be reinserted unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit." Since you think the problem is unimportant please revert the order back to how it was before your edit. That's the last, I'll say on the matter. 221.133.101.78 (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are not a crazy man, why do you persist that? What your purpose is? Just warning? If you want to warn, you will just tell me in a my talk page. That you visited this admin's page means you want to make me blocked by English admin. OK? And I don't understand why you emphasis strict, forbid. And you just advocated the japanese person. I think he violated also this rule. OK? I understand what you pointed me, So don't persist it more for me. if you persist this problem continuely, I will regard you as a obstructor and accuse you of your strange habit. BongGon (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not understanding the rules. The Japanese user did NOT violate the rules. Read the rule: "1RR: Such edits may be reverted, once." The Japanese user reverted the edit once as he is allowed to do. Then you reverted again which is NOT allowed. Furthermore, the Japanese user then refrained from reverting back and kindly asked you to do it yourself. I emphasized strict and forbid to point out to you that the edit you made is strictly forbidden whether or not you think is minor. Don't make assumptions. I wasn't trying to get you blocked. It was simply easiest to point out the issue here and let the admin decide. Generally, users who simply switch the order of country stuff in the Liancourt Rocks article are obstructive editors because everyone who has read that article is very aware that the experienced editors of the article are very sensitive to such changes, because they seem to cause arguments. Since as you mentioned before your English is not very good, I'm assuming good faith that you didn't really understand these rules. I'm not interested in having users banned unless they really deserve it which you don't. Please also stop making assumptions about nationalities of people. I'm not persisting as you say: but when you make comments assuming I'm Japanese, and something to do with 2channel etc I will respond. The Liancourt Rocks issue is bad enough without users saying things like As I expect, you are Japanese. Hahaha. 221.133.101.78 (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the rule? Why do you assume that? I understand whay the rule said. And, I already asked you why you tell the admin. If you really don't want me to be blocked, You will tell my talk page! Your saying 'admin dicision' means I can blocked. It is a same meaning. Don't change the same sentense as the diffrent sound. BongGon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosniak (talk · contribs) editing around his topic ban

This edit was made by Bosniak today even though you advised him on March 3rd that he was topic banned for 6 months on anything related to Kosovo including the talk pages. If you will notice in the diff above, Bosniak changed the signature of the last edit from 24.82.181.243 (talk · contribs) to his own. That is his IP when he's not logged in and he has made that chage before as can be seen here. If we accept that the IP address and Bosniak are the same editor, then this is another edit he made after being topic banned, but I'm not sure if it falls into the category of "articles related to Kosovo".
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bleh

Sounds familiar? NikoSilver 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dodona

Seeing as he's now socking, I'm planning to extend his block right around now unless you object. Best, Moreschi (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. It's sad really. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Henriette Mertz

Hello Future Perfect. Listen, I need a second opinion on the Henriette Mertz article. I did the best I could in terms of expanding it. However, I am not sure if the article is "good enough". Meh, I trust you. Have fun butchering it if it looks funny. Deucalionite (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what day it is :D

Resen, Republic of Macedonia to Resen (city). BTW we r speek standardaizd lngwij nau [29]. BalkanFever 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx. BalkanFever 07:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Tidying up Macedonia

Well, someone needs to... I've had a go at clearing out the rubbish on Talk:Macedonia, reducing the infoboxes etc. In the light of the endless complaints we get about the naming of the article, I've adopted the solution used at Talk:Muhammad to split out naming complaints into a subpage, Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name. You might want to bookmark that new page. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Just a question about the policy: If I were to translate this [30] (by editing the text) and upload it would it be considered copyvio? Or would I have to redraw it all by myself? BalkanFever 07:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see two possibilities: Either you upload the original map and declare it Fair use (would be possible IMO if you need it for the purpose of discussing the map itself as an object - not just a vehicle - of encyclopedic coverage), or you redraw it and link to the original map as a source of the data (but not technically of the graphics.) Since we have template blank maps of the area, redrawing shouldn't be too difficult.

Do you know the creator and copyright owner of the original? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK it is from this blog [31] - I know, not the most reliable, but I'm pretty sure the United Macedonia image came from a blog as well. I've been trying to use that image as a blank, and just put English text over the Albanian, but I am having a really hard time using my new friend Inkscape. I think I'll redraw it using multiple sources like the maps on the article already and some others like this [32]. What template blank should I use? BalkanFever 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And check out this great site [33]. BalkanFever 08:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please

Change the title of the article Iraklis F.C. to the more accurate Iraklis Thessaloniki F.C.? Thanks in advance Eagle of Pontus

All you have to do is click the "move" tab at the top of the page (next to "history") and then fix the redirects. BalkanFever 10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip i didn't know.I tried to do it but still it tells me that an admin must change it. Eagle of Pontus

hello, notification message

hello Fut.perf.Sunrise

i was just notifying to you i added some material in the last talk page of pelasgians, when you have time take a look, thankyou Respectfully PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Question

I have a question for you. How will a status of a Wikipedia user change if they were caught spreading hatred towards certain ethnic groups on other websites? Does Wikipedia have a policy against users like these? Polibiush (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult. I guess it depends how closely their off-wiki activity is linked to their Wikipedia editing. Links, names? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that these kinds of nationalist extremists should be given a chance to edit Wikipedia articles: [34][35], do you? Polibiush (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats what history says and what the articles in wiki say as well.No extremism ,other then your imagined one.Thats out of wikiMegistias (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You see what I mean... Polibiush (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So what's Wikipedia's policy? Polibiush (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps ask what the policy is when you remove referenced material [36]Megistias (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I told you already that its repeated in the article, perhaps you do need to learn how to read like F.P. said. Polibiush (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually anyone disagreeing with those images is the extremist.Thats reality.Megistias (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that you are spreading propaganda on other websites, and I caught you. Polibiush (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally, off-wiki web activities are considered irrelevant for us, as long as they are not calculated at directly disrupting Wikipediea (things like making extensive insulting comments about individual fellow editors, agitating for meetpuppet campaigns, co-ordinating edit wars or the like). If Megistias wants to peddle propaganda on Flickr, that's up to the Flickr administration to deal with. (Are people supposed to host non-photographic material on Flickr? M.'s page certainly seems to contain stuff that isn't his own copyright.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its flickr"ie" not wik"ie"!Megistias (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh thats right, its only flickr, in that case, continue acting like a jerk and keep on spreading hatred and propaganda on the world wide web, sorry if I disrupted you from your work. Polibiush (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What hatred and propaganda are you serious? Thats the historical facts that linguists and even wiki refers to....The wiki articels say that paeonia/dardania was the soil of (rom) and the articles on language that its a slavic language intelligigle to bulgarian.I dont get you.Hatred and propaganda is the goverment policy of (rom) and referendums from the american congress have called for them to stop.[37]SENATE RESOLUTION 300--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (FYROM) SHOULD STOP THE UTILIZATION OF MATERIALS THAT VIOLATE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS-BROKERED INTERIM AGREEMENT BETWEEN FYROM AND GREECE REGARDING ``HOSTILE ACTIVITIES OR PROPAGANDA AND SHOULD WORK WITH THE UNITED NATIONS AND GREECE TO ACHIEVE LONGSTANDING UNITED STATES AND UNITED NATIONS POLICY GOALS OF FINDING A MUTUALLY-ACCEPTABLE OFFICIAL NAME FOR FYROM -- (Senate - August 03, 2007)Megistias (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Darn these Skopjeans, I bet they are doing this only to get you mad Megistias... ;-) Polibiush (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC) :-)

That's far too easy a task. Poor sportsmanship on the part of those Skopians. By the way, everybody, please stop fighting on my talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Solution in progress!!

I think you should not be so rude this is not the way with me you know, let us find a solution it was going fine before ,when you agreed to block me I really did an effort ,it was going fine I admit.Dodona — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.70.197 (talk)

Well that's a longer block for him. BalkanFever 10:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians

Pelasgicmoon has added the second paragraph and..see the latest "talk" on what transpires. talk section

• Pelasgian as Hellenic

According to Thomas Harrison (University College), Herodotus was ambiguous in differentiating between linguistically similar dialects and languages distinct from Greek.[53] As a result of this ambiguity, the language of the Pelasgians was "barbaric" in the sense that it was akin to Greek rather than being entirely non-Greek. Support for this lies within Harrison's citation of Herodotus (2.52.1) whereby the Pelasgians called their gods theoi prior to adopting specific names.[54] Direct connections between the Pelasgians and the Greeks are further reinforced in accordance to both ancient Greco-Roman literary evidence and modern archaeological evidence.

talking to pelasgic moon This below is what you added.And its irrelevant.Thomas harisson speaks of linguistics and the ambiguity of the barbarian tongue term.And ancient Greeks did not use Thomas harrison theory cause they existed 3000 years before him.Herodotus quoted isnt even about what you write below and the scholars below spoke of myths and you twisted their words as well.

According to modern scholars [55] [56] [57], the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of mythMegistias (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Thomas Harrison talks of the language and he wasnt misquoted.Just because the tail hurts dont cut the head off.Megistias (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Using the Harrison paper to bolster up a claim that Pelasgians were Greek-speaking is just ridiculous. You are ripping things out of context mindlessly, again. Totally irresponsible. Apart from Harrison, there was nothing cited in that section. There are authors who talk about how Herodot claimed some Greeks were "descended" from Pelasgians, in some vague sense (and that's what Harrison tries to analyse). I cannot see anybody anywhere claiming that Pelasgians were themselves Greek-speaking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats what he says and i have read it all."This etymology, advanced apparently in all seriousness,[107] seems to suggest that the Pelasgians spoke a language at least 'akin to' Greek.[108]".[38] YOu just removed it because pelasgicmoon made a fuss and you dont want to scold him.Megistias (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You really need to learn to read for context. I learn from this that we should never ever accept a quoted source from you without double- and triple-checking it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats what he says.What are you reading?What is he saying? The text is from there.And i wasnt the one who put it in in the first placeMegistias (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Deukaliniote who added it and he can read better then me you.[39].It stands.keep your personal feelings towards me out of this.Megistias (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I had spontaneously assumed it had been from you since you were immediately defending it. Anyway, it's still misquoted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is an hypothetical assumption.How is it misquoted?(really now i dont get what you mean) All the material in pelasgians is hypothesis since they were a mythical people most likely not existing and we just put the label on certain prehistoric groups.-I dont like you.Megistias (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And you do have issues with me on a personal level.I make mistakes like everyone here including you.Most of my references are perfect and my mistakes stem from too many of them piling up when i write them.Start checking everything like others did,i dont insert material that i know is bad cause they would simply be removed and there would be not point.Megistias (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly it doesnt seem misquoted.Harrisson bring the notion to me that perhaps archaic greek speakers were labelled as pelasgians and the "pelasgians" of ancient greek "folkore" were not the autocthonous ones but just hillbillies(aside from athenians using the myth to counterbalance the dorians myth of origin) and only a small part of them was an actual prehistoric substratum perhaps in the Aegean.The pelasgian tribe in thessaly we know of could simply be an crude speaker of greek.

• How do you think he is being misquoted? Its just on language.Megistias (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, but even if Harrison is misquoted, don't you think it's a bit excessive to remove the entire section on Pelasgians as Hellenes. Especially so when other "theories" with far less merit are allowed to stand. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that i react and a number of admins and users dont like me and my actions and reactions are labelled as bad even when it turns our that they are not mine.People are biased against me and future is one of them .The only reason is that i react fervently in issues and i am not "χλιαρος".Megistias (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to re-introduce such a section once we have a source that actually proposes such a thing. Harrison does not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to explain how he doesnt cause i dont get your aphorism.He speaks of the language.Damage control isnt about blowing up a forest you can just call the fire department.Megistias (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh. Harrison describes one statement by Herodot saying that it seems to imply that Herodot was thinking of P. as similar to Greek. He does so in a context that's all about discussing how Herodot's treatment is confused and self-contradictory. Nowhere does he state that H. really thought Pelasgian was Greek, let alone that he himself, Harrison, believes Pelasgian was Greek. In fact, he very explicitly and repeatedly states a few sentences further up that he assumes it was not [40]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Future this is what harrison thinks.I think you are missing something.This is his opinion.

• In other instances, however, Herodotus concedes a greater degree of non-Greek influence on Greek. Herodotus' account, for example, of the adoption by the Pelasgians of the names of the gods (2.52.1) suggests a much closer relationship between the Pelasgian and Greek languages. Before they heard the names of the gods, the Pelasgians (assuming, interestingly, the existence of a number of gods[106]) called them simply theoi, on the grounds that they had 'established (thentes) all affairs in their order'. This etymology, advanced apparently in all seriousness,[107] seems to suggest that the Pelasgians spoke a language at least 'akin to' Greek.[108]Megistias (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can quote that passage a million times more, it won't teach you anything as long as you refuse to take in its context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can speak abstractly a million times more,it wont teach me anything as long as you refuse to explain your view of the context.In that position he states that it maybe akin to Greek.I am not a telepath and if i knew your interpretation for this we wouldn't be discussing it in the first place.Megistias (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no time to teach you to read, sorry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You just removed it on a whim to quell the issue as not to harm pelasgic moon.His theory stands.I am sorry too.Megistias (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

if there will be demostrated a theory that talk about "pelasgians as hellens", of course it can be related the modern scholarship point of view about this connection. PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It was about the language.Do read what it says for once.Megistias (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request: Turks in Bulgaria

My request for formal mediation was not accepted by the two users who contantly disputed my contributions. Please, advise as to where to go from here. Should I request arbitration or assume that these users are no longer holding their positions thereby continue with the article? Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Turks in Bulgaria--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is sad. I would have thought that this dispute was a prime example of one where mediation would actually have been suitable, and I would have warmly recommended the other guys accept it. There isn't really a "next step" of dispute resolution now, except if it should boil over to the point of requiring Arbcom. For now, I guess the only thing you can do is go on editing, carefully explaining whatever you're doing, and concentrating firmly on doing your absolute best in terms of NPOV. You've demonstrated a good faith willingness to engage in dispute resolution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm doesn't it fall under the Macedonia case? Or does it require a separate decision (I'm not really well into the matter). I'd accept it if this is the case, but only if Nostradamus has you and User:Lantonov as parties (who he had omitted for some reason in his request). --Laveol ^T 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it falls under the Macedonia case, as soon as any of you guys does something clearly disruptive. Up to now, I'm still hoping that this can be solved on the content level first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies (Pelasgians)

Hello again Future Perfect. I apologize if there was any dissonance caused by my creating the "Pelasgians as Hellenes" section a while back. Just so you know, I had no intention of misreading, misquoting, or even misinterpreting Harrison's work. Yes, it is true that Harrison does not directly state that the Pelasgian language was Greek. However, he does state that the language was "akin to Greek". Granted, you are correct in stating that Harrison's work is contextually based on the fact that Herodotus was not a linguist (or "philologist" as Harrison would put it). Yet, this fact is what allows Harrison to make the argument that the Pelasgian and Greek languages contain links that are even substantiated by Herodotus himself.

I am glad you removed the section in order to prevent another revert war on the Pelasgians article. I cannot thank you enough. However, please consult me prior to removing anything I created (or inserted) so that we can find logical solutions. On a sidenote, I am not a professional linguist and have no inherent drive towards "proving" that the Pelasgians spoke Greek (at least not anymore since I am busy working on other articles).

Have a chat with me. I doubt you would think that because you are an administrator that you cannot have a nice discussion with me. Deucalionite (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats what i said that its about language."Yet, this fact is what allows Harrison to make the argument that the Pelasgian and Greek languages contain links that are even substantiated by Herodotus himself." & the "akin to Greek"Megistias (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As I said, I wasn't even aware of who wrote that section when I removed it. I still think you are both misreading the Harrison paper. Harrison isn't endorsing Herodot's (apparent) implication that the two languages were related. He isn't even presenting it as a serious hypothesis to be considered. He isn't even stating that Herodot seriously believed in such a thing himself. He is quoting this claim as something that, if Herodot actually believed it, would have constituted a self-obvious error on his part. These are not hypothetical links brought forward by Harrison and which the quote from Herodot would serve to "substantiate". Also, the point about their doubtfulness is not that Herodot "wasn't a linguist". Harrison is talking about these (apparent!) beliefs of Herodot with the historical curiosity of somebody talking about how some other ancient author might have thought the earth was flat. For Harrison, the hypothetical link between Greek and Pelasgian is on exactly the same level as that between Greek and Egyptian which he goes on to discuss in the next paragraph. The whole thrust of his paper is to try to explain how Herodot could have ended up apparently claiming something so self-evidently false. Harrison leaves absolutely no doubt that he himself firmly assumes Pelasgian was a language foreign to Greek; he mentions it as such several times throughout the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. I think it would be best if you cited Harrison's arguments so that both Megistias and I understand where you are coming from. As for me, I still believe that Harrison is questioning Herodotus's linguistic notion of Pelasgian being "foreign" to Greek since Herodotus was unable to distinguish between dialects and distinct languages. Of course, if you insist that I am misreading Harrison's work, then so be it. I honestly have no intention of starting a revert war over useless dime-a-dozen linguistic theories. I much prefer to put my faith in archaeological evidence in order to determine the identity of the Pelasgians. Deucalionite (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want quotes, you could of course start with the very title of the chapter this whole story is described in. It's called "The imagined relationship between Greek and foreign languages". Underline imagined, and foreign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that this part is merely harrison referring to Herodotus positions on the Issue and not that he condones the bolded part even as a remote possibility?

• This is a notoriously muddled and difficult passage of the Histories,[102] crammed with revealing assumptions. (In what sense, for example, do barbarian races 'never grow greatly'? Not, we might suppose, in terms of numbers: barbarians are, in general, archetypally numerous.[103]) On the question of language, however, the passage begs a number of questions. First, Herodotus manages to maintain an ideal of Greek linguistic purity, but only because of the convenient theory that while they spoke another language they were not in fact Greek. How did the Athenians become Greek? What does it mean to change to become Greek? Herodotus makes it sound almost as though learning a language was a condition of joining the club.[104] Finally, how did the Greek language come about? No answer is given. Greek was always Greek and the Greeks always spoke Greek:[105] these are Herodotus' priorities.
• In other instances, however, Herodotus concedes a greater degree of non-Greek influence on Greek. Herodotus' account, for example, of the adoption by the Pelasgians of the names of the gods (2.52.1) suggests a much closer relationship between the Pelasgian and Greek languages. Before they heard the names of the gods, the Pelasgians (assuming, interestingly, the existence of a number of gods[106]) called them simply theoi, on the grounds that they had 'established (thentes) all affairs in their order'. This etymology, advanced apparently in all seriousness,[107] seems to suggest that the Pelasgians spoke a language at least 'akin to' Greek.[108]
• This [108] is referenced as to give another examnple on the language not being different.
• [108] Rawlinson II.96. Cf. Aeschylus Suppliants where no reference is made to the barbaric nature of the Pelasgians' speech, unlike that of the Chorus, 972-4: see further E. Hall, op. cit. (n.1) 171-2Megistias (talk)

Whether Harrison "leaves open" the possibility is immaterial. Of course, that Pelasgian might have been a language somehow "akin" to Greek (namely, Indo-European, just like most other neighbouring languages were) is a serious possibility, that's what the rest of our article is about. But he certainly isn't asserting it; he is, strictly speaking, not even interested in that issue. Just as he isn't interested in whether Herodot's supposed etymological motivation of theoi from tithemi was objectively correct. (Incidentally, it may have been, but that would still have been only a blind guess on the part of Herodot.) Also, please note that we are talking about something rather off-topic here anyway: if Pelasgian was akin to Greek, that would make the claim a subject of our section dealing with IE languages; it is a far cry from making it an issue of the section dealing with Pelasgian as being Greek proper. If you can dig out the Hall paper for us, you'll be welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So in Colin Renfrew renfre chart "pelasgian" is Mycynean Greek or ProtoIndoeuropean?Megistias (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think I have powers of clairvoyance to know what Renfrew thought about Pelasgian? What makes you think he had any opinion about Pelasgian at all? What makes you think Renfrew's (rather idiosyncratic) IE tree is particularly relevant? What makes you think any IE tree is relevant to our discussion of the Harrison paper? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing since the talk was over from the start.You assumed i was a telepath long enough so i am paying you back the favour.Bye.Megistias (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinions?

I never mentioned my opinion in the Macedonian articles. I just added some knowledge, which seems to be deliberately hidden. It's nice that you "read" my "opinions", but noone, not even you debunked them or anything.. Opinions are for art class and food. Not for facts and scientific approach of History or Linguistics, Genetics, Anthropology etc. For those we use arguments, reasoning courses, evidence and scientific analysis. In order to get closer to the truth. Do you think that the sentence "you said that a million times" is more useful than what i said? good for you. Keep it up and wikipedia will end up to be laughed at for the conspiracy theory, truth-hiding, mythology nationalism-driven propaganda editing, history-distortion dominance. DefendEurope (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Obsession?

Check that one please. I think he needs a stern warning. NikoSilver 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not only that. [41]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking time in looking the RFCU case and ANI report. Now, I intend to leave a brief note or traffic sign to articles that 2channel people have designated on their watch list like this I hope you would not think of my adding as spams or something similar. I just want to inform the situation to people who don't know what is going on. Regards. --Appletrees (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pelasgians as Hellenes" removal

Shouldn’t we discuss the removal of the whole section before removing it, Fut. Perf.? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Panathinaikos FC

Well can you please make it clear to the user Karagounis that wiki is about facts and not personal preferences.He keeps reverting the article in order not to include Nikopolidis and Konstantinou in the notable past players only because of his sentiment towards them when they moved to Olympiakos team a couple of years ago.

They keep adding also a 1911 championship when the Greek FA was established in mid-20ies and noone recognized the title.I don't really want to be involved in a constant revert war to state the obvious.Maybe you can explain him.Eagle of Pontus

• OK understood.To tell you the truth i didn't know that there was actually a 3 times revert rule,as i am thinking it, it makes sense.Thanks for the advice. Eagle of Pontus

History of Athens article

Could you please have a look on the History of Athens article. Something is wrong with the way the etymology section is displayed but I don't know how to fix it.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It was caused by the space character at the beginning of the first line. The software assume that every line beginning with a space is a line of quoted code or something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:KaragouniS

Thanks for your courtesy in advising me. That is disapointing behavious by the user. I even specifically made sure to remind him it was a vandalism removal tool only when I granted it. Hi Ho, easy to give, easy to remove! Again, thanks for letting me know. Pedro :  Chat  14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Σχετικα με το μπλοκ μου

Λοιπον αγαπητε φιλε μου, εγω δεν σου κραταω καμμια κακια για το μπλοκ που μου εκανες, παρολο που το θεωρω δικαιο μεν, λιγο τραβηγμενο δε (ισως και λογω της προιστοριας μου στα μπλοκ). Αλλα ακου και τις θεσεις μου: σχετικα με το rollback tool, στην συγκεκριμενη περιπτωση χρησιμοποιηθηκε μια μονο φορα και αυτην απο δικο μου λαθος. Ολα τα υπολοιπα ριβερτς εγιναν μεσω UNDO. Αρα το να λες constantly misusing , πιστευω πως δεν ειναι ακριβες και πως μου αφαιρεσες ενα σημαντικο εργαλειο για ενα στιγμιαιο λαθος. Εχει διαφορα το constantly απο το one time, γιαυτο αν ειναι μεσα στις προθεσεις σου, μετα το περας του μπλοκ να μου ξαναδωθει. Επισης προσπαθησα να εξηγησω στον φιλο Eagle of Pontus τους λογους για τους οποιους οι 2 αυτοι παικτες δεν ειναι αναγκη να μπουν στους notables, αλλα αυτος απαντησε με υβριστικους χαρακτηρισμους. Εγω γιατι την πληρωσα; Τελος με κατηγορεις πως καταχραστηκα το αρθρο. Δεν ξερω γιατι σου φανηκε ετσι, ισως επειδη η υπερπροστασια απο την καταχρηση δεν διαφερουν και πολυ, αλλα να ξερεις πως δεν ειναι ετσι. Ασχολουμαι με τα αρθρα του ΠΑΟ σχεδον 2.5 χρονια, και απο 1 σελιδα που ηταν εγω και τα αλλα παιδια τα καναμε 4-5, καθεμια ξεχωριστη για το αναλογο τμημα της ομαδας μας. Επισης υπηρχαν βραδυα που εναν συνεχεια ριβερτς απο βανδαλισμους, ενω καλλιστα θα μπορουσα να το εχω παρατησει και να γραφει ο καθε κακοβουλος οτι του ερθει εκει μεσα. Οπως το ιδιο εκανα και σε πολλα ακομα αρθρα, αλλα αποσο φαινεται δεν γινεται σεβαστη αυτη η προσπαθεια, οχι απο εσενα, αλλα απο αλλους χρηστες. --User:KaragouniS

Κοιτα φίλε το θέμα δεν ειναι προσωπικό είναι θέμα αρχής.Και ο Νικοπολίδης και ο Κωνσταντίνου πληρούν και με "το πολύ" παραπάνω τα κριτήρια για να συμπεριληφθούν στους noted παίκτες του παρελθόντος.Αυτο που με εκνεύρισε είναι το προφανές του πράγματος.Επειδή σε εσένα και σε παρα πολλούς άλλους οπαδούς του ΠΑΟ δεν είναι συμπαθείς δεν σημαίνει οτι εις βάρος του Εγκυκλοπεδικού αρθρου πρέπει να σβηστούν.Και μάλιστα να έχετε και σημείωση πάνω πάνω προειδοποιόντας να μην τους βάλει κανείς στην λίστα.Απο κει και περα δεν ζήτησα το μπλοκάρισμα σου ουτε ξέρω τι είναι αυτο το rollback αυτο που ξέρω ομως είναι οτι προσπάθησα να βελτιώσω το άρθρο και έκανες τα addition μου αχταρμά. Eagle of Pontus

Mr. Future Perfect, it would be nice if you could give me your opinion about the incident and for what I wrote here, in my talkpage. --User:KaragouniS

My 2c: Rollback should never be used by an editor involved in a content dispute. Don't expect Fut.Perf. to be involved in the dispute itself, he's focusing on users abusing the tools that have been trusted to them by the community.--   Avg    18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Αctually it's funny when someone like me (User:KaragouniS) is accused for tryin to own articles, while the admins do own the place and don't give a damn about the users. I'm almost 3 years here and the only thing most of the admins gave to me and other users is their own selfpromotion and ignorance for the good of the site, especially while they are called to resolve a minor dispute and prefer to ban the involved users rather than trying to come in contact with them. How ironic is that, mr. AVG? --213.5.88.38 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't expect admins to know everything about everything, but you can expect them to know something about Wikipedia policies. And this is what they do. Many content disputes have gone the "wrong" side because one party, while having perfectly reasonable arguments, did not adhere to the policies. The lesson to be learned is that the first duty of a good wikipedian is to accustom him/herself with the way things work here. If you play by the rules, you'll almost never find yourself in trouble.--   Avg    21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeongeunmun Gate

Yeongeunmun Gate. I think this article no need imporove. but japanese user POV pushing edit.(no basis. can't confirm) maybe this article will edit war like "liancourt rocks". What do you think? i think this article need lock. Matsuoka (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're the person of whom many people know or another who pretends to be the person. Please don't take advantage of the situation if you really want to contribute to the article. Talk with Nanshu (talk · contribs) whom you don't agree with for the addition. --Appletrees (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Radiovce

Hi! I want to ask you can you block this guy with this IP 82.113.106.16 because he is vandalizing the article, he has deleted all the article and I am trying constantly to bring it back. Please block him because he a real vandal. Regards --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution in South Korea & Gimbap

As per the archived WP:AN/I discussion here, I have initiated WP:DR in the respective talk pages as follows:

• Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#WP:NPOV violations / "Prostitution for tourists during the 1970s"
• Talk:Gimbap#The origin of Gimbap

If it's not too much trouble, please continue to monitor discussions there. Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pelasgians&diff=198075322&oldid=198052187

Fut.Perf. The User Tsourpk is doing vandalism gestures, deleting my sourced&referenced text without valid reason and without talking in the talk-page, please say to him something.

if the situation will continue in this way for all i write, i will be forced to contact the editor assistance.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

??

Stop what? Sorry, I am dealing with two different things, I am getting terribly confused now, that "no" was meant for somewhere completely unrelated. My mistake...Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So where was the "no" supposed to go? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[42], here Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

About Shook2008

Two fellow editors have pointed out that User:Shook2008 may be a "sock(puppet) of Bonny". He keeps editing the page about my user name and it seems to me that he broke the rule stating you can restore edits only 3 times a day per article on the page about the Balti steppe. Do you think any action is required? (This message will also be sent to User:Bogdangiusca).Xasha (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your confusion?

Please refer to the talk page of Balti Steppe. I think you did not take enough time to check all the edits and are actually making a mere confusion on "disruptive editing" from my side, for which I undertake your simple good faith solely. The fork was first created with Balti Depression, then another fork appeared Balti Plain, all against reached consensus and never sourced. Balti Steppe or Beltsy Steppe is the proper original name. All the forks were created after. This beiong explained I expect you to take back your argument on my POV in this article, or to support it with a talk page description or a concrete diff--Moldopodo (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The first and original article, which you created at Bălţi steppe on 14 October [43] was moved multiple times, by yourself and others, and currently sits at Bălţi Plain. This [44] is its proper uninterrupted edit history. Those were moves, not forks. The forks happened when you re-created the article at other positions by manually copying and re-inserting your preferred text into new (or old) article locations. That is not legitimate because it destroys the edit history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I confirm the first edit and later move as per Britannica source. For the rest of your allegations you have not provided one single diff. Now, when did I "recreate" as you say, this article in a different place, that's interesting, do you have a diff for this statement? Where is a diff about my "preferred text"? And most importantly, where is a diff for alleged by you POV from my side in this article? It seems that you have difficulties reading the talk page and checking the sources as well as established consensus, why is that so? Also, I think that your decision to close the debate on deletion in couple of minutes, only after you and me expressed our points of view is at least expeditive, don't you think so?--Moldopodo (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you copy/paste-recreated it, did you forget? [45], [46], [47]. About "POV", "sources", "consensus" and whatnot, no, I absolutely don't know what it's all about, and I don't want to know. It baffles me how the difference between "plain" and "steppe" can become an issue of ideological contention, but evidently in your and Bonny's case it is. As for the AfD, it was a regular "speedy keep" close, they are there for just that purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Future Perfect, since I have unfortunately contributed to this escatation, I would like to giva a few explanations:

• There two possible names for the article Bălţi steppe and Bălţi Plain. One comes from the vegetation, the second from the topography. I personally prefer the latter, since after one talks about topography, it is alright to continue about vegetation, while going the other way around seems a bit strange. At any rate, I will not insist on a version if that helps find a compromize and stop this stupid edit war.
• I say we should have one article, not two, as there are now.
• I say we should understand once and for all that we are using diacritcs on the WP, so I suggest to no longer consider Balti steppe and other versions without diacritics.
• I was wrong to mention the name Bălţi plain in the lead of the article, and Bălţi steppe only in the third paragraph. They should be both mentioned in the lead section. I am not negating the usage of the term Bălţi steppe - it is a legitimate name. I am only saying, it has a synonim - Bălţi plain. Can we (all editors) agree at least on that before starting the debate which sysnonim should be prefered? Sincerely, I would be very happy if someone could throw a coin and choose one name at random.
• I did not erase the content that existed in Bălţi steppe. On the contrary, if one notices the history of that page, one can see that I moved most of that info (very excellent info, btw) to Geography of Moldova and History of Moldova. All those writers and travellers could not have referred to a region 1,000 sq km in size, but rather to the entire Bessarabia at 45,000 sq km. I haven't seen in any of the sourses a reference to Bălţi steppe/plain, but rather to the entire Bessarabia, or even the entire Principality of Molodva.
• I was wrong to call is Bălţi depression. It is a depression in the Moldavian Plateau, but it is not commonly know as Bălţi depression.
• There are indeed strange way in which plain/steppe can be a political debate. It is simply that Russian and Soviet sources prefered to be guided by the vegetation, while Western ones by topography. Clrearly the dispute is not about vegetation/topography, but a shadow of Soviet/anti-Soviet debates. I hope we can return it back to where it belongs: Vegetation/topography, no more politics.

Could you, please, help us settle there things. At least, if we can just reduce our differends to what name to use for the article, Bălţi steppe or Bălţi plain. To the core of it, this is the only content difference. All the rest is infatuation and personal feelings. And I hope, if you could help, we can avoid those. Dc76\^talk 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but I must note the two variants are: 1) steppe - traditional name in Moldova, accepted as such in English (as proved by use in Encyclopaedia Britannica, and by other international organizations) and 2) plain - a metaphoric name created to counter a perceived Russian/Soviet influence(the district is not a plain but a hilly region).Xasha (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dc76, thank you very much for this constructive summary. Slowly it's all beginning to make some sense. Moldopodo, I strongly recommend you should take this as a friendly offer of dialogue and sit down calmly and work this out together. Always keep in mind that article titles are relatively unimportant, Wikipedia won't implode if the "wrong" one gets chosen. If you can't agree, just agree to disagree, call a strawpoll and accept whatever its outcome is. About capitalisation, the practice here seems to point towards capitalised spelling being more common (no matter whether it ends up at "Plain" or "Steppe"). As for the diacritics, I agree it's probably the better practice to have them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• all I have to say, no one spoke of politics, but you, namely this phrase of yours clearly shows how falsly "unpolitised" you are: especially Russian and Soviet ones, employ also the term Bălţi steppe. Where does this come from, your personal resentment or an authoruty source like Britannica that uses Balti Steppe? Look Moldovan scientists use the word "stepa" in Moldavian language scientific research papers. Have you given one source in Moldova where it is spoken of Balti Plain? - no. There is no plain, nor in Balti neither in the whole Moldova, it is hilly in our country, google and see some pictures. I am sorry, but you still have not given one single authority source for the newly imagined term to describe the secular Balti Steppe. Fut.Perf. I took note of your harassments on my user talk page and will see what other users think is the best to do. As for this debate - it is completely ridiculous to dicuss a well, centuris old established name. Why don't we rename Black Sea in Green Mountain?--Moldopodo (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Moldopodo, I can not stop from noticing a very-very amusing peculiarity: a few months ago it was you who where claiming that it is a limitless plain (see the top of the old version of Balti steppe), and I who claimed we only have hills in the region. Given how easy we switch opinions, I must observe that this example re-proves the basics of quantum mechanics in a WP-ian form: we can not have the same opinion at the same time, but we certainly can have the same opinion at different times! :-)))))) Frankly, I would be very happy if an outsider would compile the two versions into one and choose a title at random. In such a case I could promise not to edit it for 12 months. Dc76\^talk 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)