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 – 20 July 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)

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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

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 [2]. 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: [3]. 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.[4]

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" [5][6] 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[7]

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: [8], from [9]. 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: [10], 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 [11], 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" [12].

Google Scholar [13] 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' [14]; 'Slavophone Greeks speak about themselves' [15] Politis (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I interfere in this discussion because the topic is of interest to me. I notice that both sides strive for objectivity, and therefore they gain my respect. The problem is that particularly in the Macedonian case, one cannot easily separate linguistic from political aspect. The position of Future Perfect that the question is only about where some isogloss runs is a position that must be adhered to in any general lingustic mapping. In this case, however, one must be careful about historical and political issues. Thus, the map doesn't specify the period for which it is applied, nor whether it takes into account spoken, or written language, the extent of use of the language, and many such details. It may turn out, for instance, than 20 years ago in Drama there were 50 people speaking the Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian language but today they either left the region or use exclusively Greek language. In such case, stating that today this language is spoken in Drama, is misleading. To this one must add the propensity of FYROM scholars to push the border marking into the neighbour's territory as far as possible. Because there is a scholarly literature with such (or similar) map, it must not be hidden from the public but it has to be specified that it is the view of scholars from FYROM, in the absence of Greek sources, so that it must be taken with a pinch of salt. --Lantonov (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of accuracy, I am under the impression that the author of the original map is not Blaže Koneski, but Božidar Vidoeski. The map (if I am not mistaken) was first published in Blaže Koneski, A Historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language With a survey of the Macedonian dialects and a map by Bozidar Vidoeski, Tr. Victor Friedman, (Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages, 12) Heidelberg Carl Winter, 1983. This publication was a revised edition and translation of Istorija na makedonskiot jazik (1965), which included neither the Map, nor the dialect survey. Unfortunately, I have not managed to trace the book here in Athens, but it would be nice if somebody could find it (Future Perfect?) and provide any additional information (particularly on the time span of the map and the sources used for its drafting). As for Blaže Koneski, I should add that his work in codifying the Macedonian Literary language in 1944 is considered a major turning point. Lunt, Friedman, Christina Cramer considered him a mentor and have relied heavily on his work. It goes without saying that he is seen as a controversial figure in Greece and Bulgaria --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

K. Koneski, not B. ;) I think the K is for Kiril, but not sure. BalkanFever 10:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But yes, Vidoeski apparently has a map in Polski-macedonski gramatyka konfrontatiwna with Z. Topolińska. I think all the info is in the image description BalkanFever 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about Kiril (sic) Koneski? I think that this whole discussion was about this Koneski here. The map is indeed based on Vidoeski, but it was attributed to Koneski in this discussion so I thought that it would be better to clarify things a bit. I think though that the map first appeared in the publication I cited and not in the one mentioned in the image description. Be that as it may, some more background on this whole map issue would be welcome. I for one would be quite interested to learn more about it. Unfortunately, there's not much here in Athens and Friedman's book on your language is extremely concise in certain aspects--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your assumption is not unreasonable, since the more famous Koneski is Blaže, but FP can clarify who he meant. What exactly would you like to know more about in regards to the map by the way? BalkanFever 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Well well well.... look what I've found. More fucking conspiring between BF and FuPe... WHEN WILL THIS END? You guys have threatened the integrity of the encyclopedia for TOO LONG, and i FOR ONE will NOT stand FOR this, AT ALL!!! 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, somebody is yanking their chains to earn themselves yet another Very Clever Dog Award, it seems. You know what a temptation it is to see the word "block", in nice blue, right next to you guys' user names in every line where they are listed in a page history? It says to me: BalkanFever - block! Beamathan - block! Giorgos Tzimas - block! Makes my mouse finger twitch each time I read it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was all him dammit! I'm innocent! BalkanFever 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, BalkanFever and FuPe have been conspiring against you and me for several years now. Seeing as I've found the balls to proclaim these factual factful facts, they will do anything to silence me. He even threatened my clever dog. Be weary from now on Giorgos. Be weary... Beam 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew it all along... But now on a more serious note: Yes, it would be very interesting to find the Vidoeski publication I mentioned earlier. It must be very informative judging from its title--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually seems to be a recent English translation, of what is very likely essentially the same work: [16]. Thanks for pointing out the difference between Koneski and Vidoeski. With all those -skis, I must have been mixing them up all the time. By the way, don't mind Beam, he's just raving mad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL... it's been in my order list since last week and I just realized what I ordered... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now all we need to do is find out which Koneski you were confusing with Vidoeski. ;) Blaže or Kiril? BalkanFever 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I found another map in a Macedonian (FYROM) web site [17]. It shows where "Macedonian" language is spoken, and looks quite different from the map discussed here. In the legend it writes: "A map of Macedonia published in 1980 in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups indicating the areas where the Macedonian language is spoken". The site is openly nationalistic, it starts with "Macedonia for the Macedonians", etc. but it would be interesting to look in this Harvard Encyclopedia if one can find it. --Lantonov (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That map is patently unuseable for our purposes. It could serve for the map in Minorities in Greece, perhaps (where we have an even more restricted area currently shown). It has a totally different scope from the dialect map. It obviously intends only to give a very rough overview of where most of the Macedonian speakers come from. It doesn't tell us anything about dialects. So, Lagadin, Veria and Nestram aren't included in it? Too bad. And yet, the dialectological literature does describe Slavic dialects of those places. Friedman not only claims that there are (or were) speakers there, he actually describes how they speak. Maybe there are only a dozen of them left, who knows? A demographic map won't show them. A dialect map has to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 25 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)

Albanian history section

I revised the albanian history section in the article about the country but i have the usual problems with some bigots.Please check to see if my version is actually an improvement or not or if i made any wrong.It's pity most of the articles to be sentenced to meritocracy because of the attitudes of some people.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

An Yong-bok

FYI please see Talk:An Yong-bok -- a pre-emptive move :-( --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Greece

Hey!

I was under the impression that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) formed a generally agreed upon consensus that Republic of Macedonia is the preferred term to be used over Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM or any variation of those terms. Foreign relations of Greece seems to have had some edit warring over that issue and the country is currently referred to as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Should this be corrected or is it acceptable in this situation? Maybe I should just leave it up to people who know a little more about this subject than I do.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion about these cases at WP:MOSMAC. Greek editors insisted on having "Articles related to Greece" as a kind of island in its own POV reality, where "f.Y...." was to be used. I can see absolutely no objective justification in policy for that, but the guideline ended up spelling out "no consensus" for these situation. That means: if in doubt, leave as is. It's really no more than partial capitulation to the revert-warring force of the Greek POV team. If you want to take the matter up and enforce NPOV policy as it really ought to be, you'll have my support, but expect a lot of opposition. This will only ever be solved reasonably if the native Balkanian POV factions can be sidelined by an informed, independent consensus of international editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I was grossly mistaken to think that there was a generally agreed upon solution (even if it meant a fierce opposition from a vocal minority) and that it only needed to be enforced. I think I will leave this can of worms unopened for now and, if anything, I may try to influence this at policy level in some way, shape or form.

Thanks for the response.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation/abuse of your administrator privileges

I filed a request for mediation regarding the ongoing issues over sensitive Korean-Japanese topics.

It is primarily about Caspian blue's conduct, and between them and myself, but I made referenced to your threat on my user talk page and have asked for a second opinion.

I note your lack of discussion on the topic page and cannot see that I have anything to apologise to you about.

Frankly, if it is your intent to intimidate me, then I think it is an abuse of your administrator privileges. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks

• WP:ANI#Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks

Since you have involved in Comfort women, Korean war crimes and observed to Japan-Korea disputes and Lucy's conducts, your input would be appreciated. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Janos Kurko (talk · contribs), Erdeniss (talk · contribs), and Lordanubis007 (talk · contribs) all look like the same person. What do you think? Khoikhoi 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh? Accounts editing Cluj Napoca? Cluy Napoca is full of ducks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

Hello Future. I've reviewed your statements on AN/I and I'd like to mention a few things to you. This diff doesn't reflect any dark insinuations. It looks more like general concern. She does speculate, but it didn't appear out of bad faith (more like an attempt at grief counseling, but willing to keep it personal or in private). And this diff is basically asking you to add citations to the article. The closing rhetoric you note is actually in relation to the ips or SPAs who were more than likely turning the article into what she viewed to be off topic material, and not directed toward you specifically. Frankly, I don't see any of this being an attack on you as an editor and I've already noted this on AN/I. This certainly doesn't justify a final warning posted to her talk page. Regards. Synergy 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Grief counseling? Are you kidding, man? Grief counseling, good grief, indeed. Read her insinuations in the context of what she told the other guy, which was a variation on the same theme: "Do you find it personally challenging for some reason to accept Korean involvement in the Japanese comfort women system or that so many Korean women were forced to be victims of military prostitution for such a long time? Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity that you find difficult? Is it something that you would like to discuss privately, perhaps offline because it seems to be bordering on obsessive" – This person is insinuating that we (personally, C.b. and I) have some dark and secret "issues with our sexuality" that make it difficult for us to edit such a topic? Grief, in need of counseling? This person is basically saying I'm a sexual pervert with an obsession about mass rape and forced prostitution??? This is character assassination, pure and simple. I'm utterly amazed you can't see that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be implicit, but its not directly explicit or unequivocal character assassination. I'm sorry to disagree with you on this, as you seem to be a well reasoned admin. In my opinion, this does not appear to be grounds for a block. But you are more than welcome to disagree, I hold no sway over any of this. I merely want to bring it to your attention. Synergy 12:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when is implicit character assassination less bad than explicit character assassination? There are those of us who can read and those of us who can't. Those who can will understand the implicit message all right. Those who can't had perhaps better not comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see is your inference. You came to the conclusion that this was in bad faith and the user needed to be blocked. I disagree. I don't see this as an explicit act of ill will towards you. Synergy 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, intelligent people make inferences when reading things. That's what reading is about. Now stay out of here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for barging in like that, but this is just unbelievable. It is neither an explicit nor an implicit character assasination. It is utterly insulting, pure and simple. It doesn't take a genious to understand what was meant. I hate to think what would happen if everybody was allowed to go around making vulgar remarks like this one 'Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity" --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I' d most certainly like to meet the person who would welcome such insults ως βασιλικόν βρέφος σε μανδύα ιππότου.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was actually very clear in what I was saying here. My emphasis is on Caspian blue (talk · contribs)'s issue with the Korean involvement in the Comfort women systems both during and after WWII (not the overall atrocity). Caspian blue, and others, appear to have problems accepting the development of Japanese-Korean topics. He, and a few others, are going to great efforts to control topics at a propagandistic level and censor any wikipedian that threaten that.

All of the recent academics in this field (Soh, Moon, Kim, Lie etc) have placed great emphasis on gender issues within Korean culture regarding military prostitution and the difficulties of addressing the collaboration issue. In my opinion, we are dealing with both gender and nationalist issues here. I apologise for the amateur psychology but the degree of opposition, and the methods and efforts being invested to support it, have become excessive. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review by other uninvolved admins

According to WP:DRV I should address you in the first place about your recent repeated deletion of the Korean war crimes topic.

• I was careful to use a variety of contributors work, minimised the article but left considerable references.

I would like to ask to stand aside and for the matter to be considered and guided by other uninvolved admins.

• It is wikipedia policy to contribute through collaboration and a simple stub would allow that.
• If you wish, you can chose to remove excessive material and discuss the matter on the topic's talk page with others as it should be.

Unfortunately, given recent events, I find it difficult to see this as anything other than an act of deliberately censorship and provocation on your behalf ... which I am not going to rise too.

Thank you for putting the interest of the Wikipedia community above your own. -- Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)