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

h kanvassismos

ena, dia... Balkan Fever 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No different from this, really. By the way, what's with the dodgy Greek? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; notification in neutral fora is generally encouraged, individual notification is more problematic. But as long as it's only two or three people it's hardly actionable anyway – we all know that the real canvassing is going on behind the scenes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A few fresh faces on your side of the fence, I see. Still, the opposing side's national talk page is hardly a neutral forum. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you could reign in your narcissistic urge to fiddle around with your own postings in multiple updates at least when you are on my talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Πω πω, νευράκια... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully there hasn't been any kind of misunderstanding, but at any rate my response in Greek under his invitation reads: "Thanks for stopping by, but I am no longer active". That's just for the record... On a side note, this bit "...the kind of ideological baggage that Greek people are unfortunately so obsessed with" ! was really uncalled for. Some kind of temporary Furor Germanicus I hope--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Giorgo, but I stand by that statement. Individuality of independent personalities notwithstanding (and you know in what esteem I have you), there is such a thing as collective traits characteristic of a group. And here we have such a one, if there ever was one. There is a certain stance towards the M. issue that is collectively characteristic of the Greek Wikipedian community in general (as the editing disputes of the last years amply demonstrate), just as it is collectively characteristic of the Greek nation as a political body in much the same way (as the political events demonstrate). That such a collective stance exists is, I think, undeniable; that it is best characterised as ideological obsession is my personal well-considered opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fut, this is not about me, but Jesus! "Collective traits characteristic of a group!" Your comment includes so many gross generalisations and oversimplifications that I probably wouldn't know where to start from. I say this with regrett but I have to insist that your remark was largely unjust and uncalled for. I feel that the infamous Furor Macedonicus is actually interfering with your better judgement. Things would be quite simple in this outlandish affair if the whole naming issue were devoid of overt and incredibly UGLY political connotations concerning both sides of the dispute as well as many third parties. Political events demonstrate a lot more than what you are implying. Whether the Macedonias of this region should ultimately be called Macedonias is, as you very well know, the least of my concerns but collective name calling is a terrible terrible terrible way of going about it. It goes without saying that I wouldn't have bothered writing to you if I didn't hold you in great esteem myself but I feel that remaining silent wouldn't be the decent thing to do. I said more than I should and it's probably better not to bother you any further. Καλή σου συνέχεια και εννοείται πως η πρόσκληση για καφέ ή και κανά ουζάκι ισχύει. Νισάφι πια με τη Μακεδονία... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fut, if your thoughts are well-considered why is it hard for you to answer that? Just a line would be sufficient. Why do simple, civilized questions anger you to the point of censorship? can you answer one simple question? Have you ever seen something equivalent of this "hypothesis" in the Greek wiki? Have you ever seen the equivalent of this by a Greek government official? So in relation to whom are we ultra-nationalistic and aggressive? to the Japanese? Congolese? Icelanders? ... --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You bore me, brute, and that is neither cute nor does it make me happy. Read what people say instead of projecting things into them. I didn't say you were ultra-nationalistic and aggressive, and I didn't compare you to others on some aggressiveness or ultra-nationalism scale. So don't go bandying words about. What I said was that your nation (and your wiki community) is collectively obsessed with this particular issue. Those freaks on mk-wiki are a different kind of problem (and I hope you've seen how I intervened there). But what I haven't seen from them is such a tenacious collective determination to force a naming decision on us that is not shared by the English-speaking world. So, yes, in this particular issue (although it concerns them more directly than it concerns you) they are actually a lot more relaxed and a lot more mature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But. As I demonstrated, your "a lot more relaxed and a lot more mature" goes mathematically down the drain by comparing the behavior of each side. Not being able to admit or finding excuses is another thing, as I am sure you know you have deleted much more vandalism and ethnic attacks from the Yugo side. For example, you may find the political behavior of Greece very much fascist and harmful compared to this (where 70 civilians died). Secondly, someone who is not sure whether he is right cannot and won't be as persistent with arguments as someone who has scientific, historical and tactual political evidence by his side. The first one is sure to resort to dogmas, hypothesis and conspiracy-theory terror and find arguments in ancient Greek politicians calling each other barbarians (as they did all over Greece), undecideable evidence about a language of ancient people (that no scholar refuses they came to belong to the Koine-speaking population) and ancient kings changing ethnicity for political reasons while at the same time refusing to see and admit the whole circle of undeniable evidence. Finally I repeat, if you haven't noticed, that most of us who want disambiguated names for the country and the people of the Republic as well as the Greek province, do it because we don't want history monopolization and appropriation (not from our side or anyone's side). And if a name is another way for that, it's worth trying to make the world less confused with less friction and hate. Also the fact that any Greek is honored to be called "Makedonas" (sic) by a foreigner or "Greek-Macedonian" even though it's a pleonasm, but the other side is insulted to be called "Slav-Macedonians" or "Makedontsi" says a lot about the whole subject...

p.s. yes I noticed that you intervened there and I also noticed the wall of madness you hit there. But that wall doesn't bother you much apparently, does it? Either you believe that the great new decipherment hypothesis of the Rosetta stone is notable encyclopedic content that needs to be included in Wikipedia or your will of action is much bigger for example when it is about excluding a specific known national motto and not naming it unofficial or something... whichever one of this it is, conclusions are easy and clear. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this time I'll leave this up as an eternal monument to the state of intellectual decay nationally-driven wikipedia editing leads to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek genocide - the other sources check

You had said:

..."As for the other sources, the real ones, I'm only slowly picking up on them. I have neither much time nor easy technical access to most of this material; given the tendency of tendentious and distorting quotation I've witnessed here (see Levene, for the umpteenth time), I'm not willing to give any premature comment or endorsement to any contention based on mere lists of names"

That was more than 2 weeks ago. Please define "slowly". Niko Silver 01:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A certain other case has been forcing me to direct my attention to dealing with argumentative smokescreens elsewhere, so I'm afraid I haven't got much energy left for that one right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it is exactly that "attention" of yours I wanted to shift into something more productive, before it guides you into knee-kicking below the belt... You must really reconsider my advice that you seem like you are obsessed with this even more than any "nationalist" Greek seems to be. I would have never believed you would resort into such --never mind. Niko Silver 17:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, for calling you out on the, ahem, disingenuousness of complaining against getting "categorised" as part of your national team? Look, I can sort of understand that complaint coming from people like Yannis or Tasos. But from you, Kekrops or Avg, no way. If you don't want to be categorised as an X'ian editor, don't make X'ian POV advocacy the sole focus of your editing. As for me, well, call me obsessed too, but right now I've put my sights firmly on the goal of breaking the tyrannic rule of national factions in matters like this. Even if it forces me to wade through hypocritical shit like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still making sure you convey the same degrading point of view to everybody the "faction" discusses with. It is sad that you think this way. Just step back for a second and think how sorry you would be for your behavior if you realized in the end that you are wrong. Or even if you realized you are not-so-right... I sincerely feel your logic has sidelined at some crucial point in your reasoning, but I have not located that exact point yet. I am still available in case you wish to constructively discuss at WT:MOSMAC. I wish you the best. Niko Silver 10:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niko, I'm just as sad as you that it has come to this, but I stand by my assessment of the situation. In the interest of our mutual sanity, I honestly think it is better if we two do not try further discussing this issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it when you keep talking left and right about me with the worst words (while I choose the best words always for you). Niko Silver 11:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just some questions not related to the issue itself, but to the way of handling it: Ok, let's say you were not exactly agreeable before in MOSMAC, but only "tolerant", or even "indifferent", or "sympathetic yet somewhat disagreeable" (fuck the exact terminology, you know what I mean). What changed? Why do you suddenly after all those months choose to become "fiercely opposing", "ultra-disagreeable" and "absolutely intolerant"? Is there something that sparked this change inside you from "our" faction-ous side? Why can't we find the common ground that we had found and just agree that we respectfully disagree? Especially now that you do notice (don't tell me you don't) an international pro-Greek shift? (not that it should matter for WP policy and stuff). Please give this question a moment before you reply. Niko Silver 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair question. Well, what sparked all this was the fact that for the first time in many months, there were new faces in the debate. Somebody outside our closed circle brought the issue up, and I didn't have the heart to tell them: yeah, you're probably right, but it's no use trying to change this. So I thought, okay, this is as good a time as any, let's take the opportunity and settle this at last. Then, the dejà vu of all the ridiculously drawn-out debating was immensely frustrating. I have simply lost my patience. I no longer find it in me to debate with somebody who claims for the millionth time that using "R.o.M." when dealing with an organisation that uses "f.Y." would be a violation of WP:V, and pretend I'm taking that argument seriously. I can't. Not even if that somebody is my friend. At this point, I want this settled, and I hate to say it, I have become firmly convinced it will be impossible to settle this with you, it can only be settled against you.

As for the international developments, I'm not following Balkanian day-to-day politics that closely these days, so I may well be missing developments. But anyway, I don't really share your optimism that such a shift would make the Wikipedia position easier. Let's suppose your two countries strike a deal tomorrow. Much as I would rejoice from a political perspective, no matter what the compromise would be, but from a Wikipedia position, honestly, I dread the day. That will only be the beginning of our troubles. Do you think we would then simply shift from our present usage to the new official Greece-approved name and be done with it? I can't see why. Most likely, any deal will include a double naming scheme, right? And it most likely will also include the stipulation that simple "M." can continue to be used in at least some contexts, right? So, what are we going to do, when we'll have not one official name but two to choose from, plus the simple informal name? What will common English usage do? Will it shift to the new official name(s)? How quickly? How quickly will we follow such a shift? This is all far from obvious to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not covered. The reasons that you state are too small compared to the apparent havoc you have created. The timing is lousy (both in WP and in the real life), the "new faces" are too few and too uninvolved, the target group is definitely not the most deserving one out there (if there was a broader goal against "factions"), and the probable collateral damage is disproportionately large to whichever tiny insignificant benefit. Are you sure there's nothing more to it? Niko Silver 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

Hey. If you have enough time, and/or are just bored of the usual blocking/protecting/reverting, would you be able to translate and svg-ise File:Wasscherscheiden.png? Balkan Fever 08:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, looks like a good bit of work. By the way, is it even correct enough to work from? What's that Danube-linked bit doing all the way down our favourite country and its homonymous neighbour, where the Vardar should be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I know close to nothing about drainage divides, so I can't really give you an answer. But your countrymen seem to think it's good enough. Balkan Fever 09:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? "My countrymen"? Outing! Ethnic profiling! How dare you call me a German. Really. – Anyway, it seems they probably just forgot to draw the boundary between the Danube and the Vardar system. But I won't probably find much time any time soon, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castarostica

Hey there,

Catarcostica vandalized my userpage to remove a template, leaving this message: "As am sure you know there is no such standard for "mo 900" aka moldavian language. Its been revoked since may 2009. It is duty to removed from your page. Sorry if this action made you upset..it is not my purpose. I am sure you are a valued member of Wikipedia. Our common purpose is the Truth. Best regards! Costica".

I'm not very active anymore so I'm a bit worried he'll do it again and I won't notice for a month or two. Any actions you'd recommend I take? --Node (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my small intrusion in your page Node_ue. It was a mistake. That is your personal page. But as you know "moldavian language" dos not have a ISO code anymore. It is recognized as a subsidiary of Romanian language.Catarcostica (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Future Perfect at Sunrise's Day!

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Future Perfect at Sunrise's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Future Perfect at Sunrise!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you! :-) And this just when I thought everybody had finally found me out for the ruthless abusive edit-warrior and rogue power-abuser I really am. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yiou are clearly those things, FP, but even evil, rotten bastidges have some saving graces. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Jingby (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adnanmuf

You remember this guy, the genetics / ancient history crank from Talk:Palestinian people? He came back while his ban was still on, and got back to the old tricks, but is apparently being given free rein on the grounds that his edits are "not disruptive." Maybe take a look? <eleland/talkedits> 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one confusing page for sure. The block on the Adnanmuf account would by now have run its course, so in formal terms he could now legally edit, but his account has been inactive. Which new account(s)/IPs do you claim is/are his, and when do you say did they start evading the block? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of LoveMonkey

Hi,

I received an email from LoveMonkey asking me to edit his User Page to indicate that he is now "retired". Apparently, he thinks he can't do it himself because he's been "banned". Sounds to me like a self-perceived martyrdom. All I see is a message on his Talk Page from you saying that you blocked him for a short period because of disruptive editing on Ayn Rand and its talk page. He also sent an email referencing a website with a discussion about Neurolinguistic programming and a user named Peter Damian (Edward Buckner). I don't know what that's about or how it relates to the Ayn Rand article.

I've worked with LoveMonkey on a number of articles. He's prickly and hard to work with. There've been plenty of times when I have wished someone would come along and block him for me. However, he has contributed a lot of valuable content to Wikipedia and so I think it would be good to keep him around rather than chase him away.

Could you fill me in on what's going on? Was he banned or just blocked? His user page doesn't show indications of his being blocked. Is he still blocked? If so, when does the block expire?

Can you explain the reason for the block? His edits on Talk:Ayn Rand don't seem to be that egregious and I only see one edit by him in the last 500 edits to Ayn Rand. I agree that it was a bad edit and needed to be reverted but I don't see a blockable offense here.

Thanks for your assistance. --Richard (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block was based on his editing of the talk page, which struck me as unproductive and inflammatory, combined with his WP:POINTy use of blockshopping. It was a short block, and is going to expire today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia

I will be interested to see what happens to your changes to the National Bank of Greece page. A year or so ago I went through a bit of a reversion war. I wanted "Republic of Macedonia" and someone else wanted the full FYROM. Eventually things settled down with "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Acad Ronin (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date autoformatting poll

Hi there! I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before even clicking on that link, I do hope that this is an April fools joke. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it turns out it wasn't. Bad idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

User:Future_Perfect,

Please!

Preview for page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xanxari_en./Krahu_i_shqiponj%C3%ABs

Respectfully

--Xanxari en. (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No

[[1]]

No I'm not on revert parole and have not been ever.

Second there are sources claiming the Souliotes and Arvanites were Albanophone Greeks so get your facts straight.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

FYI. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling?

What is trolling (re your delete, I think I will move the message on my talk page should anyone wish to see it). Thanks Politis (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found it, it means, "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." ~~Presumably~~ clearly that includes swearing by users, editors and administrators. Please, please, please stop trolling. Politis (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

I have made a major edit in this page. Can you take a look, and see if it is correct. I need your opinion.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I was affraid a dispute occured. I really need an opinion from an un-related editor on Talk:Cham Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non free Scouting images

As much as I like Scouting images on wiki, I think this guy is marking nonfree images as free in the belief he took the photo so it's free. Can you look into this and take appropriate action? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#1

Hi, do the photos on this page violate NFCC#1 (An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above.)? If not they should not be marked as public domain right, as they're photos of a copyrighted project? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xashaiar

Look at talk:Samanids and edits like this and this. Xashaiar's edits are full of examples like these and I'm wondering how long this attitude will be tolerated. Alefbe (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need Assistance

Hi, I'm having one ridiculous problem on the Macedonian wiki. I was blocked "forver" for "Puppeting" because I made one change while I was logged out [2]. The IP address that I posted from was 212.25.53.71 which is the same address that I write at the moment. I was just logged out by some reason. The change that I made was to add the NPOV template, and to request a soruce (fact tag). Can a CheckUser check this and advice the admin Boyan to unblock me? I'm sorry for bothering you, but I can't even write on my talk page on the mk wiki to explain the sutuation. It's really stoopid to be blocked for making one change while logged out. --StanProg (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit, those people running amuck again? It's a bit difficult for me to intervene efficiently there, as I don't speak the language and am not really a regular contributor. Perhaps you could ask User:BalkanFever (mk:User:Балканец)? By the way, I don't see that you're blocked from using your talk page on mk-wiki, have you tried? (Or have they that feature generally disabled?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, I'm blocked from editing the talk page as well. I'll talk with someone else. 10x --StanProg (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a comment on Boyan's talk; don't have time to go to and/or argue at OTA. Unless you want to write up a short notice/comment (in Macedonian) for me to post there. Not sure what else I can actually do. Balkan Fever 06:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. It seems he was unblocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey

Thank you for your interest; please note I've replied to your post.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. There is much discussion, and I would like to ask you to reconsider whether you still think the argument you used is valid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed much discussion. Far too much. And I'm afraid after browsing through a few contributions (from you in particular), I'm not getting the impression there is likely to be anything among them that would change my position. In fact, on a casual glance, your side comes across as a disruptive display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. – The short answer to your question is: yes, I do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are not confusing the sides here? You stated that sources for Wilno are not more numerous then for Vilnius. In fact, as has been pointed out several times that they are, albeit I agree, not by a significant amount. In addition, the Vilnius list is misleading (has bullet points that are claims, not sources) and unlike mine, is mostly offline (not verifiable by Google Print). Still, given that there are numerous sources for both sides, I can understand how you would not be convinced to support Wilno, but how can you justify your support for Vilnius when the numbers don't give it any significant majority (and in fact they give a slight majority to Wilno)? Hence I am inquiring why did you decide to oppose (indicating a preference for Vilnius over Wilno), instead of abstain (which would indicate no preference). Or am I misunderstanding your position here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any significant lead of either option (thank you for confirming that this is the case), I will opt for the status quo, simply for the sake of stability, noting that this choice is also strengthened by the fact that that's where the main article is. What I found offputting in the debate was mainly your insistence on discussing whether this or that language was "official" back at the time, a debate I find utterly senseless and inane. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite claims of some editors to the contrary, a ton of academic sources uses the term "official language" for that historical times. Just browse through sources at Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics - most of them should have direct links to Google Print for verifiability, and quite a few of them should use the word "official". One of them should actually go as far as to have a section on one of the Statues of Lithuania which specifically forbade use of languages other then Old Slavonic in official documents. I do think that discussion whether a historical battle named after a place should use the name which was not used in official documents (and most unofficial ones) in that place (plus it was likely not used by majority of local inhabitants) has its merit, although it is certainly not "the entire story". Yet with English language sources not giving us a clear majority, such issues should be considered. Certainly, one argument, as represented by a side there, is that we should use the modern name, case closed. I think, however, that while battle of Vilnius/Vilna/Wilno of 1655 may be less known then battle of Stalingrad by orders of magnitude, the underlying logic still holds (hence, why we don't have the battle of Volgograd other than as an amusing redirect).

Finally, I certainly can see your point with "acting for status quo"; there is however a logical fallacy here: supporting name because it was the first created simply favors the pure chance and results in random naming: if I created this article first as battle of Wilno (1655) would you oppose the move to Vilnius? Lack of clear naming policy and support of random names creates chaos, or at least, occasional conflicts like the ones we are witnessing, and worse, it creats confusion to the reader: why battle of Vilnius (1655) but battle of Wilno (1939), Vilna offensive and Vilnius Offensive (just think about those last two titles for a moment...) - all which are the aftermath of being created by different editors, and subject to chaotic RMs (some of which failed and some of which succeded, and none of which are a guarantee that those articles will stay where they are)... I am attempting to solve this mess at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Wilno.2FVilnius, but unfortunately, too many editors don't want indeed to hear the other side, and are simply defending their pet name variant :(

PS. How two people can look at the same data and draw opposite conclusions... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get my point. Even if there was such a thing as an "official language" at the time (and I haven't yet checked your links, not sure if I will) – it is completely irrelevant to our naming decisions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then let me ask you for advice, simplifying this as follows: given a situation like present, with (very roughly) half of the sources for A, and half for B, what should we do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall back on the modern standard name (i.e. the one used as our primary article title in the city's own article) as the default, if that is one of the two candidates; and/or simply leave an article wherever it was created. Honestly, what's so problematic about that? Why is this even an issue people waste hours upon hours debating? (Well, of course we all know why it is an issue: because you guys are all driven by national egoism. Shame.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would avoid personal attacks. I am not assuming anything but best intentions on your part, and I'd hope you'd return the favor. Please note that your view "fall back on the modern standard name etc." is contradicted by our various naming conventions (not that some of them don't contradict themselves or one another, but this is a different issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mail

you have emailPolitis (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name delisting request

Hi Future. I have withdrawn my vote from the straw poll. Could you please update your list on Talk:Greece/Naming poll and remove my name from the list. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]