User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

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

Panathinaikos FC

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

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

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

Ante Pavelic

Please, do not contribute to the edit war here. You are an administrator - aren't you??? I verified the context and saw it well-referenced and accurate.

Hi There

I have wanted to smile at you for a long time

Why Wiki Why (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Kosovo Intro

Please add your suggested changes and post results @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&action=edit&section=29

You are not fair at all

You banned the Greeks,because they think it is not fair,to use the term Republic of Macedonia,cause is not recognized from the united nations...You use fascists methods to spread F.Y.R.O.M S PROPAGANDA ON INTERNET....i will find the way to report you to other administrators...behaviours like yours are a shame for wikipedia,you are insulting all of us....This country has the name F.Y.R.O.M.official name not Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia...so be wise and change the name yourself..your actions are offensive and are giving power to hate and racism...i hope you will understand finally..

A Tale of Two Cities

Hello,

You edited the A Tale of Two Cities Wikipedia entry in March by revealing the ending of the book in the first paragraph of the introduction of the entry, where no spoilers are meant to appear. I was casually reading only the introduction entry, taking care not to read any further, 3/4 of the way through the book, when the ending was ruined for me by you. I would have preferred that you had left the intentional mistake there, inaccurate though it was. I hope you're pleased with yourself.

Josh Burkart Davis, CA, US

Komotini

Certain IP users feel that the Turkish name should be included in the infobox along side the Greek name, because a Turkish minority exists. The Turkish name is already listed in the history section. See users Special:Contributions/77.242.19.9, Special:Contributions/217.24.247.86, and Special:Contributions/217.24.247.236. Can you semi-protect the article? _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this ip user is also causing problems with Sarande. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really supposed to use semi-protection to give registered users an advantage over anon users unless the anons are clearly acting in bad faith or are otherwise egregiously disruptive. In this instance, I can't help but notice that you yourself were edit-warring about as bad as the anon, although you didn't literally break the 3RR. I've protected the article (on the wrong version, naturally), but also blocked the IP for a short while because of the parallel revert wars elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am certain those three IPs are the same user, because all three have edited both Saranda and Komotini within the same space of time. This whole thing started when I got into an argument with him over leaving in the town's Greek name, and he fired back that the same should be done for Komotini. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, it seems to me that the three IPs above are in fact none other than User:Arditbido, who back in February got into a ferocious revert-war with Megistias on Chaonians, first as IP Special:Contributions/217.24.237.116 and then as User:Arditbido. In the contribs log for Special:Contributions/217.24.237.116, you can see that he also edited Saranda, which Arditbido claims as his hometown. The similarity in IPs and interests leads me to believe that the three IPs are in fact Arditbido, who was placed under revert parole on Feb 13th for his part in that revert war. Coincidentally, the disruption on Saranda started on April 13th, the very day his revert parole expired. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, look. That IP user is seriously confused in that he/she continues to add city names in different languages whether or not they have a minority. Look at his edit summaries: there are no minorities in durres so there is no need for other languages. What is that suppose to mean? Long before it was an Albanian city there were Greeks, Romans, etc. living in it. Now because the city has no Greek or Roman minority we're just going to delete the information? Komotini is spelled in Greek because it is a Greek city. It's Turkish name doesn't belong in the infobox because it's not a Turkish city, it belongs in the history section where it is. This IP user blatantly deletes information for no reason at all and doesn't bother if it's necessary to put the deleted info in a more appropriate section. And as Tsourkpk has pointed out whoever this IP user is, he/she seems to have a history of blatant editwarring. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm now positive those three IPs you mentioned are User:Arditbido. Too many coincidences (same interests, mentality, similarity in IP address, resumption of edit-warring the day the revert parole expired). --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep you`re right it is me Arditbido, and so? Lets find a solution. Every town in Albania will have the greek, latin, etc name in its page, and every town in greece, will have the turkish name in it, or macedonian, jewish, albanian, arvanitic, aromanian, in areas where there is or was a certain minority.

From what I can see here, there is a problem with putting the Greek (or any other language) names in the lead for cities and towns in Albania. Greek users want it, but when it comes to articles in Greece, no. Not sure, but didn't this happen with Greeks and Turks a while back? And the Greeks and ethnic Macedonians? Honestly I don't see the point. Create a "name" section, or chuck them in the "history" section. BalkanFever 07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The level of double-standards thinking on all sides is mindboggling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the best place to bring this up and reach consensus? BalkanFever 07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We tried that with a dedicated policy draft page with the Greek-Turkish issue some time back, but it never really materialised into a working guideline. It would indeed be a simple issue if people really thought like encyclopedia authors. But unfortunately too many wikipedia editors tend to think of geography articles the way dogs think of lampposts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative introductory toponyms must burn in hell. :D BalkanFever 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They are surely getting a lot of fresh fuel down there lately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, no, I'm actually for the inclusion of alternative names most of the time, but if they are more than one or maximally two or if they require any amount of explanation, they shouldn't be in the brackets in the lead sentence. My preferred position is an extra sentence at the end of the lead section (better there than in an extra names section, that's only for the exreme cases). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely call Korçë an extreme case. BalkanFever 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the relevant statistics for the Rhodope Prefecture I see no reason why the Turkish name should not be displayed prominently. Compare that with Gostivar and it's invisible Albanian majority.--Dexippus (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why there should be a consensus somewhere, instead of addition and removal. BalkanFever 13:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have a long-standing agreement that in the lead paragraph only one name should be mentioned (the name in the official country's language) and all the others should be in the name section? Again, it seems it's only the evil Greeks who adhere to that...--   Avg    13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just you, I'm the one who's been removing them from the towns in my country. And that agreement is what I was going by. BalkanFever 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not use official recognition as the test for including alternative names in the lead? At least that would be an objective test for marking territories.--Dexippus (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a terribly good criterion in my opinion. Some states have very restrictive policies on not "recognising" minority languages at all (Turkey comes to mind), while others are or have been forced to be more "liberal" about such recognitions. Following their different standards basically boils down to granting the states censorship over our coverage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fut. perhaps you'd be interested in this? --   Avg    13:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not censorship over coverage, the alternative names would still be included in a name section in the main text. I'm suggesting that only currently used official languages should be mentioned in the lead (so as to avoide the Korçë mess). The real problem is implementing policies, try explaining it to every anon who wants his wayyy and policing every single article. The "inclusive" approach has clearly failed (how else can Gostivar be explained).--Dexippus (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No the problem is this. That IP user wants to force the Turkish name of Komotini in the infobox. That's not going to happen. It has no place there. It's not a turkish city to begin with. Now if he wants the turkish name of Komotini in the article because of the historical reasons........fine by me. But not in the infobox. It goes in the history or name section as according to this: WP:NCGN. And if you're curious, the turkish name is in the history section. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a very thorny issue, but one that I feel is too important to leave unresolved, as it will invariably lead to all sorts of edit warring. How about the following: 1) Official name only in the infobox (to avoid a Korce-style mess). 2) If a living, significant minority (more than a few hundred individuals) exists in the city, include the name in the language of the minority in the first line of intro, in parentheses (e.g. Greek for Saranda, Turkish for Komotini, etc..) 3) If there is a strong historical connection between an ethnic group and the city (i.e. the city was founded by that group, or was the majority of the population for most of its history), include that with an explanation somewhere in the first paragraph. We should be able to reach a consensus if we all put our minds to it in good faith. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

ΟΞΩ ΟΞΩ

Are you too "involved" to ban that guy? How'd you know Malvina, anyway? 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid yes, too involved. He must be at 6 or 7 reverts now, together with his IPs yesterday. Unfortunately, you and me have also already gone to 4... :-(. Κατάρα στον λαδέμπορα. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

About Malvina, they teach you such tricks when you join KYP, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that double redirect for you ;). BalkanFever 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the cursive "Κατάρα στον λαδέμπορα" is offensive language regarding my person.

Second, both of your reverts are original reserach while mine, are cited.

Third, how come you are "too involved", and why such a fixation regarding my person? --Elampon (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Too involved" simply means I cannot take administrative action against you myself while I'm in an editorial dispute with you. I'd otherwise have blocked you by now. But when I'm involved as an editor in the dispute I'm supposed to leave blocks and such to other administrators. BTW, the "katara" wasn't directed at you personally. You are not an oil merchant, are you? – About your reversal of the facts about whose edits are cited and whose aren't, no comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This cursive is directed personally at me, and will be reported as soon as i found out how. "No comment", ofc no comment you have nothing to comment as you have remained silent in the talk page as well.

The Linguist List, dear, is clear. And my edits are clear and cited, the only edit of my own that is not cited is the "evolve" edit, all the others are appropriate and needed.

And when you do find a comment, let me know. As for me being an "oil-merchant", a "lademporas" is irrelevant and your excuse is ridiculous. It is like saying to somebody "curse to the goat-herder", and then asking him if he actually is one.--Elampon (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And 3rdAlcove, how come you are so interested to get me banned? And why dont you like my edits, and references? --Elampon (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry man, the "lademporas" was really not aimed at you, honest. - as for the rest, well. Well. Well. What can I say? Well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know, i am the one who forced you to revert 4 times, and hence, this remark is clearly directed at me. As for your comments, "Well...well""--Elampon (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, jumping in here from a completely neutral point of view, I'm not particularly sure what's going on, but I've been asked to take a look by Elampon. Elampon, from the above, I can deduce your side of the story. Future Perfect, why are you / are you reverting well sourced edits to original research? If so, why? What's the matter with what Elampon is adding? I haven't got any knowledge whatsoever of the content of this article, so at the moment I'm not accusing either side at all - I just need to know the facts, and they're not particularly jumping out at me. _TalkIslander 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, thanks for watching. Elampon is pushing the Greek nationalist meme that Ancient Mac. was simply and certainly a Greek dialect, whereas the overwhelming majority of international scholarship says that we know too little about it to ever know, although it was most likely at least closely related. Elampon is blatantly reversing the facts where he says his edits are cited while mine aren't; the exact opposite is true. He is pushing a bizarre OR idea that XMK "evolved" into later Koine Greek, whereas all scholarship agrees it was "replaced" by it. He has not a shadow of a source for that. He is also blatantly misrepresenting one source, which he claims classifies XMK as Greek, when it is plain obvious when you only look at it that it does no such thing; it classifies it as a sister of Greek within a larger superfamily.

Apart from that, yes, I seem to have broken 3RR yesterday; having lost count when in addition to Elampon another (much more abusive) IP editor harassing me joined the fray. My little stunt at showing off with Greek slang expressions was triggered by that guy; I'm honestly sorry if Elampon felt personally attacked by that, it truly wasn't intended like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a summary of our discussion in the talk page[1]

The majority accepts it as a Greek language, and the Linguist List database, classifies it as such[2], why should not this be clear and cited? And how is this Greek nationalism? And why should this be replaced with original research?

In addition, the remarks defended by FPas, are not the accepted view, and are blatantly original research. The "evolve" edit, is the only edit of mine that is not cited, but this "replaced" term implies that a language other than Greek was replaced by the Koine Greek, which is original research as well, and supportive of the minority view, and it is also a distortion, because the accepted fact, is that Ancient Macedonian, belongs to Hellenic family tree. The position pushed by FPas, is that of a nationalist person from the Republic of Macedonia, and the respective quotes which he defends(and are original research) can be found in nationalistic Republic of Macedonia videos all over the youtube, where they support, that Ancient Macedonian, is a language other than Greek, and support it with the exact same edits, that FPaS is defending, by claiming that "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language" and hence unable to form a consensus, this besides the fact that it is original research, it is also a distortion because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", and the consensus has been reached, and the language has been classified as Greek, as you can see from the Linguist List Database, which is the International valid authority of Linguistics, worldwide. A consensus has not been reached as to where should be Macedonian be classified within the Greek languages, and not whether it is a Greek language or not. This is crystal, and terms implying otherwise, while at the same time being original research, certainly cannot be accepted.--Elampon (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't know how to read a tree diagram, do you. The link is [3]. It is plain obvious that this tree classifies XMK not under Greek but side by side with Greek, under a common parent node called in this proposal "Hellenic". BTW, no, this database at LinguistList is not a "international valid authority of linguistics". You are making things up. It's just a rough-and-ready tool compiled by people who aren't necessarily content experts on each of these languages, and it certainly has not pretensions of presenting a fixed and final consensus about each and every detail of what it contains. For the real state of the art, read the article and then walk into a library and read the books we quote. This has all been discussed here a million times; you are just re-hashing old misunderstandings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It classifies XMK, side by side with the other Greek dialects, which all belong to the Hellenic tree. Your idea, that consensus has not been reached, is blatantly false.

And the Linguist List is the database that illustrates the current consensus. And is the site responsible for the XMK code-link, which is linked on the article, while the the same article, writes, the original research term "possibly" Greek, when in fact the XMK link that leads to the Linguist List, classifies it in the Hellenic family tree. My edit was "this language is Indo-European, of the Hellenic family tree" and i cited the source, and i did not touch, the rest that goes.. "possibly a close cousin, or a sibling language, or to some extent related to Phrygian", in order not to cut off the other theories. I added something that is crystal true, and referenced. Second, do not question, my knowledge on the sources, because you have clearly no idea regarding my person. And i repeat; the next remark is: fallacious, dangerous, POV, and original research: "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language", because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", i can bring you a million examples from youtube nationalist videos, where the particular quote is used to promote a specific agenda. And i also repeat, the Linguist List from the Michigan University, presents the Linguistic consensus, which in this particular case has already been reached, and Ancient Macedonian is not "possibly" Greek, but is firmly inside the Hellenic family. In addition, if one takes a look at this page of yours, it is crystal-clear that you have aided people from the Republic of Macedonia, on the past, and when they need something, they come over to you for help.--Elampon (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow yeah, I aid people editing, and when they need something they come over to me for help. You know what, I'm very proud of that, because that's my job in this project. Now, can you please stop wasting electrons on my screen. I'm not going to search for another slang expression to tell you this time, but you might go and take some inspiration from the title of this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, no comment regarding, our disputed "text", this should conclude, this discussion; and i will kindly ask from the Insider, to revert back to my edits, with the "evolve" edit, to remain unchanged as it is, to "replaced" since i cannot cite it, but the Hellenic family tree oughts to be there, since it is fact and cited, while the "Marginalized from the 5th BCE" to be deleted as it is original research, as well as the "It was probably spoken inland, and away from the coast" to be deleted as it is original research as well.

Unfortunaltely for your so-called ethnic-Macedonian friends, the consensus in Linguistics has been reached, and their agenda of promoting it as a "phantom" language cannot be supported. --Elampon (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've seen enough now ;). Future Perfect, perhaps you shouldn't have cited that slang expression, as it seems that after a misunderstanding Elampon took it as a bit of a slur, though I clearly note that you've apologised for that quite a bit now. Equally, though it is understandable that you are getting frustrated, quips like "...please stop wasting electrons on my screen" are not helpful, and just further problems. Also, can I suggest that both of you take a look at WP:3RR - you've both broken it at some point in this. Future Perfect, as the reverts weren't really blatent vandalism, they don't really fall under the exlcusions for 3RR. Clearly no further action should be taken in this case, but I point this out merely so that you're aware ;) (I suspect you are anyway, from the things you've typed).

All that aside, Elampon, you are clearly in the wrong. The site that you reference shows, as Future Perfect points out, a simple tree diagram, in which this language is placed beside Greek, and not within it. Future Perfect's reasoning is backed up by other editors and reliable third-party sources; your's is not. Please step back, cool off, and in future discuss contraversial edits before making them. If you continue to be disruptive (which making a mountain out of a mole hill and then refusing to accept any appology is, and which adding poorly cited material to an article against editors who know what they're talking about is), then you'll probably end up being blocked. Don't make a sysop block you, there's no need.

_TalkIslander 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Islander, i am not clearly in the wrong, The Linguist List shows the consensus, and the consensus is that the Ancient Macedonian belongs to the Hellenic family tree this is the current scientific consensus as reported by the Michigan University, and this is what my edit clearly writes. The other remarks of FPas, are clear distortions and original research, while my edits are cited. I do not see how original research material are correct and cited material are in the wrong, sincerely. This has got to be one of the unknown cases when cited material are being replaced by original research. As for the slur, it is a clear insult. And the apology, came only after i warned him, that i will report it. --Elampon (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not meant as an insult, and Future Perfect has appologised profusely, and he only appologised then because he didn't know how much it insulted you beforehand. I'm not a linguist, and so cannot verify this one way or another. However, it's been said that the Linguist List is not the best of sources. If what you say is true, you'll be able to find me a list of other, reliable sources to back you up. So, please show us these sources. _TalkIslander 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Islander, the ISO-standards website in regards to XMK[4] writes explicitly "for description see Linguist List", and the Linguist List is clear on the matter, if the ISO standards are not good enough, i sincerely do not know what is. In addition, the most up-to-date theories all agree that it is a Greek language, the theories that claim otherwise are outdated and old. You can see this from the wiki article, in the paragraph "classification". But this is really besides the point, because the ISO-standards, have published their consensus, and the consensus is exactly as i wrote it in my edit. "A Indo-European language of the Hellenic family tree, but its exact relationship is unclear: possibly this..and possibly that." In addition the text "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language", is very bad POV and original research as well because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", i have cited and even linked the book from the google.books database. Regarding the slur, i do not sicnerely care if this person should be punished for it or not, but it is useful to illustrate the POV of our respective positions, and a probably evident bias regarding this particular case. --Elampon (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise"--Elampon (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock?

Here [5] you commented rv sock, wording a bit closer to the sources. May I, and the people who read that, know whose sock I am? 85.75.93.132 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused little man, let's hope that you'll be able to find an answer to my question until tomorrow. Good night and good luck. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am. You can't go around accusing and swearing at people you don't know. Not in WP. You've been for quite some time here, I think, you should know better. ktr (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ktr (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you need help?

I can't quite work out what is going on here but it looks like you are being harrassed. Is there anything I can do to help? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for asking. Yep, כתר (talk · contribs) was a harassment-only account, definitely a reincarnation or bad-hand sock of some experienced user with an axe to grind, who previously used to pick edit-wars against me through anon IPs. The other guy is just a somewhat aggressive tendentious n00b who won't take no for an answer, but I'd still assume some good faith in that case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to doing the blocks though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I returned too late. I'll certainly keep an eye on your page and the other relevant pages when the blocks expire ;). _TalkIslander 18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Antihellenic sentiment from our own gung(sic) leader??

Tsk Tsk, such a low blow from an esteemed admin! Φριτζιος ων, εναντια τη Ελλαδι υπερ των Σλαβομακεδονων εμαχετο; to paraphrase a later guy. ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, couldn't resist ;-) I have a feeling Niko is gonna hate me particularly for this... (and I think I also got the grammar wrong.) But the addressee can't really complain; after all, I was implicitly likening him to a great and warlike king, wasn't I? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialects

Hi, according to "Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett. (2002) The Slavonic Languages (p. 247. The Macedonian Language) (New York: Routledge Publications)", the Korca-Kostur-Nestram dialects are part of the Western group. Alekishere (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for sticking up for me. It is pretty frustrating when you get burned for combatting the vandals. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING by User:Imbris

User:Imbris has engaged in CANVASSING concerning a move vote in the Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta article. He has repeatedly been messaging people and trying to persuade them to vote in accordance to his own personal view on the matter. He appears to have ignored my requests to cease, I'm hoping he'd stop if he was warned to stop by an Admin.
Canvassing: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus picture

On "Image:Proposedjesus.jpg" you wrote "people in Jesus' time looked no different from people today, so a reconstruction of just some random guy of Jesus' time tells us zilch about him."

"People" is a pretty broad term here. I assume you mean "people who live in Jesus' area", but what makes you think they look "no different"? Migrations, wars and such change the way cultures look. If Popular Mechanics and the BBC thought the subject was worthy of coverage and analysis, I'd call that a fair argument for notability. Have you got any sources that say otherwise? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was discussing that with Paul B a few threads above too. If you want to make such an argument, the least thing that's necessary in my view is that it needs to be in support of an actual passage of text that describes the study it was part of. It's the normal criterion for fair use: Fair use is basically only if you need to talk about the image, in the text. So, if that study was such an important part of how scientists today deal with the historical Jesus (I have my doubts it was, rather than just a popular media gimmick, but I leave that to you to work out), then by all means write a section on it in the text and use the image for illustrating that. But don't use as having an image for the sake of having an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reply: Image talk:Proposedjesus.jpg. Mdiamante (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

hi, thanx for clarification

there would be no way of posting it. Thats alrite, just delete it i guess. I was wondering is there a special program i should get to modify this image to look properly, as opposed to editing it on photoshop? I would like some help with this if it is possible? thanx P m kocovski (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes your right, i dunno wat {{db-g7}} means. Is there a category to post internet images or is that not-free as well.? P m kocovski (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thankyou. I will. Could you give me a step-by-step of just say adding colour to one country? if that is possible? P m kocovski (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could you please delete this picture for me please? File:MacedoniansintheWorld.png i am making a new version P m kocovski (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Babic

Can you please explain reasons for your support of POV pushing user:Mike Babic . Because of POV pushing he has been reverted in articles Controversy over Kosovo independence (by The Devil's Advocate) ,Hashim Thaçi (by user:Dchall1 ,user:Ossicle ), The Hunting Party (2007 film) (by user:Dchall1 ). Like you can see I have not spoken about article Serbs of Croatia or using 2 accounts. I am sure that you will not agree but in my thinking Mike Babic is nationalistic, edit warring SPA account. 1-2 day block will not change his way of editing ...

When I speak about him can you please move picture with name Image:Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg to right name Famous Serbs from Croatia because it is POV and because Mike Babic has first created that picture with name Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg and few minutes later in article Serbs of Croatia he has given second name to picture. This is clear example of bad faith edit because it is not possible to give 1 name now and second name 5 minutes later.

Can you please in future look his edits (in similar way in which you are looking my edits) so that they are NPOV --Rjecina (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your advice

There is an article about Pontic Greek language but as you see the title is a confusing one as Pontic Greek can mean a person or etc but doesn't imply that the article is a linguistic one. Now i think the title must be changed but as i expect that you have some experience with other cases what would seem more reasonable; to change it to Pontic Greek dialect or simply Pontiaka as they are known in Greek? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

XMK

{{History of the Greek language}}, which doesn't seem like a linguistic publication, likes to classify it as a dialect. Normally I would remove it, but apparently that would be spreading some form of propaganda. BalkanFever 10:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of a relaxed approach to wording in info- or nav-boxes. Just imagine we had to squabble about exactly with what wording we should hedge the claim ("likely"? "possibly"? "...(but has been hypothesised to have been a separate language)"? "...(marginal)"? Shudder. Just leave it be, it does little harm in that box. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh. On looking at the history, 3rdAlcove added "possibly" and Dimboukas removed it. BalkanFever 10:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Videmus Omnia

Can you tell me if this user is legit? I'm not sure how, but when I try to see this user's user page, I see myself logged in! Also in Wikimedia although I have a different user name there as 1mrg3105.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, yes, V.O. was a legitimate contributor. He had some trouble with another editor off-wiki and decided to leave, that's why his user page is deleted. I can't really tell what you mean by "I see myself logged in", though, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When I click on his user page, I see his user page but at the top it says mrg3105, etc. If he had left, why is he/she deleting images? Moreover, most of these images have been in public domain for decades, and no notices were posted to talk pages if there were copyright issues.

You mean commons:User:Videmus Omnia, his user page on commons? Weird, I can see nothing unusual about that. Can't imagine what you are seeing there, technically. As for his actions, yeah, he's apparently still active on commons; I wasn't aware of that; and he's an admin there. If you have a problem with his deletions, why don't you go and ask him directly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I had, and did get a reply. There was apparently a change in legislation on the 1 January 2008 of which I was unaware of, as would many English language editors. It seems to me a less then wise move to unilaterally delete images which may or may not have been in violation of the copyright because they use a template that is no longer applicable. For the most part the use of template would not have been in intended copyright violation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo

Hi! Can you take a look at Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo article and tell me what you think cause I have made many changes to the article for several reasons:

• that region is non official, instead there are municipalities such as Pustec, Korča and many others. In Albania there is no such region,
• the article should be about geography of that so called region not the nationalities that live there,
• the article was a reason for many conflicts btw the users,
• and if someone want to write about the Macedonians or any nationality in Albania, there are different articles and Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo is not place for that.

And can you somehow separate the article into two articles because Mala Prespa is something else and it is located near Ohrid Lake and Golo Brdo is located near Debar and Struga. There is no connection between the two small regions. I think these changes that I have made would be a great solution for many conflicts concerning this article. Thanks --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

pictures and dialects picture

hi, thanx for the help with the pictures, i created a better version using the inkscape. I also noticed that on the map Macedonia slavic dialects the vevcani-radozda dialect is only in albania, which is incorrect. This map shows a more realistic veiw of where it is situated, half in macedonia the other half in albania. other than that it is very gud. Thanx again. P m kocovski (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, although the map is great but the division of the dialects is wrong. There is no Debar dialects and between Polog dialects and Kičevo dialect there is no at least slightest connection. The old one is more natural and is based on th similarities between the dialects.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello guys, I haven't really got time to deal with the Golo Brdo stuff right now, sorry about that. As for the dialect classification, I think the only way we can get into a meaningful discussion of which classification is more useful to our readers is if we can get our hands on the original analyses and get an understanding on what actual dialect differences these classifications are supposed to represent. I might be able to get some stuff from the library some time during the next days (certainly the Comrie book, which must be a pretty good resource). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you plan to use that book, keep in mind not to name the group Polo, because Polog group is made of Upper and Lower Polog and Kičevo-Poreče is different. And also do not name Debar group or Ohrid group. Why we should join them in one group. The problem is for Korča only, and we can discuss for that dialect only. I know the dialects from Western Macedonia very well, thats why I do not want to be put in a group that is not good.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, subjective impressions like this, even by a native speaker, are not terribly helpful here. Neither is an appeal to authority such as saying that this or that is a publication by the Academy or whatnot. We need to know what actual features are involved. So, what are the isoglosses that divide (for instance) U Polog and L Polog from Kicevo? Does the work you used actually give such a rationale for its classification? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, as I see my work is not welcomed here. Lower Polog is similar with the south Serbian dialects. That is the difference. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria and Nord Rhein Westfalen are not same regions, that is the case in Macedonia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Poreče-Kičevo is central dialect and Debar group is imaginative group. A foreigner can not know more than our academics and native speakers. We all know which dialect is which. It is more reliable than someone says something from Australia, USA or wherever.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why getting upset? I'm just trying to have a friendly chat between linguists here. I'm simply curious as to what the basis for those classifications is. In the end, of course, there's no such thing as a dialect group. It's all just a web of cross-cutting isoglosses, and the rest is simplifying abstractions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - Fut.Perf. could the map have it's old stamp Bulgarian on the territory of Bulgaria? --Laveol ^T 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No! The map shows macedonian dialects. Not bulgarien, not greek, not albanian , not serbien. Only macedonian.--Raso mk (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Argh. My intention in the original map was to make it look like both the "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" strings go across that area, but then I thought it looked clumsy and I'd better leave it to the text to explain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OKs. --Laveol ^T 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New England Interstate Route 8

Hey- I know this isn't a history subject, but geography is close. Anyway, there is a page called New England Interstate Route 8 in which the old route NE-8 from 1922-1926 is supposed to be discussed. Instead, in User Talk:Polaron, Polaron is convinced that it means all the routes called 8 in the region of New England, which makes no sense, because they are not interstate- the roads are different in each state, hence the markers. I reference the roadgeek.com site because it clearly discusses the NE system. Thanks! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Other users treated as Dodona

Other users are treated as me “wrongly”, is this just an excuse treating them as I it was me?

I still believe that you over reacted with me, this is understandable if you look you my user page User:Dodona . I still am open to an agreement, I never was a vandal and misbehave although I was justified to do that , do not forget ..!

Yes, I know other people are mistakenly treated as you, Dodona. We aren't doing this on purpose. We can't avoid it, can we? It's your fault. I told you before that with your behaviour you are actually harming other Albanian contributors. This could all stop at once if you just gave us a clear promise that you'll actually stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying with all I have done to protect my country history and name from manipulations that I am harming other Albanian users?!They are not usual Albanian users actualty because the most active ones were blocked and banned .I have some experience actualy and you have to respect that.. compare... with a bunch of greek users working intesively.You got to keep the balance and not to ban me ! I can of course just stop using different accounts.You in exchange release my account after a reasonable punishment period, you will expect me to just leave do you? After all those references hunting I have done. ..

No, Dodona, you are banned. Accept it. And it wasn't my doing, don't blame me. Whatever you do, this is not going to change any time soon. You have the choice: you can just be reasonable and forget about this project, or you can keep making a nuisance of yourself. Either way, there is no chance for you to ever actually change an article. You'll be found and reverted. You'll just cause everybody and yourself more annoyance. And yes, as long as you keep fighting windmills, this project will do whatever it takes to keep you out as well as it can. That means other innocent editors will suffer as a side-effect. I don't like it when that happens, but that's life. If you want other Albanian editors in your place to be able to edit through those IPs, give me your promise that you'll leave us alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You want me to leave for just opening a discussion, you insisted with Moreschi I was about to be released … Leave you …who are you? We have collaborated and I considered you as friend and still do .Do you mean that my all my contribution was nothing and did not change the light at all ….

"you will expect me to just leave?" - yes, that is exactly what I expect. And if you're smart, that's what you'll do. You are doing no good here, and will only harm your countrymen and your nation's portrayal on Wikipedia. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear that from an Albanian , no I only give another view that’s all.The one that was almost ignored , you like it or not .I was appricated from my people and the others … I know . May I ask you what country you belong? What ever you support just respect the oposition and be fair

My national portreit it is stamped from the histrory and not one ,neither me nor you can change nothing ,the truth will come out by rebels like me and not from the camp of mediocres

Templates

I am interested to know if restoring templates dubious and citation needed is revert or not ? Reason for question are obscure books which are used like source without possibility to see internet links (I speak about article Srbosjek and this change)--Rjecina (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Afghan socks

Since you jumped to my defence with the SwatiAfridi case, I thought I might bring this to your attention: There's another sock, Tajik007 working against established consensus on Afghanistan. Thanks for any input/help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Name issue

I was banned, because i just made the same standard in every town, in Albania and Greece. Will we find a solution, not double standards, to name issue? I propose that only names of ethnicities which live in a town, should be written in the heading. So do you agree with my proposal? balkanian (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little bit more complex than that. Just a few remarks:

• We should be talking about the inclusion of name variants not as a means of gratifying some local population groups or of symbolically recognising their existence, let alone some political claims to territory or minority status. We include names because they are valuable encyclopedic info for outside readers. (Local readers don't need Wikipedia to tell them how they are called, they already know that.)
• The most important criterion for inclusion or exclusion is therefore not how the various groups of locals call a place, but which names have been historically used in English. On that criterion, you will often need the original names of ancient or medieval cities. In your part of the world, that often implies Greek names or their Latinized variants (e.g. "Dyrrachium") or Italian forms ("Durazzo").
• I will never understand why people are so damned obsessed with that position in the first sentence of an article. The bracketed position after the head term should always be kept short and crisp. If there's more than one or two names to be covered, and/or if they need any amount of explanation, they should go somewhere else. On the other hand, I don't particularly like hiding them away in a "history" section either. My personal preference, in many cases, is an extra sentence at the end of the lead section. Like:

[...] The town has also be known historically under the original Greek name AAA or its Latinized form BBB, and under its Italian name CCC. In the language of the local DDD'ese minority it is called EEE.

If you have something like that, then the initial words can be reserved to the most common English name and (where different) the local official name in the national language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me too complexed. Wiki is not meant to be complexed for no purpose. Please see Korça for example. balkanian (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Saranda

I have been constantly reverted from editing Saranda. My references (a study from Council of Europe and an other one from Southeast Europe Organisation)) have been reverted for no reason from user:Megistas. I need help, in order not to start an edit war again, becouse I will not allow neutreal edits been reverted (like this one [11] by any nationalist. balkanian (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this an obvious copyright violation?

(Deletion log); 09:47 . . Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Kcat.jpg" (obvious copyvio)

Doug Youvan (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)