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 – 12 May 2008 –

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

Greece and Epirus, Kosovo Vandalism

I had written some real facts about Greece, Epirus and Kosovo.

Greece facts proven by BBC and CNN reports. Epirus facts true from many years, reported by historian and discovered in a research in 2005. Kosovo is INCORRECTLY spelled, since It's populated with Albanians, it IS THE RIGHT OF ALBANIANS TO NAME IT, and it's real name is KosovA!

I'm very dissappointed with your service, you are unable to verify real facts and just remove what you think not true, I want to contribute but in this circumstances it is IMPOSSIBLE!

AND THIS http://my.telegraph.co.uk/f_off_telegraph_censors/may_2008/country_list_of_most_homosexuals_born_live.htm IS A SERIOUS TELEGRAPH! HOW THE HELL YOU KNOW THAT IT ISN'T? GO GET A LIFE, MAN!

Criticism

I am really having problem with vandals and your criticism. see this Rjecina

Dodona apology

Dodona is back , in fact i have been around , i came to apologias specially to you because i feel guilty somehow truly , we had a Besa and i broke it because i though you were just misleading me ( and you were somehow..) . I truly i am no matter if decide to release my account or not ...Any way i think also you had a role in my blocking.Could this situation change?? you need another hand to improve Arvanites without me the view would be mediocre

Jingiby

Broke his topic-ban here. BalkanFever 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How interestingly! Jingby (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban Jingiby, he is racist and pan-slavist, he is against real sources. look what he did in turkic peoples page.--195.174.21.135 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and thank you for the recognition, dear sockpuppet! Jingby (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dodona

Can anything be done about that guy? He keeps posting his nonsensical comments in article and talk space under Macedoni from Korca and various IPs 80.78.64.246, 80.91.122.11 etc. 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another: Arianitasi. Could you do anything about it or should I just ask another admin who will need an explanation going back to 2007? 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean War Crimes

Future.

I was the initial author of this topic. I used the reference that I gave at the bottom of the article from the original academic papers.

I know your statement not to be true. Dealing with such specific cases, it is impossible not to use the same language and using quotation where accredited is not WP:Copyvio.

If I am incorrect, please provide the 3 or 4 internet pages you refer to.

I cant comment on how it stood at the point your deleted it, as you have removed the history but there were 11 votes for and 2 against.

I am sorry but where policy states specific material only I have to challenge your action. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. It is "impossible not to use the same language"? Take an academic writing class at your friendly local university, quick. It is very much possible, and in fact crucial, to use your own language. Otherwise you are committing plagiarism. When I see texts like that in a student's paper they get a fail mark, if I see it from a wiki editor they get speedy deletion.

By the way, my deletion was entirely independent of the spectrum of opinions on the AfD, it was a Speedy deletion.

For the record, here's a few representative samples of how you plagiarised:

Source	Original text	Your text
[1]	When parts of South Korea were under North Korean control, political killings, reportedly into the tens of thousands, took place in the cities and villages. [...] South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, often with U.S. military knowledge and without trial, executed in turn tens of thousands of leftist inmates and alleged Communist sympathizers [...] Gregory Henderson, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time, put the total figure at 100,000, and the bodies of those killed were often dumped into mass graves.	Political killings, reportedly into the tens of thousands, took place in cities and villages. South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, executed tens of thousands of leftist and alleged communist sympathizers, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time putting the total figure at 100,000, the bodies of those killed were often dumped into mass graves.
[2]	Korean forces on both sides routinely rounded up and forcibly conscripted both males and females in their area of operations; thousands of them never returned home.	Korean forces on both sides routinely rounded up and forcibly conscripted both males and females in their area of operations; thousands of them never returned home.
[3]	After the withdrawal of Japanese forces, there were calls for committees to identify and expose those who were Japanese sympathizers and collaborators, thus beginning the process of reconciliation.	After the withdrawal of Japanese forces, there were calls for committees to identify and expose those who were Japanese sympathizers and collaborators, thus beginning the process of reconciliation.
[4]	But while South Korea was under military dictatorship the victims and their family members had to keep silent, fearing punishment if they spoke out.	While South Korea was under military dictatorship the victims and their family members had to keep silent, fearing punishment if they spoke out
[5]	A Korean government commission cleared 83 of 148 Koreans convicted by the Allies of war crimes during World War II. The commission ruled that the Koreans, who were categorized as Class B and Class C war criminals, were in fact victims of Japanese imperialism. Of the 148 Koreans convicted of war crimes, some 23 would eventually be executed. Excluded from redemption were high-ranking officers and MPs suspected of voluntarily collaborating with the Japanese; Some 86 names were looked at overall; a judgment on the other three will follow investigations by local government bodies. The commission ruled—now get this—that the Korean war criminals, who “unavoidably” became POW camp guards to avoid the Japanese draft (read: they volunteered as POW guards to avoid fighting at the front), were saddled by the Japanese with responsibility for the abuse of Allied POWs, and hence had to suffer the “double pain” of forced mobilization AND becoming a war criminal. It gets better—the head of the commission said analysis of military prosecutor records, recently obtained from British state archives, on 15 Korean POW camp guards “confirmed” that they were convicted of war crimes “without clear evidence.”	A Korean government commission cleared 83 of 148 Koreans convicted by the Allies of war crimes during World War II, some 23 of whom would eventually be executed. The commission ruled that the Koreans, who were categorized as Class B (conventional war crimes), and Class C (crimes against humanity) war criminals, were in fact "victims of Japanese imperialism". Excluded from redemption were high-ranking officers suspected of voluntarily collaborating with the Japanese. The commission ruled that the Korean war criminals “unavoidably” became POW camp guards to avoid the Japanese draft, that is they volunteered as POW guards to avoid fighting at the front, were made to carry the responsibility for the abuse of Allied POWs by the Japanese, and hence had to suffer a “double pain” of forced mobilization and becoming a war criminal. The head of the commission said that 15 Korean POW camp guards “confirmed” that they were convicted of war crimes “without clear evidence.”

And it goes on and on like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I add something on the user's conduct? Whenever this self-claim newbie refers to me, he writes like Appletrees (talk · contribs)/Caspian blue (talk · contribs) with insulting bashing, as if I was using a sock or doing something wrong. So I said to Ex-oneatf to refrain doing that and does not listen to this. Besides, he copy-pastes the same comment here and there (even a cooperatvie member of one of projects that I've engaged in as a promotion. The editor is clearly gaming the Wiki rule as claiming that sources are referenced. However the only inline citations I found are bogus and the article is copyvio. I cann't assume good faith.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The user did not add weblinks that he uses, I wonder why. That made editors unable to confirm the sources. The two of them above are not even reliable sites.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Korean war crimes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Korean war crimes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As a rule I dont use websites unless you call Jstor etc websites.

Future,

The topic is exact title of at least one major academic work, obviously referenced in many. I think you are jumping to conclusions here.

• The vets page you link to I had not seen. Actually it uses the same declassified government document as I referenced, the Philip D. Chinnery report which is why it is the same.
• The Scofield quotation was referenced at the bottom of the page.
• The Gittings quotation was referenced at the bottom of the page.
• Ditto the blog, again it is quoting the same original reference as I quoted. That does not equate to me quoting it.

and it goes on ... just because some blog quotes the same quote, it does not mean I saw it. All the orignal references I used were listed at the bottom of the article.

I already accepted the need to place the quotation in inline citation as requested and had marked the article inuse. You would need to more specific about the narrative element you critize.

You are quite correct, the problem with addressing contentious issue if one interprets the data, one is then accused of "original research" and so I use short, referenced citations where there can be no accusation of synthesis etc.

I can re-work all the quotation into inline citation as requested but I would like the discussion and history restored please.

I have used the copies for raising a question as above and at Media copyright questions. I will knock out a barebones article to act as a holding page shortly. Thank you. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing to work on it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ex-oneatf/Korean_war_crimes2.

I would appreciate your comments. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not enough for the references to be provided. You must write your own text. Taking over the sentence structure, choice of words and/or progression of ideas from a source is and always will be plagiarism. The only alternative is to mark something as a direct quote, but of course you can't have an article that just consists of direct quotes from start to finish, as yours would have to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the article was re-created by the original author, and re-deleted by User:Richardcavell. More info at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16. --Amble (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ArberBorici and ethnic "purity"

Hello FP,

User:ArberBorici has lately embarked on a campaign to remove any foreign names and pretty much anything foreign in Albanian geography articles on the sole grounds that "these languages are not official, therefore they should be removed". I keep telling him that Wikipedia is not about official policy, but he pretends he doesn't hear it and carries on regardless. Would you please be so kind as to weigh in on the discussion in Talk:Albania? Even more disturbing I find this edit here [6], which makes his agenda pretty clear. Not to mention this edit here [7], which is pure WP:POINT by even his own admission [8]. The discussion in Talk:Albania has degenerated into farce, with even our old friends Dodona chiming in. Thank you. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It never ceases to astonish me how easily people get their sense of appropriateness skewed by their national partisanship.

• "I want our name on their article! There's our minority that lives there!" — [Next day:] "You can't have your name on our article! Your minority sucks/is non-existent/lacks offical recognition/has no right to be there/no longer lives there because we drove them out and happily got rid of them!
• "If you can have your name on our article, I will force our name on your article!
• "If you remove our name from your article, I will remove your name from our article!
• "I just wanted to put our name on his article. But then he violated WP:POINT by putting his name on ours!"
• "I just wanted to remove their name from our article. But then he violated WP:POINT by removing our name from theirs!"

I keep hearing people shouting one or other of these all over the place, in all possible combinations, time and time again. I hope you can at least see that they are all five of them equally idiotic. He's just taken one of these positions, so he loses. And you have just taken another of them, so you lose too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which position I "took" because it is not clear to me. Did I remove the Albanian name from Ioannina? No. Did I remove the Slavic name from Florina? No. Did I remove the Turkish name from Komotini? No. Did I remove sourced material from an article because I didn't like it? No. In fact, I only remove names from the lead in extreme cases, such as the Turkish name from places such as Corinth and Tripoli. In any case, it is quite clear you are not interested in resolving this dispute, so thank you for your time and have a nice day. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the position you just exemplified was #4 in the list above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I didn't put any names in any articles. I merely added refs and re-instated sourced material that the other guy removed for no good reason. Did you even look at my contribs log before attempting to belittle me? And your #4 doesn't make sense to begin with, because WP:POINT is disruptive behavior, period. There is nothing wrong with calling someone on it, especially when I did not engage in such behavior myself. You're an admin. I shouldn't have to tell you this. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I always strive for an NPOV. This may sound naive to some, but that's a fact, and almost true, as facts tend to be. Now, the administrator has given five classes of what he calls idiotic, and what I prefer to call part of the idiocracy that is embarking on Wikipedia. In fact, I hardly see myself in any of those categorizations because every attempt of mine is to ameliorate the facts in articles related not only to Albania (my homeland). It takes, of course, a high degree of seriousness to comprehend that. No wonder Wikipedia becomes an object of criticism from time to time, which I always tend to counter-argument.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does this edit of yours [[9]] "ameliorate" the article in question? Care to explain? Not to mention your other POINTish edits on Ioannina Prefecture --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

someone being rude

Just to let you know that an anonymous editor has left an edit summary on cy: which appears to be a comment aimed against yourself. See: [10] — Alan^✉ 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The false map of the Slavic dialects in Greece

[...]

Incoherent ramblings removed, because there's no way I could respond to them and remain polite. Both Feristos Despoton and Politis, you are not welcome posting further on this topic unless you can answer me the question: Which isogloss, if any, runs between Serres and Drama? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Petar Stoychev

There are two articles about him: Petar Stoychev and Petar Stoichev. Maybe it will be better to merge them in one! Regards!Jingby (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Schmeiger

Do you have his book The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis? VMORO is using it as a source that Maleševo-Pirin is a dialect of Bulgarian, and to affirm that this "Blagoevgrad-Petrich" is Bulgarian. I have doubts, considering the book is about Macedonian, in Greece, not in RoM, and not about Bulgarian.

Also, he uses Trudgill to source that the dialect is Bulgarian but not Macedonian, even though Trudgill clearly states that in Bulgaria the language of its citizens is considered Bulgarian, and in Macedonia the language of its citizens is considered Macedonian, without (AFAICT) referring to Maleševo-Pirin (or Blagoevgrad-Petrich) at all.

Furthermore, he uses Roland Sussex and Paul Cubberley's The Slavic languages to source the Bulgarian-ness of Maleševo-Pirin, even though "Pirin" appears only once (p. 510), where it states it is transitional. The words Blagoevgrad and Petrich don't appear at all, yet it is used as a source for that too.

Please take a look, as this looks like a serious sourcing problem. BalkanFever 08:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't got access to the Schmieger text right now; I have only the quote that somebody put on the "...in Greece" page some time ago. I could probably find it somewhere if I found the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, it might be worth looking at Trudgill's Greece and European Turkey: From Religious to Linguistic Identity too (again, really doubt mentions of Bulgaria and RoM). The Sussex book (and the page cited, 510) is in the Google Book preview. Thanks. BalkanFever 09:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would you care to remind me how to upload a picture? I want to insert it in the Permet article. It shows an ancient tumulus during excavation and comes from: Zhaneta Andrea, "Archaeology in Albania, 1973-83", Archaeological Reports, No. 30, (1983 - 1984), p. 115. The site has now been reburried for conservation so there is no way to go there and take a snapshot. I want to use it as a visual illustration of the necropolis mentioned in the article. As I already explained it is not replacable since the excavation site is no longer accessible. BTW the article still reads more like a tourist leaflet. The editors seem more preoccupied with the constant bickering over the name... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried something, please have a look and tell me if it is OK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Burrial_Tumulus_at_Pliscova.JPG --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Shit... Just found out that the site was not reburried... how can I delete it?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, pity about your efforts, but thanks for being so careful about it. I'll delete it then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... thanks anyway. And sorry for the mess--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

One link per line

I do not know on which article you had this disagreement with 157etc., and I do not intend to comment on the edit-warring issue, but where is this "rule" "one link per line"? I know the MoS "recommendations" "avoid ovewikilinking" or "do not wikilink articles already wikilinked", but the aforementioned rule I have never heard of. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's specifically about dab pages, not normal articles. Dab pages should only have wikilinks to the actual target articles that are being disambiguated, not any other words used in the definitions. Somewhere at WP:MOSDAB. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok! Sorry and thanks for the info!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Confused

What did I do? This evening I just came back from a short holiday, and I discover that I have been blocked, and that block had already expired. Since I am not aware of any of the accused action before my wikibreak, and your message was equivocal, I want an explanation.Xasha (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See here the explanation. --Olahus (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So I was sentenced in absentia? How nice of you telling everybody about it, except me.Xasha (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, aren't you glad you were blocked at a time you were away anyway? You're a lucky guy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The next time Olahus harrases me and accuses me behind my back, he'll point to my block log and say "Look! He's evil! A respectable admin blocked him!". So I'm not glad. Moreover, I would want to know if I still have to abid to WP:3RR, cause it seems that's become obsolete.Xasha (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that you both have gone immediately back to revert-warring in exactly the same way, I'd say: "Stop digging" would be pretty sound advice. Goes for both of you. No, just keeping below 3R is definitely not safe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy is following me everywhere and reverting me.[11] That's clearly harassment. Wtf I'm supposed to do?Xasha (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, edits like this are necessary. You seem to ignore WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I'm gonna cite you :"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." Xasha, I hope you understand what I mean. If you still, don't understand, let's discuss the issue in the talk page of the article. --Olahus (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process). If this isn't harassment, nothing is.Xasha (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek

I am calling you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (knife) (2nd nomination) discussion. It will be nice to hear thinking of somebody who is not afraid of Balkan discussion and who is not from ex Yugoslavia--Rjecina (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bitola inscription

Why did you change the article about the Bitola inscription?Where is the view point?Explain please?

The image isn't just free but absolutely free because it was released by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences just like 90%+ the authentic documents which are used in the historical dispute between Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.The books published by BAS and dedicated to the Macedonian question had never had copyright, preventing them from being distributed.Exactly the opposite.The only restriction and condition is no one to use them to gain commercial benefits.Furthermore, the books are uploaded on several sites, maintained either by BAS itself, either by some of its members and everywhere it's written that the content is free for all kinds of purposes, excluding the commercial one.Consequently using the image I don't break any rule for the COPYRIGHT.

As for the content of the article, don't get offended but please do a little research the next time when you directly revert.On the preserved part of the stone inscription is clearly written "son of Aron".Everyone fluent in Cyrillic from Siberia to the Adriatic coast is able to read it.Therefore the hypothesis that Ivan Asen II was the author of the inscription is automatically refuted by its content.His father was Ivan Asen I, to whom he is named after, whereas Aron was brother of Samuil and father of Ivan Vladislav.There is no other Aron in the history of Bulgaria and Macedonia, thus it's impossible Ivan from the inscription to be Ivan Asen II.
Regarding the inscription of Ivan Asen II, yes, such a thing exists, however it has nothing to do with Bitola.It was found in Veliko Turnovo where was his capital and the content includes self-glorifying after series of military successes and territorial expansion.
Concerning the presumable viewpoint, the fact that it's offensive to the Macedonians doesn't lower the authenticity of the text.The two so called sources include analyses not of the content but of the specifics of the text and noone puts under question the authenticity of the stone inscription. --BulgarianPatriot (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First, about the image: It was falsely tagged as being public domain because of being over 100 years old, which is patent nonsense. If you say it's free for non-commercial use, first, you have brought no proof of that, second, it's not sufficient anyway. Free for non-commercial use only is not free enough for us.

Second, about the content. The article is citing academic discussions of the inscription that call its age into question (not its authenticity as medieval though). The opinion that it is younger than Ivan Vladislav exists among experts. For whatever reasons, I don't care. This was extensively documented in the talk page. You or I have no business arguing whether that is plausible or not. Your personal opinion, just like mine, is totally irrelevant here.

Third, I have not the foggiest clue why this inscription, let alone the details of its dating, would be a matter of Bulgarian-Macedonian ideological contention. I don't want to know. Our readers don't want to know either. If you are here editing this article with some such agenda in mind, I can only tell you: keep out. Go away. Hands off. This project is not for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I decided a mail in Bulgarian would explain things better. Both points are taken it (the image and the other). I almost guessed what your answer would be :)--Laveol ^T 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never denied the abovewritten but you replied only to a certain extent to my question and not to the gist.After the authenticity of the inscription isn't disputed and all scientists agree that it's Medieval then why we ignore the content of the text.From the clearly readable part whose content isn't disputed we have the following facts:

• The name of the King(Tsar) was Ivan
• He was Bulgarian
• He was son of Aaron
• Ivan from the inscription did something in 1014/1015 which isn't readable but we have the exact year

Let's now look at the facts: Ivan Vladislav ruled Bulgaria from 1015 to 1018 and he was from the house of Comeptopuli.From the same house there is Aaron who had a son called Ivan. Ivan Asen II from the house of Asen ruled Bulgaria from 1218 to 1241 and he was named after his father Ivan Asen I. So, the hypothesis the that the author was Ivan Asen II is automatically refuted by the text and I see no reason this to be excluded from the article.Furthermore, I didn't remove the sentence saying than some scientists think that the inscription might be by Ivan Asen II but just added that the text of the inscription proves exactly the opposite.

As for the image, I reuploaded it giving all the necessary information and sources.Check it please and say whether it's in accordance to the Wikipedia's rules. --BulgarianPatriot (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask the academics who have dated the text to the 13th century why they did so. There's no use us discussing that here. They were presumably not idiots, and I guess they also knew who Aaron was. As I said, your opinion is irrelevant, and so is any argument you bring forward on the basis of your own syllogism (see WP:NOR). – As for the image, I already re-deleted it. You told me it was free for non-commercial use only, that settles it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely they weren't idiots but in fact their opinion isn't the generally accepted one.It's just a hypothesis and remains such until it's scientifically proven.And exactly because the academic society isn't full with idiots such strange statements, at least on the basis of the text of the inscription, provoked my suspicion.Thus I decided to check what is the real text in the sources which are supposed to defend the position that the author was Ivan Asen.After copy/paste in Google the full text of the both references, there were not many results.The common thing was that all of them were either from the different editions of Wikipedia, either from sites which utterly copied the article from wikipedia, either from one ultra-nationalistic forum.Nowhere else there was anything about the references, given in the article.Well, certainly I can't make you remove these references and I've never asked for such a thing but it's only up to you whether you will allow the inclusion of facts, clearly readable, whose only opposition are two references with prime source an ultra-nationalistic forum.

--BulgarianPatriot (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You really, really need to make some effort wrapping your head around WP:NOR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eichikiyama

Can you take a look into the contribution history of Eichikiyama (talk · contribs)? The deletion campaign by the user reminds me so familiar cabal. His edit summaries do not match to his edits. He claims "there's no source" as deleting cited information, or "there is no such info" as there is such info in the sources. This kind of behaviors look very disruptive, so please examine his behaviors. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Some Dr. Who Image

Per your request, I have expanded the rationale. WilyD 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, thanks for catching the infobox. I have no clew how I fucked that up. WilyD 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for informing me anyhow. If it gets overturned it'll be a first for me, but I'm sure it'll happen someday. WilyD 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued plagiarism by Ex-oneatf

User:Ex-oneatf earlier recreated the article Korean war crimes, with numerous instances of plagiarism remaining. It was deleted by User:Richardcavell, but Ex-oneatf is again keeping a copy in user space here, and has inserted portions of it into Comfort women. Most worrying, the editor appears to be trying to obscure the problem by rearranging words and phrases, which in fact makes the problem worse and worse. Please see his argument at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16 and Talk:Comfort women. I suspect an admin's voice is needed; there's not much I can usefully do here besides check for more affected articles. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Threats?

Accusations of 'insinuating' and 'crossing the line' sound like a threat to me; of course I may be wrong dear administrator and I especially do not wish to be misunderstood by you, therefore I ask you to please explain. The best way to silence is not by blocking but through reason, correct quotes and by listening. Thank you. Politis (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you still here? Off to the library, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bonny alert

Or whoever that is, it's hard to tell them apart. --Illythr (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Working Group Wiki Final Report

Hey, as a reminder, the Working Group is approaching our 6-month deadline for producing our final report. The draft is being built at [12]. Could you please stop in, and see if there is anything you'd like to add? Or if not, just signoff at the talkpage that you are okay on how things are going? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Olahus and Xasha

i'm not very familiar with the dispute between Olahus and Xasha but it seems the latter is indeed involved in disputes with many editors, and most of the time he's just brutally imposing his POV and disrupting articles with no intention whatsoever of reaching concensous . Don't you think the 2 weeks punishment for Olahus it's a little bit harsh for what he did ? Rezistenta (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotedumping

The Cat and the Owl has resorted to jamming all the "important quotes" in the references section of Macedonian naming dispute. They're not really references since they aren't cite-able and don't contain links. Theoretically, I could just make one up and chuck it there. BalkanFever 07:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, I was expecting something like that!... Anyway, you can always buy the books and see for yourself. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, dumping extensive literal quotes in footnotes is not something good encyclopedia writers normally do, can you please reconsider what function those quotes have, other than making you feel good for reiterating an opinion you agree with? Having literal quotes in footnotes is a bad habit that has recently been introduced in some quarters. It's not recommended anywhere in the MoS, it's not done in normal academic writing; where did you guys get the notion from that this was a good idea anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the best way to help readers follow references, nothing more than that. Of course I understand some people will disagree with some references but after all they are RS. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, he might be misquoting Danforth to "legitimise" Greek "concerns", but I'm not sure. BalkanFever 07:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which Danforth quote? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly "Whether a Macedonian nation existed at the time or not, it is perfectly clear that the communist party of Yugoslavia had important political reasons for declaring that one did exist and for fostering its development through a concerted process of nation building, employing all the means at the disposal of the Yugoslav state". I have to say it does sound like Danforth may have said it, but I'm just not sure. BalkanFever 07:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I vaguely remember (a while back) someone said that the US Senate resolution thing wasn't official/binding/holding any weight in any way, just something that two Greek MPs in the US came up with. BalkanFever 08:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

I can haz rollback? Köbra ^Könverse 11:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

T hank you for removing my block. I want you to know that I don't see myself as promoting any particular ideology or religion. I am an atheist by belief but I have good reasons to believe that western impearlism historians distorted the history and image of the occupied colonies. I am trying to change that in the interest of truth. Please let me know if there is anything wrong with that according to wikipedia policy. Sindhian (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean war crimes

Where can we see this topic on Korean war crimes? I have had a look over the comfort women topic and some of the other editors works. A lot of editing warring looks very dubious.

Its only your word we have to go on. I will be willing to work on it. The policy is clear

"If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

Text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is also not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page.

If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored." --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the section a few headings further up, #Korean War Crimes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I see a copy of the complete article? Looking at the deletion log there were two versions. Your comments only refer to the first.

It really depends on how much else there was. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked you for a copy of the Korean war crimes topic, can I have one?

re comfort women ... what are you talking about? The quoted reference clearly mentions the Korean military's involvement. So what are you specifically asking for?

I also flag up that you are removing a whole load of perfectly referenced material unrelated to this ... what is your rationale for that? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

About the old article, no you can't, it was deleted as a copyvio, it remains deleted. About the other thing, let's keep it at the article talk page. All the answers are there already. Just read what I wrote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I got a copy ... and I discovered the original is still in Google cache. Its really not that bad and a damn sight better than many topics on the Wiki. Can I ask you a question ... what axe are your really grinding here? Honestly, do you have any personal involvement that this topics raises in a difficult manner? Email me if prefer not to put it in public.

I intend to start the topic off again with a basic stub. As far as I am concerned, the wikipedia is about collaboration. Topics are best given time, and a number of authors' involvement , to develop. It is ridiculous to expect perfection straight off.

Do you have any problems with that? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What's up!

Thanks for the barnstar. I feel me and you have become friends, and it's cool that you can laugh at my misfortune. ;) Beam 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian adjectives

Hi Stifle, excuse me for butting in, I just happened to see this discussion here. I must agree with the user (User:Luby, I suppose?): we really do these kinds of grammar articles with detailed morphological paradigm tables. We have them for many languages, typically united under a single "X'ian grammar" article, though occasionally also factored out into subarticles. Luby has also created Serbian nouns and Serbian conjugation as subarticles of Serbian grammar. These are prima facie legitimate articles, given our precedents, and I really can't see how they fall under any of the CSD. Would you reconsider and undelete? I'd personally favour subsequent merging into Serbian grammar, possibly cutting down a little bit on the tables, I'd have to work that out with the author. (BTW, thanks for clarifying the other thing, about the DRV.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I could agree with that one. Articles on Fooian nouns and Fooian adjectives don't belong in Wikipedia, but I think Fooian grammar might. I've restored the page and redirected it to Serbian grammar. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

revert

You dont like the issue, so can you also revert/remove your last entry on my talk page? Politis (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you remove it yourself? It's your page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, I will.Politis (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What's this that has droped on my talk page? What does one do with it? A code, a reference, an explanation? 3AFeristos_despoton&diff=226970594&oldid=226768189 Politis (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks just like a misplaced fragment of a diff link? See here: [13]. It was just the last line of my posting that you forgot to delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I appreciate your effot to Liancourt Rock article.

But i found some Wrong edit in article. But i can't change article. Please can you help me this? how can i change this article?

1877 Daijō-kan order

In 1877, Japanese Daijō-kan issued an order stating that Ulleungdo and another island are not under Japanese rule [1][2]. Korea claims that this "another island" refers to Liancourt Rocks and considers this order as an evidence that Liancourt Rocks were under the control of Korea. Japan considers that this "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks.

Japan was NOT considers that this "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks.

Japan goverment never metioned that 1877 Daijō-kan order. Japan goverment still NOT answer about this docment. There is no official response to this document from mofa.go.jp(The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan). so, Japan never says "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks

and "antoher island" is currently Liancourt Rocks. This is very clear. This is not dispute at all. www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html

1905 Japanese Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40

[...] Japan claims the incorporation was valid on grounds that Liancourt Rocks was a "terra nullius" and that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published. [...]

This is Wrong. In 1905, Japn hide this fact.[14]

When we read the above article it’s immediately apparent there is no mention of Liancourt Rocks in Shimane’s “announcement”. In documents and maps both European and Japanese of this era Dokdo / Takeshima was almost exclusively referred to as “Liancourt Rocks”. The announcement is on the second page, without headlines, broken in half and little larger than a classified ad in the personals section. It’s not clear how many people actually read the San-in Shimbum in 1905. It’s highly unlikely the above ad was seen by many Japanese people, and was certainly not read by citizens of other concerned nations.

In 1906, Korean realized that Japan incorporate This island. and Ullengdo Goverment answer is "Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation" [15][16] Korean cleary prostested this. so, This sentence is Wrong.

Post World War II era

[...] Government reply on the issue of sovereignty between South Korea and Japan, and it states that Liancourt Rocks are territory of Japan. (However, the current U.S. government stands on a neutral position on this issue.)

This is Wrong. User omitted other US goverment answer.

Here is the other document. This document is a memo entitled "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" from the US Embassy, Tokyo to the US State Department, dated October 3, 1952.

"...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean State..." http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690801055/

"(a)Japan recognizing the independences of Korea, renounces all rights and title and to Korea, including the Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, and Liancourt Rock." 1951.7.13 US goverment" http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690794949/

According to 1953.12.9 US docuement,

"[The] US view re Takeshima [is] simply that of one of many signatories to [the] treaty."

" The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as [a] legitimate claim for US action under [the U.S.-Japan] security treaty

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690787983/

Please I want change sentence.

Masonfamily (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i found one wrong edit more[17]

South Korea has controlled them since July 1954.

this is wrong. Korea controlled this island since WW2.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690838397/

1951 Map (drawed by Japanese goverment 衆議院) -Dokdo was Officialy exclude in Territory of Japan.

---

before 1953, Japan goverment did not recognized that Dokdo belong to Japan. even Korea-Japan annexation period(1910~1945), Dokdo was classified as a part of Gangwondo, Korea. After 1945, Korea liberation from Japan, Korea shortly govered by USFK and WW2 allied force. even that period, Dokdo was classified as a Korean territory.

Even 1951 Map (drawed by Japanese goverment 衆議院)

Dokdo was Officialy exclude in Territory of Japan.

Oh! Please i want participate this edit. This article edited by Japanese user only. Masonfamily (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Source

The following exchage took place in April and is archived at 'User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise /Archive 11']; can you link me to the "fake" map and/or the relevant conversation? Thanks. Politis (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, MacedonianBoy lives in Macedonia and I live in Germany and I do not get it how can we be as one person. MacedonianBoy is a linguist and uses prooved sources and I am "just" economist that makes articles about geography and loves his own mother tongue. regards --Raso mk (talk)

I know they work together; I've had dealings with them before. So, what is the source of that map, can somebody please tell me now? It's evidently not the one you were discussing as a "fake" earlier elsewhere; it shows entirely different things than either version of that one. That fake issue seems to be a red herring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what happened was this.

• User:PMK1 was looking for maps of Macedonian speakers and came across this thing: [18], from [19]. He asked various people on wiki for advice on if and how he could upload it.
• Somebody then found that the original of that image was here: [20], and that it was significantly different in just the detail he would have been interested in. The version on the Macedonian website was apparently manipulated. I have no indication that PMK1 himself acted in anything but good faith here, by the way, he was just an innocent victim of that forgery.
• Some days later MacedonianBoy created the Dialects of the Macedonian language page with the first version of that dialect map. He was a bit slow in identifying the source for his graphics at first. So, Laveol, in a knee-jerk reaction, jumped to the conclusion that he must have based it on the fake demographic map. Which was nonsense, because that map and the dialect areas map had no similarity whatsoever, they were totally different maps with different topics and different scope. It was plain obvious that MacedonianBoy had worked from a different model. That model turned out to be the (legitimate) Koneski map I also used for my later versions.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense and I suspected as much since I was familiar with that forgery, but could not trace the development in Wikipedia. There are many forgeries - including documents - that have been coming out of Yugoslav Macedonia and then FYR Makedonija and they are now edging into the wider European mainstream. I consider your linguistic map to be a product of those irregularities (this is not an accusation, just an interesting though disappointing realisation). The map by Koneski, I am 99% certain, is a political decision part of the post-WWII irredentist policies in Skopje when they re-baptised everything they could 'Macedonia/n'. The map was then picked up by a handful of people (by the way, can you link me to it? I think I have it [21], but you never know). I also notice with interest that Greece lags way behind in locating, let alone making sense of the nation building/forging porcess in R.Makedonija. This means that, sadly, those acamdemics and historians in Skopje who have a sound appreciation of their country's and the region's history are not heard - because it differs from the all pervasive political hardline. If anyone else reads this posting and agrees or disagrees with it, I am open to discussion. Politis (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one am surprised that no sources from Western European academia (particularly from those great Balkan ethnographers, the Germans) exist on the distribution Slavic Macedonian in Greek Macedonia and that we have to rely on Koneski. Linguistics is not my field, and I certainly do not mean to offend anyone, but I did a search for him on both Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar and found nothing published in international scientific journals besides this "personal viewpoint" [22].

Google Scholar [23] revealed two books, "Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik" and "Istorija na makedonskiot jazik", both in Slavic Macedonian, but nothing in English. Are there no scholars that publish in international journals that have studied this question? Where are all the German ethnographers and Balkan experts? I know for a fact that linguists and ethnographers spend a lot of time studying far more obscure languages and ethnic groups, so I find this a bit surprising. Anyway, like I said, I don't mean to offend anyone or gainsay their scholarship, but just to give my perspective as an academic from a different field. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tsourkpk that was great. Do you have access to the article? There has been some work on the issue by a handful of Greek linguists and historians, on the Slavophones of Greece but in the Greek language. There is currently a more detailed linguistic work being written in Paris by a pertinent academic from the region. I will continue this discussion if appropriate, on your talk page so as not to burden someone else's talk page. Politis (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would be nice if there was more scholarship about the distribution of minority speakers. The main reason there isn't is probably the hugely difficult surroundings created by the decades-old political paranoia cultivated by the Greek society about that topic. (Just imagine you're a foreign researcher trying to get local cooperation partners and you tell them you are going to find out about Macedonian Slavic speakers in Greece...) But anyway, why are we racking our brains over this? We use the scholarship that exists.

And, I repeat, the actual number and quantitative distribution of speakers is pretty irrelevant for the present map, a fact that you both still don't seem to appreciate. Difficult as this may be for you to comprehend, but the map is really, really intended to be exclusively about where those stupid isoglosses run. Slavic speakers in Florina speak more or less like those in Bitola, while those in Kastoria speak slightly differently, and those in Edessa speak like those in Veria. That's what it says, not more and not less. Whether there are 50 or 5000 or 500000 of them plays no role. And whether they identify as Greeks or Macedonians or Bulgarians or whatever plays no role either.

On this purely linguistic level, I don't see any reason to doubt what Koneski and Friedman tell us. How these speakers related to nationalities or national languages or whatever is totally irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you flatter Greek scholarship. Sure political insecurity has something to do with it, but also the astonishing Greek lack of sholarly curiosity about the region, including the varieties of Greek culture and experiences. Have you seen anything recent on Corfiot or Chian or south Albanian Greek? Or even on the Helleno-Vlach and Sarakatsani Greek of FYR Makedonija and Bulgaria? The, presumably, Greek contributions we get here are from private researchers who are giving their 2 cents worth in a manner that reminds me of our great-grandfathers' solitary pursuite of regional history (obviously, I say this with affection). Politis (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I thought we were talking about the minority languages map in the Greece article. Never mind. But on a purely academic level, you don't see a reason to doubt an academic that has exactly 0 publications in the international literature? It's a question of credentials. Or is this a case of "he might be crappy, but he's the only one we got"? On a side note, I've been hearing plenty of Señor Gruevski's statements of late to understand where this "Greek political paranoia" comes from (not to mention all that United Macedonia crap all over their diaspora). --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Links that wow... 'Folk songs in Kilkis, Macedonia, Greece' [24]; 'Slavophone Greeks speak about themselves' [25] Politis (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 71.17.71.70

Hi FutPerf,

I noticed certain edits by IP 71.17.71.70, especially at the following page: Laç. I am not reverting the changes, so you could compare the two most recent versions. Could you please confirm that this is a case of vandalism, or of irrelevant edits, and could you make sure that this doesn't happen again? Thanks, _{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 16:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that one was pretty obvious, wasn't it. In such cases, just revert; if they do it again, warn them on their talk page; if they don't stop, report them at WP:AIV. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the AIV page. --_{A B X} ^{T •}

៛ 16:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TABOO

Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

Talk

Could you semi-protect my talk page for a while? BalkanFever 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is still a legitimate use?

I'm wondering who that user might be. Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm concerned too. It's certainly toeing the line about "legitimate" alternative account use. On the other hand, the other account they are battling with is a lot worse, a typical nationalist tendentious editor. Not sure what to do at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sotiriou

We need more information than obvious sockpuppet. Please provide a better reason for blocking on the users talk page. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an obvious sock of a long series of single-purpose accounts all adding the same advertisement text to the same company article. The user has since been in e-mail contact with me; the matter is being taken care of. I'll unblock him as soon as he writes back to me to confirm he's understood why he can't use Wikipedia for his advertisement. I've been waiting for his response for 24h; has he been admin-shopping elsewhere instead of responding to me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He was on IRC in #wikipedia-en-unblock inquiring about it. Log below (times in EDT).

Template:Thread [11:02:39] *ChanServ* [#wikipedia-en-unblock] Unblock conversation logs may be published
[12:58:08] -->| sotiriou ... has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock
[13:07:41] <Rjd0060> sotiriou: Can I help you with something?
[13:07:53] <sotiriou> yes
[13:08:47] <Rjd0060> and what might that be?
[13:09:17] <sotiriou> i am trying to write in article intralot something and i have the follow message obvious sockpuppet.
[13:10:03] <sotiriou> i am from this company and we try for a days to change the article
[13:10:22] <sotiriou> and always block me
[13:10:46] <sotiriou> can you help me about this
[13:11:19] <Rjd0060> I left a note with the blocking administrator
[13:11:25] <Rjd0060> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#User:Sotiriou
[13:11:32] <Rjd0060> Just wait for that response.
[13:11:47] <sotiriou> ok
[13:11:53] <sotiriou> thanks a lot
[13:11:57] <Rjd0060> No problem
[13:12:15] <sotiriou> after that
[13:12:30] <sotiriou> may i change the article without a problem
[13:12:47] <Rjd0060> sotiriou: It depends on what the blocking admin says
[13:12:52] <Rjd0060> I am not sure of the entire situation
[13:13:00] <sotiriou> ok
[13:13:04] <sotiriou> regards
[13:33:28] <--| sotiriou has left #wikipedia-en-unblock Template:Threadend

I'll let you continue to handle it, and won't involve myself. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)