User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

Neutral tone

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

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

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

Go ahead, no problem. I was just trying to keep it short and less redundant. Whether those maps mean the political entity or just some vague geographical region is pretty irrelevant, isn't it. Common sense says that of course they mean the political entity, even though they aren't explicitly showing the boundary. In any case, you don't need to include the link to the SRoM twice in the same paragraph, nor the wikilink on the Republic of Macedonia (we usually link to the same target only once in an article.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes that you approved plus I excluded the second link to Socialist Republic of Macedonia as unnecessary. P.S. Sorry if am behaving non-ethical for asking, but could you tell me what is your native language (that is what is your background). Best regards, Revizionist 11:29, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Language is German. Ethnic background and self-identification, as I put it once, is Celtovandalosilingovenedopolonofrancosaxocheruskan, with a certain Rumeloarvanogyphtovlachellenic adstrate in the family environment. :) --Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I like the concept. Well I guess I can partially identify my self with a similar example ;) Cheers Revizionist 11:58, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fut.Perf. ☼. There is this guy DL1977-2 that made some reverting without giving evidence nor facts. He even asked the name of the encyclopedia, and I gave it to him. I posted it here. After I posted it, ·ΚέκρωΨ· started saying that the encyclopedia is not a proof and so on. With ·ΚέκρωΨ· till now I'm having a civilized discussion (although I see he has be warned several times for vandalism on Albanian articles. Both of them have never written an article or some kind of a constructive text. Only edit wars. That is why I'm reporting to you (please excuse me if I'm being boring or pathetic, but I really hate this pressure), because the next time someone reverts your version I won't be avle to return it back - for I will brake the Three-Revert-Rule. Thanks in advance. With respect. Revizionist 19:59, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... welcome to Wikipedia's Macedonian pages... I recommend to take it easy for the moment, don't let yourself be drawn into a revert war now. (You know the 3RR, right? Oh yes, sure, because I blocked you the other day... :-P) These debates can be pig-headed. Kekrops is a long-time contributor, very clever and knowledgeable, but he can be a real tough nut in such a dispute. The other guy is probably not really new either. I wonder what kind of misplaced footwear he is. Will find it out, don't worry. :) But in any case, your position with respect to those sources is not particularly strong, it's not as if it was some high-class historical scholarship you were quoting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fute, I'm sure you can appreciate that this tough nut cannot accept Dionysia Weissman's γιὰ σᾶς, παιδιά by "εκδοσεις αυλος" as an official "Greek school book". Those are published by the Οργανισμός Εκδόσεων Διδακτικών Βιβλίων, which is overseen by the Ministry of Education. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I never presented the encyclopedia "γιὰ σᾶς, παιδιά" as a "Greek school book". I said "...in Greek textbooks and encyclopedia" (which is different from what you said).

Actually Fut.Perf. ☼, for the time being mediation is not necessary. This ·ΚέκρωΨ· turned out to be a reasonable guy. Unlike other who just vandalize articles and engage in edit wars, ·ΚέκρωΨ· gave evidence about the encyclopedia, and we reached a mutual compromise. We stated that the Encyclopedia is privately published, and the Geography textbook is state published. Yes, I am new in Wikipedia and the Macedonia related articles, but I'm happy that all this time I manage to use a calm academic tone (like you guys), and I hope we will become friends. Για σας, και καληνηχτα. Revizionist 21:08, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Довидување и добра ноќ. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Request.

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

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

Thanks

Thanks for the response! It was exactly what I needed. Shup's back at IP 151.44.156.78 tonight, but seems to be behaving himself. Once again, I appreciate all that you're doing (overall! You seem to have you hands full lately...). Hiberniantears 02:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for erasing Frightner's comment on my talk page. I appreciate it. I don't like provocation. His statement was not argument, because he didn't read your comment offering help to revise the template. With the help of the admits I will make a new template for connected with Article 31 of the "Law on Copyright and Related Rights" of the Republic of Macedonia. Cheers Revizionist 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, but I don't think that's a good idea. What that Article 31 says is about country-specific conditions on what we here call non-free content / "fair use". It's a very thorny topic, and we have a hard time already reaching a consensus about what the American rules on fair use mean for us. I don't think additional information about the MKD-specific rules would clarify things any further - the American rules is what ultimately counts here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is ultimately governed by American law. While occasionally we have templates regarding PD in other countries (Germany and UK come to mind) their laws are written such that the templates work as well under American law. Macedonia law does not work the same way. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for the record, I don't really see that many differences between the Macedonian and the German case. As far as I can see, the laws are quite similar in scope, structure and content. And the condition described in {{PD-Germany}} is very much of the same kind as those I put on the Macedonian one. But we shouldn't have country-specific fair use tags, they don't make a lot of sense. (Don't know how and if those fair-use-related articles of the law would be applicable in America at all, probably not.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks

Hello,

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

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

User:Strich3d

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

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

Hi, need help

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

Hmm, I see your point. It's a bit awkward now, process-wise, because although "Consensus Can Change" there isn't really a standard process for overturning this kind of deletion debate - DRV is only for procedural issues about contested closures, not for a new content appraisal, and if you just recreate the category it would be subject to a speedy. I guess we should at least contact the deletion nominator and the person who closed it, to see if there are objections. Lemme see. Don't think it would be hugely controversial, really. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: See [1], [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your actions. I'd have contacted them myself, but I wanted to make sure there's no standard procedure for undeletion in the first place.

The last text I read in Koine was the Revelation of John (here). I found it very interesting that it was 100% comprehensible for me. Mind you, I was one of the worst students in Ancient Greek at school! I also went to Patmos this year and saw his cave. It is amazing how our language has changed so little in over 2 millenia! It's also amazing how it changed so much in just 300-500 years (since Pericles for example). What do the linguists say? How can a language speed up its evolution over a short period of time and then pause to rest for almost eternity? NikoSilver 08:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I reply to posts on my talk page, but seeing as how the thread here initiated that post, I'm going to respond here and hope that you will not mind. First of all, let me say thank you for coming to me to discuss the matter. I want to be clear that I want to do what is best for the project, and that I have no feelings that my decision is set in stone or not otherwise subject to change. I believe that you have made a very good case for a distinct category to exist. As far as I can tell there is no ISO code which applies here. I would suggest that perhaps Category:User koine be used, instead of "ke", since that will prevent any potential issues that people sometimes have with 2 or 3 character codes. Also, I would ask you to consider if you need the "levels" (-1, -2, etc.) of child categories, or if you just need one primary one for everyone. I think that I will have no objection with whatever you decide, and only would ask that you link to this discussion when you do create the category(ies) so that people will understand why. My final thought would be that if you are looking for any other opinions (who all know more than I) User:jc37, User:Black Falcon and User:Horologium have all been active in this series of discussions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fut, what you say with this? We seem to have 4go10 (and I hate the red link on my userbox :-)) NikoSilver 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you take it up with the guy himself? We had some discussion on his talk page too, and apparently he thought it would be okay to go ahead and recreate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. See User talk:After Midnight#A category issue for your info. NikoSilver 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just some chat about linguistics

Hah! Gotcha too. Now you do owe me a Tobermory. I followed your link to the Revelation text and wondered: wow, I didn't know Koiné was that modern either! Future tense forms with thélo! Reduction of ina > na! Then I got suspcicious and checked my printed New Testament. What you got on the web there isn't the original, it's a Katharevousa adaption. Unbelievable, isn't it? If they are going to use not the original but a modern translation, why don't they go straight for standard demotic? (Perhaps that illusion of continuity is just what they want to achieve?)

Anyway, your observation may still be correct. There are two factors. First, many people believe that sudden language contact speeds up change, especially language shift. Between classical and koine, you had all those foreign non-native speakers to assimilate, such as speakers of Macedonian sorry, couldn't resist...;-) Illyrian, Thracian, Lycian, Luwian, Aramaic, Egyptian etc. Not to mention the Paxiotes. Second, on the other side, don't forget that much of the recognisability for a modern speaker may be owing to the "artificial" preservation of language features through the ecclesiastic register and later through Katharevousa. If you were a speaker of pure traditional demotic, living outside the cultural sphere of the orthodox church or the Greek state, you'd probably find the Revelation just as baffling as a modern English speaker finds this:

Her hæþne men ærest on Sceapige ofer winter sætun. 7 þy ilcan geare gebocude Æþelwulf cyning teoþan dæl his londes ofer al his rice Gode to lofe 7 him selfum to ecere hælo, 7 þy ilcan geare ferde to Rome mid micelre weorþnesse 7 þær was .xii. monaþ wuniende 7 þa him hamweard fór, 7 him þa Carl Francna cyning his dohtor geaf him to cuene, 7 æfter þam to his leodum cuom 7 hie þæs gefægene wærun. ([3])

About a radical view of how languages can suddenly change speed of change, see punctuated equilibrium (let's see if this turns up blue? Ah, it does, but the article deals only with biology. There's a guy called Dixon, specialist in Australian Aboriginal languages, who applies the concept to language development too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Let's see if you can work it out now:

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

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

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

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

And so on...

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

I'm partly relieved that your informed opinion is I'm not becoming more stupid than my ancestors. Problem is, I'm not so sure those "cycles" apply to Greek. It looks more of a "cliff" to me... NikoSilver 11:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW thanks for the lesson and for the example. Yes, it looks greatly familiar now. It reminds me of how dumb it is that we were taught the Odyssey at school with the poetic/demotic translation of [the otherwise magnificent] Kazantzakis right next to the ancient text, instead of some sort of Katharevousa-ized translation that would highlight those similarities... Maybe that is the reason Ancient Greek never got into me, as opposed to -say- Mathematics which had no such intensional logic dilemmas (to get back to our previous talk). NikoSilver 11:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Greek is doing fine with its cycling tours. Let's see: the textbook example of a grammaticalisation process similar to the amare habeo > aimerai thing is the Modern Greek tha (< thélei). That's not just one new grammatical category, it's three: a new future tense, a new conditional mood (tha to diávazes an eíxes óreksi), plus a new inferential mood (ídhi tha to katálaves). Plus there's a full new perfect system (éxo + -i). And, lemme see, what do we have here:

• to árthro todhiávasa
• ti selídha tidhiávasa
• ta vivlía tadhiávasa

Don't mind the spelling. If this isn't a full new emergent system of object agreement, what is it? (You stole that one from your northern neighbours, or so I'm told. You should be grateful for this generous donation, and not grudge them if they steal a few other minor linguistic things from you in return).

What's even more fascinating is that this object doubling thing, while it's not quite yet arrived at the stage of being a full-fledged agreement system, is currently serving yet other nice grammatical functions. Have you ever asked yourself what the contrast is between:

• To Níko ton blókaran gia ta revert tou
• To Níko blókaran gia ta revert tou

There's a subtle difference in meaning, I'm told. Yet another new grammatical category you've invented a new way of expressing.

So, not so bad after all. Don't worry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it apparently is not a cliff; it's a yo-yo. The only problem that remains is that this yo-yo never stops on the same edge, and the aforementioned wisdom becomes increasingly incomprehensible to the many. But how can you explain this to the typical new expression inventor? It looks so small to create a new expression every now and then, yet it functions like a drop of water on the edge of the stalactite of discontinuity in wisdom transfer. It looks so cruel, that makes me certain the Epsilonists attribute it to some sort of organized conspiracy theory for de-Hellenization... Eínai na ta paírneis stin krána... NikoSilver 12:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Complaints about language change are probably about as old as language itself.

Multa renascentur, quae iam cecidere, cadentque
quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula, si volet usus,
quem penes arbitrium est et ius et norma loquendi.

Trouble is, we don't "invent" these changes. Nobody brings them about intentionally. We "create" them, collectively, just as car drivers collectively create a traffic jam or just as buyers and sellers collectively create an inflation. It's an invisible hand phenomenon. So all complaining about it is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure we stole clitic doubling from our northern neighbours? According to the sprachbund article, "southwest Macedonia appears to be the location of innovation". Well within the Greek sphere of influence, unless of course the author means the Republic. I also note that it is exceedingly common in Spanish, so the extent to which it is a true Balkanism is debatable: Los he leído los libros; le he dado los libros a ella. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure about the historical sequence. But according to Victor Friedman in a 2006 paper, Macedonian (and specifically its western dialects) is the language that has gone furthest with making clitic doubling obligatory, with northern Aromanian in a similar stage; followed by Albanian; with Greek and other Balkan languages having much less. The natural assumption would be that the language that has most of the phenomenon is the one that started it, though that's not a strict necessity of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The problem with Greek is that it is peripheral to the sprachbund at best, as the formative centres of the standard language at least, unlike those of neighbouring languages, were well away from the central Balkan areas where widespread linguistic contact took place. Given its relative geographic isolation, it could well be that Greek clitic doubling is a coincidence, like the Spanish or Persian cases, unrelated to the more salient Slavic or Albanian phenomenon. Will we ever know for sure? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

These things are fiendishly difficult to prove with certainty, notoriously so. In the Balkan case, the most important type of evidence is that all these languages together, with their sub-varieties, seem to form a common geographical pattern: the closer two varieties are to each other, the higher the likelihood that they follow the same rules. That implies that, at the very least, we have lots of parallel developments that are causally related at the edges somehow. The cherry on the cake, in this case, would be if it was shown that northern Greek dialects have again more doubling than the southern ones. Friedman doesn't say that; he just says that the educated standard in Greece has shown a tendency to resist clitic doubling. -- You are right, of course, that cltic doubling is in principle a structure that would have been independently available too. I'd say it's a universally available strategy once a language has certain structural preconditions (like object pronouns being routinely on the other side of the verb from full NP objects). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it has less to do with education and more to do with register. It is almost ubiquitous in informal speech but avoided in formal language. I am also not entirely convinced that it is unrelated to the doubling of the definite article in the attributive position that goes all the way back to ancient Greek: ὁ καλὸς ἄνθρωπος, but also ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ καλός. It is not implausible that the clitic pronouns that replaced forms of αὐτός were adopted from and then confused with the identical corresponding definite article forms, hence providing fertile ground for the doubling of the latter to be extended to the former. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting speculation. I might think about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. It is obvious that the third-person clitic pronouns were simply copied wholesale from the corresponding definite articles. Is it unreasonable to expect that the former would carry on at least some of the baggage of the latter? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Sigh... You're right, of course. I still have that big project of reworking the Greek language articles parked in my userspace. But at least I did some maps today, does that assuage your Olympic ire? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not completely, but it fills me with hope!--Yannismarou 09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to feed your ego, but I do have to admit that it is a nice effort. So, I do not dare to be cross! IMO the article is already up to GA status (but this is subjective!). When you feel that you have completed your effort, and if you decide that you want to have serious aspirations about the article, and, you believe that I can help you, just let me know. What I can say for now is that I have Triantifyllides' Γραμματική and his Ιστορική Εισαγωγή (Official Volume Edition by the Greek State c. 1940 reprinted), and I'll have a look at it, in case I find something helpful.--Yannismarou 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGKvb2MkeiM

Problem

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

It is none the more 'foolish' than using an obvious pro-bulgarian POV sites like promacedonia.com Capricornis 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Promacedonia.com is a collection of published books by experts, cybermacedonia.com is just amateurs' scribblings on the matter.--NetProfit 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to add: "this is my own personal opinion" :) Capricornis 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As did you :) --NetProfit 20:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you look at: WP:No_personal_attacks ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness I didn't call you anything. Your assertion above that I called you a bigot is misleading to say the least.--NetProfit 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And I quote Before making bigoted accusations like you recently did at Greece, I advise you to look at the available sources, from my talk page. Is that not calling me a bigot? ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No. It's accusing you of "making bigoted accusations". I must admit, looking at your contributions history, you do tend to cite vandalism as a ground for reverting well intentioned edits rather often.--NetProfit 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...which is calling me a bigot. And looking at my contribution history is like judging a book by its cover. You got to read the book before you can comment on it. And just so you know a lot of the edits that happen here on Wikipedia are vandalism (go see your Germanos Karavangelis article) ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 00:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

217.43.58.131 and Digby Tantrum

FYI , the user at IP 217.43.58.131 currently vandalising Digby Tantrum's talk page would appear to be a career vandal and sockpuppeteer who most-recently went by the now-blocked name of Learntruck. But then, you'll probably already know all this by the time it's taken me to write this... Best regards, Liquidfinale 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Liancourt Rocks

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

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

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

Thanks for your comments. I too can see where you are coming from. I honestly didn't see a fourth revert - I may well have miscounted or missed some here or there. Frankly, I can't be bothered to re-count right now. Whether it's four or three doesn't really mean that much of a difference.

But the point is, I have no evidence he is (was?) an abusive sock or meatpuppet. As long as we may assume he's a genuine newbie, AGF, BITE and BOLD apply. And that means, you don't revert their good-faith contributions. You don't revert them and then demand that they go to the talkpage and initiate a discussion. It's your obligation to go to the talkpage first and explain what you don't like. And you will please wait to give them a chance to explain their view, before you revert them. With newbie's, it's always primarily your responsibility to make sure an edit-war is stopped early.

NIYet's contribution was about a prima facie good-faith, reasonable objection about an issue of POV wording; he explained it politely and intelligently, but he was repeatedly met with blind, blanket reverts. People didn't even bother to distinguish between reverting the change in naming order and the change in the wording regarding the subsidizing. This was bad. In such a case, my personal stance as an admin is I'm inclined to block the regulars, for WP:OWN violations, not the newbie. Personally, I probably wouldn't have blocked him even if I'd seen a fourth revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

My RfC

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

Chechnya

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

Hmmm, I can understand your plight, but strictly speaking semiprotection should not be used to give registered users the upper hand over anon users in a dispute. Was he ever warned about edit-warring, or blocked for it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably I should've warned him at his talk first... not that it would've changed anything, but still. Alæxis_¿question? 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

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

Pozdrav Makedonij 12:10 18 September 2007(UTC)

RFC Lexicon Closure

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

OTT

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

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

I would argue that flag waving can be seen as patriotic rather irridentist such as potentially irridentis maps and rhetoric. The final arbitor in such matters is probably wikipedia policy. I am certainly not in a position to edit user pages, just making an observation. Politis 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not complaining of irredentism; irredentism nowadays should be laughed at, not feared (incidentally, what do you think of this map with "United Macedonia"?). I'm making an observation that strongly nationalistic userpages reveal the aims of the owners on Wikipedia and how seriously one can expect them to be objective.--NetProfit 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Template removal

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

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

Template:User state sponsored terrorism

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

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

As per WP:CSD T1, templates that are "divisive and inflammatory" get deleted. The box contained a statement about State-sponsored terrorism, combined with a flag of Sri Lanka. It doesn't require magic powers of divination to conclude that the author wishes to imply that somebody on Sri Lanka is guilty of State-sponsored terrorism. If that's not a divisive statement, what is?

To Wiki Raja, above: There's not such a clear-cut rule for what you can or can't do on your user page. But it would certainly be seen as a sign of a combative, uncooperative attitude towards a political dispute, so I'd strongly recommend not using it. (Hint: if this whole Sri Lankan case ever ends up at Arbcom again, I wouldn't want to be caught dead with a thing like that on my user page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the same be said about this? Wiki Raja 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just this minute I was looking at it. Yes, it could, in my opinion. Another admin already declined the speedy, otherwise I'd probably have deleted it. You might want to take it to WP:MFD; I'd be inclined to support deletion there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I am a bit unfamiliar with WP:MFD in regards to the three step process. Wiki Raja 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have posted my discussion on this template here. Thanks. Wiki Raja 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

rules of conduct

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

Translation

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

Also, I'd like to ask you what you think about OTT. NetProfit mentions me and accuses me of spreading propaganda and irridentism. This is an attack against my reputation on Wikipedia! If you are worried about my purpose on Wikipedia, you can look in my contributions for any "illegal" activities. If you need explanations about anything on my user page, you can get it from me, you don't have to wait for them (and them is Bulgarians and Greeks). All I'm asking from you is to tell them to stop fouling my name all the time! If you need ANY explanation or anything else from me, ASK ME, don't wait for them, please. Thank you in advance. iNkubusse^?

Thanks for the translation. As for those maps, if it's the ones Revizionist brought forward the other day, they aren't apparently worth too much. But what he writes there is interesting in another way, it tells us something about how he imagines that WikiProject should work. I have to tell you, if that's what the project is going to be about, then it will very soon be closed down. -- As for the discussion above, well, the point about the flag on your mk-wiki user page is, I have to agree with them. Absolutely tasteless. And you can't really expect being taken seriously as a good-faith contributor here if you do things like that over there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure as to which maps you refer as useless. For anyone who has lived on the balkans before 1989 it is commonly accepted fact that Macedonia and Macedonian referred overwhelmingly to the southernmost republic of SFR Yugoslavia - SR Macedonia. All the schoolbooks from decades before that mention that fact as a common knowledge. The problem here is that not many people keep those school books from 20-30 years ago, nor do have time to dig'em up, get'em shipped, scanned etc. just to prove an obvious point to a bunch of ultra-nationalist Bulgarians and Greeks. I definitely do not have the time, nor motivation for it, there are enough problems in my everyday life without adding the made-up ones from wikipedia. Capricornis 22:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think it sounds that way because of the translation. That's everyday (informal) Macedonian talk and when translated in English, it sounds a bit rough. As for the discussion above, I see, I know it's absolutely tasteless (except for the sake of humor). But I wasn't reffering to that; he makes an impression about me as if I were a propagandist or such... The tasteless detail with the flags is pure irony and has nothing to do with propaganda, and as far as I know, it doesn't break any rules. They don't have to like me, but accusing me for spreading propaganda (the sole purpose!) and irridentism is just too much for me. iNkubusse^? —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Melonbarmonster#Blocked

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

Just saw it myself. See you over at his talk page again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Uncooperative editing

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia/To Do List

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

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

edit summaries?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm, this is a bit weird now... First of all, how the question of whether fermented cabbage is good for you can become an issue of national contention is beyond me... (I prefer sauerkraut, anyway, it's just as full of vitamins but not as spicy.) But apart from that... So, you find Korea's arguments are objectively stronger, so any treatment in the article that gives equal weight to Korean and Japanese arguments is inherently unjust? Well, fine, but how do you expect to explain this to somebody who happens to believe that Korea's arguments are not objectively stronger? That's the whole point about NPOV, you know, we have to reflect both their opinions and yours. If you believe that a page is only okay if it lets your POV appear to be the stronger one, I can't help you, you will never be happy here at Wikipedia.

As for my blocks, believe it or not, I was rather surprised myself that my first three victims were all from one side. But I can't help it, three people broke the rules there, others didn't.

As for the case itself, Liancourt Rocks, I'm as neutral as can be. I have not the slightest sympathies or antipathies towards either Koreans or Japanese; politically, I couldn't care less whose islets these are, and factually, I have not the slightest idea what the relevant arguments are. Didn't find the time even to read the article in full, and what I did read didn't help understanding the issues much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Saying that "we have to reflect both their opinions and yours" is fair and thats supposed to neutral. But the JPOV editors use NPOV to make the article biased in their favor. Thats the problem.

And I'm surprised too! Why fermented cabbage could become a "national contention". Lactose is the one making it about pro-Korea and anti-Korea. There were no problems at Kimchi until Lactose started to complain that his sentence should be included.

I still am not happy with how you deal things here. And I don't care how surprised you are about the blocks or how you claim that your neutral. Your actions show that you aren't neutral. Good friend100 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

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

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

User:The Behnam/Local news

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

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

Done and thanks. Jeffpw 11:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Sea Lion

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

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

Please do. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP concern

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

Request for assistance

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

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

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

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

Let me also add User:Patrick Sanders to that list. The edit summaries alone are dead on, as well as the list of spoken languages. Hiberniantears 13:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the following is of note: [7] Hiberniantears 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Fut. Per., I think User:Patrick Sanders is definetly Shup, and I think he was editing today alternating between that user name, and then anonymously as User:151.37.178.16 to create some plausible deniability. He's making tons of edits to a large number of articles; some edits are good, some are bad, and some are simply an effort to instigate problems. With the large number of user names and IP's which he is employing, I think it makes it very hard for anyone but those few of us who are familiar with the issue from working constructively on any of the articles in question. Even still, I'm keeping my distance from a large number of articles which I would like to work on right now because I can't tell which users are actual individuals, and which ones may/may not be Shup. Because he drops positive and negative contributions using alternating accounts, I think it is clear that he is trying to systematically obfuscate the edit history of all these articles so that it is nearly impossible for anyone else to meaningfully contribute. I'm giving him the room to operate freely for the time being for two reasons: First, I can't tell who's a new editor, and who is Shup. Second, I don't want to get in an edit war with him, and he makes so many changes that it is nearly impossible to make a simple change without him jumping on it. I know this is extreme, but what are your thoughts on an IP range block for a short period of time (24 hours)? I think this will at least let us get an idea of a more stable version of some articles before he jumps back in after the block expires (even though it will probably block a large section of Italy). I am interested in knowing your thoughts on this. Thanks! Hiberniantears 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ughhh, ugly. Thanks for keeping me updated. I've taken some rather drastic measures (range blocks and semiprotections) and reported at ANI for more help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Votespamming

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

• • you can rest in peace about the votespamming as these issues are not decided by head count. refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion . You have two entries as well. Capricornis 00:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

LactoseTI (talk · contribs)

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

Italiotis

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

I agree to stop here. Just for your reference

http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/OfficialDocuments/Interim.html

partucularly:

Article 7

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

Nothing more to say. Please make your own conclusions.

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

turkish acc. to eu

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

Any comments, any reply, anything to this? I might soon revert. Anyway, please check Special:Contributions/202.86.179.57. Sstakis is back. Deniz^T_C 13:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Greco Turkish War of 1919-1922

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

Heh, yeah, my famous pro-Greek bias, shining through again, is it? Just the other day, some Greek editors thought I was shamelessly pro-Macedonian. And I've also heard I had a scandalous bias in favour of Turks... :)

But seriously, sorry to disappoint you, but I've really got enough conflicts on my hands right now. 1919-22 is a bit more than I feel I can handle right now, sorry about that. I know, working on that article sucks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Translation

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

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

Macedon

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

Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Greetings!

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

Cheers,

Drieux 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP ROMacedonia

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

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

good faith

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

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

Italiotis

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

Regarding Korean cuisine

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

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

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

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

"The Plague"

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

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

Another MfD

Hi,

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

More Shup Socks

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

Interesting, but BlueEyedCat was apparently arguing against Shup (aka 7th son of a 7th son) on one occasion, on Talk:Istanbul. That wouldn't be Shup's style. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well... just when I thought I might have a career as a detective! :-) Hiberniantears 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Three words: HA HA HA :)

Hibernatingbears, you should get a life, really (the same advice is valid for Foot Perfume at Sunshine). I don't know what's the reason for your inferiority complex, obsession and fixation towards me, but it really wasn't me who reverted your (really bad) edits in the Turkey article. And it's not my fault if they didn't make you an Administrator. At least I "contributed" many new "articles" with solid "information", while the only thing you ever did (and keep doing) is to play with the words which other people write, without adding any significant new "information". The good news, by the way, is that I'll be extremely busy until the 15th of October writing my annual PhD thesis paper, so you can get some rest and stop having Shuppilubiludibuliumamuma nightmares :) 151.44.144.67 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Project subpage

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

Greco Turkish war

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

"Making problems" you say (bottom of diff in Cyrillic)... ForeignerFromTheEast 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest now. A one-off outburst of anger is not something you ought to go on harking about for days after. Leave the guy alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing currently going on right now, so yes. If he has to drop a few curses while getting his images licensed, why not. ForeignerFromTheEast 13:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My, aren't you the sensitive one

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

Controversial banhammer comment

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

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

:)

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

Thanks

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

FYI...

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

Image

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

Greetings

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

I'd appreciate your input on an userbox issue

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

R9tgokunks

Please see my talk page section at Talk:Arthur Rubin#Category (permlink) as to the question of whether the above-named user is continuing his subtle vandalism in regard Category:German loanwords (and others) through IP addresses including 172.191.100.66 and 172.192.43.160. Knepflerle suggested I contact you, as you've previously blocked the named user. See also my requesting a review of the block of the second IP at ANI (permlink). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks

In the resolution to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (4th), the admin Samir suggested that I consult with a range-block savvy admin (such as yourself) regarding the feasibility of administering a range block on the abusing account 75.34.18.170. The rationale behind this inquiry is the pattern of abuse as evinced in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (3rd) (for example). If you could look into this, I'd be most grateful. Thanks. Myasuda 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jingiby

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

Jingiby is certainly welcome to revert you whenever he feels like it. Because you are a banned user. If Jingiby is reverting elsewhere, others will deal with it. Not you. Your opinions about Jingiby are of no interest here. Because you are a banned user. Get it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, even so, you take the liberty to check out the situation and act upon it, that I like. You're a good guy Future, but it's disrespectful to take someones comment and throw it in their face like you did with my request, as long as we can converse respectfully I have no reason to cuss you out. Take care. Frightner 10:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment on Talk:Macedonism, National Liberation War of Macedonia was pretty much the same and this is where the problems began, the article was a mess, it had been moved and reverted constantly and the talk page, well, let's not speak if it, but I will tell you that the talk page is how my ban came about. Anyways, if you could check it out, maybe check out the history/disputes and the sources, ie. OR such as promacedonia.org and several other propaganda sites used frequently on that article and maybe sort it out. There is alot of information there that is obviously POV. If you do sort this one out, I honestly swear to you that you will never hear from me again and the Bulgarians won't have to worry about me either. How about it? Frightner 10:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, and to be frank my offer is more tempting. By the way, how will I know this "e-mail address"?

That's why I keep saying, go to your old account (or open a new one for the purpose), register your own e-mail address (nobody will see it unless you actually mail them), then you can use this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.

Italiotis

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

Frightner

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

ROMacedonia WP again!

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

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

BG/ROM/GRE collaboration

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

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

Oh, I am pretty sure I had spotted a Greek-Turkish collaboration project, but I fail to find it now (just when I need it)--Laveol ^T 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there have been both a Greek-Turkish cooperation board somewhere, and a (regional) Macedonian noticeboard, which was meant to cater for all four "Macedonia"-related nations. It's been inactive for a year or so though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Great - just what I meant. I'm planning to archive the past discussions and notices - no need to get inflammatory straight away - some of the things will only stir people on. And then I'll notice every user that's involved with the issue that he can put a notice for an article/issue that needs discussing/improving. Or we should avoid engaging in disputes on the noticeboard itself? --Laveol ^T 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have archived the previous discussions. Could you, please, look if I haven't made some mess of it. --Laveol ^T 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jajce

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

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

www.gothassos.com

Gia sas

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

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

thanks for the pointer

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

National Liberation War of Macedonia

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

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

On several matters..

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

Great news you wanna help out with the Notice board. I'll figure out what to do for myself and most probably archive those old notices. And about the license tagging - Mr. Neutron has done nothing to the image you put as an example. Look at the contrib history. --Laveol ^T 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Whether the images will be deleted depends entirely on whether they end up being actually used in the article - if not, we can't keep them around, as the fair use justification only works for a specific article. And I'm not sure they will end up being used. There obviously is no consensus for them, you've been reverted several times by several people, and by just reinserting them you are basically only conducting a slow revert-war, which won't help anybody. If I were you, I'd let them go at this point. -- But good to hear you want to participate in the collaborations. Could you help out at National Liberation War of Macedonia? Messy article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate userboxes

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

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

New to Wikipedia

Hello, I have visited Wikipedia a number of times in the past however this is the first time I have joined and have not made any edits in the past as this is my only account, i am unfamiliar with "79.125.178.167". I am interested in ancient history and ancient Macedon is particular, however I was disappointed by the inaccuracies in several pages and that is why I edited them.Ireland101

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

User Myrmidon7-Pontic Greek Genocide

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

The only "sources" for his edits are "www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum" "www.hellenicgenocide.org", "www.greece.org/genocide", "www.byzantinos.com"..Plus he added his unsourced, private opinions into the article..

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

Olympiacos

Hi! Please have a look at the recent history of Olympiacos article and do something with User:87.203.220.177. What he does is changing "the most popular" to "one of the most". On the contrary in Panathinaikos article he does exactly the opposite in another occasion. Thanks! - Sthenel 15:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A minor correction for the Greece article

Byzantine Era

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

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

Cheers :) 151.37.184.150 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And "remained Hellenistic" is wrong (it should be "remained Hellenic") because the Hellenistic Age is the age of the successor states after the death of Alexander the Great, and "Hellenistic Culture" is the name of the mixed eclectic "local culture + Hellenic (Greek) culture" which took place as a result (one good example being the Kingdom of Commagene in Eastern Anatolia) 151.37.184.150 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange Edits

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

Laveol is also claiming I am using my "IP to avoid breaking 3RR" which is an absolute lie. He is also going around posting that I am actually some blocked member on other editors talk pages. Does Wikipedia have a policy about making such slanderous accusations?, as I believe this needs to stop. Ireland101

I am having trouble on the article "barbarian" as I am trying to add sourced material and user PBD55 keeps on deleting it. I tried to make dialoge with this user however he deleted my message on his talk page. I do not want to be accused of starting an edit war and would appreciate any advice you could offer on this situation. Ireland101

Tourism in Sri Lanka

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

Change article name

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

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

About Arvanites article and trolling

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

Αχ! Οχ! Δυστυχώς, δεν έχω το δικαίωμα, εφόσον είμαι ο ίδιος μέσα στη συζήτηση, και ο άλλως, όσο βλακειώδη κι να μας φαίνονται αυτά που γράφει, δεν κάνει βανδαλισμούς (δηλαδή, δε προσπαθεί θελητά να καταστρέψει το άρθρο.) Οπότε, δεν έχουμε άλλη επιλογή παρά να τον κάνουμε ρεβέρτ μέχρι να σταματήσει. Κι έτσι κι αλλιώς, το σεμιπροτεκτ δε θα βοηθούσε, γιατί είναι πια "παλιός" χρήστης. – Αχ, που 'ντα μουστουκούλουρα του Δαρεμά να παρηγορηθώ? ;-\ Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Λολ! Τι περιμενεις; Στειλε γρηγορα τους δικους σου να παρουν 2-3 κιλα να στα δωσουν και να βγαλεις το αχτι σου :D --KaragouniS 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reforming username blocks

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

Thanks

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

Sorry.

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

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

Sock

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

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

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

Flags and socks

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

The question is not whether sub-national entities should be used, the question is whether Macedonia's now being an independent nation-state should be the criterion for using it as the categorisation unit backwards in time. I have no strong opinion either way, but it seems we do this, uncontroversially, for many ex-Soviet nations and ex-Yugoslavians, so why not here too? Look at Category:Ukrainians and Category:Croatian sportspeople, for instance. If you want consistency, you might need to initiate some centralised discussion somewhere.

That said, sorry for being personal now, but I must say your editing is beginning to go on my nerves. There's only one thing more annoying than The Plague of nationalist editors, and that is editors whose sole focus it is to curb the nationalism of one specific neighbouring ethnic group. You really could try, for a change, doing some edits somewhere whose sole purpose is not that of annoying Macedonian fellow editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on two things: need to curb nationalism, and lack of consistency in templates. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sstakis is back

He's under the IP: Special:Contributions/122.100.203.18 I've reverted most of his edits. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

that is not the only ip this time. I asked for semi protection, but only Izmir is protected, possibly due to my lazines and not writing a better comment on WP:RFPP for other pages commonly attacked by Sstakis Deniz^T_C 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like all the pages he attacked are now semiprotected. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Tedblack

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

Help Find a Cure for The Plague

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

Greco Turkish war, again

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

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

Problem with Articles?

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

Well, I saw you starting off an article about (apparently) yourself with a sentence like "A true renaissance man, Robert C. Michelson is involved in everything from collecting marine specimens on the bottom of the ocean to flying his personal one-seat rotorcraft;" - From then onward, I couldn't help but get suspicous. Then I saw you editing an article about a prize which (o coincidence) had apparently been won by you. And your articles about that entomopter invention certainly have a lot of scholarly references (to your own works describing your invention), but no independent sources describing its notability. (Is it comparable to Dr. Jarvik's artificial heart? If yes, there must be tons of coverage in independent sources, both general-public news media and coverage by other academics.) -- To be certain, quoting yourself if you have published about a topic as an academic expert is okay, but promoting yourself and your work (however admirable it may be) is highly problematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "renaisance man" reference is not mine. That is wording provided by the Fernbank Science Center for a lecture series I was asked to give several years ago and is a moniker which has been reused since then by others... I don't think you'll find any of my web pages stating that. I hold the patents on the Entomopter and if you check the web presence on the topic of Entomopter, you will find many many independent articles (most recently about a week ago in the Washington Post). Not only that, but NOVA, Discovery, Scientific American Frontiers and others have done television shows about the Entomopter. Having said that however, the most authoritative references are ones coming out of Georgia Tech and my lab, most of which are co-authored I might add. Is it only acceptable to have people not associated with scientific endeavors speak to them? Regarding the Pirelli Prize, I was the FIRST EVER, to receive that Top Pirelli Prize, and was asked by Pirelli to publicise it in every way I could on their behalf. That article mentions me, but it also mentions everyone else that won the prize. This week, it ws suggested by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems (as a past President of that intl. organization) that I write up some things about them... but I was a past President... and I happended to win their Pioneer Award a number of years ago... does that disqualify me from writing about something for which I am eminantly qualified to write and are you going to have a problem if I create a stub for such a article? For completeness and accuracy I will certainly be mentioned in it. If so, I won't waste my time writing it and it will probably never get done (to the detriment of those Wikipedia users who might like to have learned about it). I promise you, I won't be writing articles about things for which I know nothing or have no association. The fact that I have been very successful in certain areas should not be a problem for you.Firewall 18:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Arzap Drogue Stones

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

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