User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

An image

Sorry to annoy you once more, but could you check out this image? Part of the FUR says "It is of much lower resolution than the original" which is confusing considering the size. Also, the source seems to be a book published in Bulgaria in 1941, which wouldn't be a reliable source, would it? Thanks in advance, Balkan Fever

BG-MK dialects

I appreciate your changes in the table. Agree that efforts should be made to show that the same dialect is meant whether some call it Bulgarian while others - Macedonian. The problem is that classification into dialects is not always the same in BG and MK linguistics (different traits used to distinguish). In general, BG linguistics uses older traits (one of the three basic principles in dialectology) while MK linguistics gives more importance to traits that distinguish a given dialect from BG language. In the case of Prilep-Mariovo and Bitola dialect, they were artificially united in a "Central dialect" to serve as a model for the newly created language while important traits that distinguish them were deliberately ignored. --Lantonov (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, to me personally. I was always wondering why that big white strip in the centre of the Macedonian map didn't have any isoglosses structuring it. In any case, I'm not a big friend of these classificatory tables of dialects and subdialects anyway. It just supports that naive layman's misunderstanding that you can describe a dialect by splitting it up in subdialects. The other part of your article, where you list the different classificatory schemes according to the different phonological criteria, is far more valuable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators Issue

Hi, we have some problems on the macedonian wikipedia and would appreciate a little help. I just want to know where could I report an abuse with the administrative privileges on that wikipedia. In short: we have an article mk:Бугарски владетели, in which a certain people are included as Bulgarian rulers. Twice the administrators judged that these are Bulgarian rulers - I and other wikipedians have provided enough reliable sources for this (mk:Разговор:Бугарски владетели). The problem is that a new administrator mk:Корисник:Kiril Simeonovski does not accept this, after I report violation of 3RR of another user, he does not take any action, and claimed that there were not enough sources proving that theese are Bulgarian rulers. Here are some of the sources mk:Разговор:Бугарски_владетели#.D0.A0.D0.B5.D0.B7.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B5. There were no independent sources claiming that these were not a Bulgarian rulers. In the version that two administrators agreed before there was a notice saying that according the Macedonian and some Serbian historians these were not Bulgarian rulers, which is OK, since there's such POV and we want to include all POVs, but the major POV is that these are Bulgairan rulers - which is metiont now as "some historians belive" - which is not the case. Most of the historians claim this. I'm sorry for loosing your time, but since you're an administratio you should know where I can report this issue, because it the Macedonian wikipedia it will have no effect. Regards! --StanProg (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know what the administrative policies are supposed to be on mk-wiki, but judging by en-wiki standards, the whole idea that admins are supposed to "judge" the content is rather suspicious. I can well imagine that some of the admins on that project may let their political biases influence their admin work in such issues, of course. But a decision to not block someone probably hardly rises to an actionable level of abuse. If it was the opposite way round and they had unjustly blocked someone, that would obviously be a more serious issue.

If you really feel the situation is such that you can't get fair treatment within that project at all, the trouble is, we don't really have a very good cross-wiki dispute resolution process yet. People were talking of instating a cross-wiki Arbcom at meta, but I don't think that has been put into practice yet. There is also theoretically the possibility of filing RfCs on meta, but they rarely end in anything enforceable. The theory is still that every project is expected to solve its own conflicts, and if that doesn't work it's just tough luck. On the other hand, since you say you actually had several local admins supporting your side in the content dispute, I don't really see why the prospects should be so bad. Last time I had a content issue on mk-wiki, mk:User:Brainmachine was quite fair and constructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBMAC warning issued by you

Hello!

You recently issued a warning to User:GriffinSB about his polemical soapboxing. He recently made this inflammatory edit which had to be removed from the talk page by another editor. Comments like that serve no useful purpose on this project whatsoever. Would you, please, consider placing temporary ARBMAC sanctions against this user until he can agree to play nice with other editors on this project?

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor english

I do not know if you have noticed yesterday agreement between me [1] and user:Carbonrodney [2] for about this problem in article Croatia.

Funny thing is that there has been even edit warring but nobody has solved my english language mistakes :)--Rjecina (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about this is that 90 % of text is created with copy-paste from text of constitution. Maybe is time for your entry to personal union dispute ?--Rjecina (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not having content dispute. Can you please look noticeboard.

Yes I accept editorial rules. Before editing I will contact other user to take the responsibility that my contributions get corrected by somebody immediately after I have finished. Before is creating small problem because I must contact other user with email --Rjecina (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rjecina

Hi, I am having a report on Rjecina again, because he falsifies historical articles and pushes very strong nationalistic POV on Wikipedia. He has accused me of everything evil (disruptive, socketpuppet, vandal) and now he is reverting other users' edits that he believes are me. I see that you are active on Wikipedia. Please, could you leave a comment on my report on what your take is on this issue. I would really appreciate it. See link to report on my talk page. Thanks.--Bizso (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)--Bizso (talk) 11:2[reply]

conflict with User:Rjecina

"Is it really so difficult to use a past tense?" This is unnecessary and unhelpful. Comments like these do nothing to help resolve your dispute, but instead are deliberately aggravating. So please avoid them in the future. --Carbon Rodney 15:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a dispute with Rjecina, thank you very much; I'm engaged in admin work stopping some (unintentionally) disruptive editing. And "is it really so difficult?" was a genuine, polite question of interest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

I think infoboxes do nothing but help an article and I put them on as many of my articles as there is a pertainant infobox. The only time I don't like them as much is when the article is really short and contains no information that is not in the infobox. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, just take what Wikipedia is, a quick, not guranteed to be accurate general reference site used by people who often do not wish to go in depth or college kids whose paper is due tomorrow and they've been out partying and need to do a last-minute half-assed job. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, "we call those people 'non-readers'", indeed. If you feel happy making Wikipedia accommodate kids who want to do a last-minute half-assed job, that's your choice. Me, I'd rather Wikipedia told such kids to f* off and do their homework. But more importantly, I think you are still mistaken: even if you want Wikipedia to help those kids, in many cases they'd still be better off reading the text lead than the box. Much of the material we have in infoboxes is of such a kind that you could actually take it in faster and easier from a well-written piece of prose. I believe it's a myth that tabulated boxes are generally easier to take in. If our Creator had wanted us to communicate in tabulated data sheets, he'd given us an inborn ability to parse disconnected shreds of information and category labels. He hasn't. Instead, he gave us an inborn ability to parse actual language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanitiko kefali

Maybe you`re right, I am :-). The prob is that a souliot salad cannot be eaten. Of course they maybe treated as Albanians and Greeks too, but only as an Albanian community, which was finally hellenized. And they were hellenized, when the hellenization (i.e. national consciousness) existed, i.e. only after the Greek independence, i.e. when the term Souliot had no logical sense, cause they were integrated in the mainstream culture, and had no conection with Souli. Thus, they cannot be neither Greek-Albanians, nor Greeks and Albanians, but just Souliot Albanians, who became Hellenized Souliot Albanians, and who finally became Arvanites, long after seizing to be Souliotes (inhabitants of Souli, or some generations after).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's not quite true. There are plenty of sources that were already calling them "Greeks" before 1821. The Pouqeville travel report being a case in point. The Orthodox faith and the cultural and political stance that implied was linked to "being Greek" strongly enough that they were routinely perceived as Greeks by foreign observers at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources? They are plenty primary sources that does not distinct them from Albanians (lord Byron). Do not forget that Greeks was also a misname for Albanians of the Orthodox faith, so primary sources lack reliability. Secondary sources, dispute each other on calling the Albanians or Greek Albanians, or Hellenized Albanians, but never as non-Albanians. Hellenization has started as a process long after dyafotisi, and as such, Souliotes could not be Hellenized at the time that they were in Souli. If they were they would not be part of the Albanian regiment of the French Army, but they would be part of the Greek regiment, wouldn`t they?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they were part of the Albanian regiment obviously because they were Albanian-speaking. What I'm saying is just: whatever it was that "Greek" meant at the time (and it may not have been the same thing we mean by that term today), the Souliots were perceived as being part of it in some significant way. But who says we should treat them as "non-Albanians", anyway? Now you are falling into the same silly either-or trap as the other guys.

A.: They were both X and Y at the same time.

B.: No, you're wrong, they were Y!!!

C.: No, you're wrong, they were X!!!

A.: D'oh.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not falling in that trap. I just do not understand what both X and Y means. You say that they were Greeks, without the todays meaning (e.g. just Orthodox, who were called Greeks not per ethnicity but per religion), but if this is an argument, we should treat Greeks page to as that. I am just saying that they are X and became Y, when Y`s national culture existed, I am not saying that their descendants are not Greeks, I am saying that Souliotes (Marko Botsari et al) were Albanians, maybe^[3] influenced by Greek culture, but of course Albanians, as their mother tongue was Albanian and the period that they lived had no "nations", but just "ethnicities".Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain you are committing the same kind of error as the other guys on that discussion page. They insist that only the present-day meaning of the term "Albanian" counts, that the Souliotes weren't Albanian in that sense, so they can't be called by that name. You, in contrast, insist that only the present-day meaning of the term "Greek" counts, that the Souliotes weren't Greek in this sense, and that we therefore can't call them thus. You are both reifying a modern construct and projecting it back into a different time period – in both cases, with the result of finding that it can't apply.

In reality, a concept of "Greekness" did exist in the 18th century. It was not 100% identical to the present-day concept. It was a complex mixture of linguistic, cultural, political and religious criteria. Despite not being 100% identical to today's concept of Greek nationality, it morphed into the latter during the 19th century. You are now demanding that we should totally ignore the earlier concept and treat it as a mere misnomer. That's wrong, I think, and it's not what the literature does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side-conversation carry-over

I thought I'd take a few moments to respond to the side conversation that we're having over at AN/I, as this might be a better place to discuss what we're discussing. Yep, I get that AN/I does not have moderators, and that's for a good reason. I apologise if I came across as trying to give my comments more weight than others, as that was not my intention. As a matter of fact, admin comments should have more weight than others there, so I kind of disagree when you say that "nobody's voice is special", but my disagreement actually gives your voice more weight. My choice of font color also goes to those same ends, in that it is meant to convey that I am not an admin (yet, hopefully one day eventually!), but I do fulfill a specialized role within the community. I'm a mediator. I purposefully place myself in a "buffer-zone" between other editors, attempting to be careful not to take sides in a dispute, and hopefully helping the opposing sides come to an agreeable solution, or at the very least, a "happy medium". No, I don't take myself too seriously, but I do what I do with a sense of dedication. (If you're not going to try to do it right, then why try to do it at all?) Edit Centric (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis

Geia sou Fut! Do you think it's a coincidence that... "crisis" and "judgement" are the same word in Greek? Boo! Hope it hasn't affected you... Niko Silver 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from the fact that all the investment funds are down... at least my workplace hasn't burnt down yet. That's something. Public sector gets affected only indirectly and with some delay, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox/userboxes

What's wrong with having that redirect to wp:userboxes; bloody tons of pages redirect to their Wikipedia: counterpart. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unified login, for example, is even a soft redirect. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to bloody Wikimedia; so it's (according to you) even more heinous than a cross-link, it links to another bloody site; a sister site, but another site just the same. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespaces

I support cross-namespaces; what the Hell can they hurt? Nothing. They can help, though. For example, unless you alter your search preferences, which you have to be a member to do; the msajority of users aren't; many non-cross-namespaced things such as userbox will not even show up in the bloody search results. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

?

Have you seen the citations?85.72.70.50 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not here are some more:

The Macedonian language in the development of the Slavonic literary languages B Koneski - 1968 - Kultura

A diachronic interpretation of Macedonian verbal morphology MJ Elson - 1990 - Edwin Mellen Press

Two typological gaps in stress systems: arguments from early language acquisition S Peperkamp, E Dupoux - 2000

Macedonian as an Ausbau language OM Tomic - Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations, 1992 - Mouton De Gruyter

85.72.70.50 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok so I guess I can proceed with my addition on the Macedonian language 85.72.70.50 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the references, if that's what you mean. But I can see it's some highly specialist, technical literature on a very narrow topic regarding a minor structural property, of the phonetic details of word stress. That's just a tiny detail, and doesn't warrant mentioning in the lead. We also don't know if those study are actually saying it is more similar to Polish than to any other Slavic language, or if the study just picked those language pairs as arbitrary representative examples of what could also be found in other languages. It is in no way comparable in significance to the very salient fact of immediate relation with Serbocroatian and Bulgarian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec): The new refs you posted here seem to have nothing to do with Polish at all, or do they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edit Centric

You win. (I lay my king down, and resign.) It's all on my user page, should you wish to read it. Again, I apologize. Edit Centric (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm honestly sorry if I offended you, but I really don't see why you should feel that way. My remark was a simple polite request regarding an editing practice of yours that was rather unusual in that forum, nothing more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this...

...our indef-blocked friend? Balkan Fever 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Unmistakable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I have asked a peer review about Cham Albanians. Please join.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see

Although I am no longer active in wikipedia, I just saw you were looking for Ο ελληνισμός τον 19ο αιώνα. I have the book somewhere and I' ll try and send you the excerpts you asked for one of the following days. Nowadays I visit the place ever so rarely but I am always happy to oblige with sources. Εύχομαι να τα περνάτε καλά εκεί πάνω στα βόρεια κλίματά σου.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Genocide.

Hi Fut.

I would appreciate a comment to what I have written here.

Regards, --A.Garnet (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]