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

Macedonians (Greeks)

I nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonians (Greeks). Cheers!--

Aaegean Macedonians vs Greek Macedonians/Bulgarian Macedonians

Hi Moreschi,

I want an explanation as to why Aegean Macedonians are forced into the article Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, while Greek Macedonians and Bulgarian Macedonians get to have their own article instead of being within the article Macedonia (Greece) and Blagoevgrad Province, respectfully?

Mactruth

Re: Macedonia proposals

I'll take a look at that shortly.
Fair enough; I've changed it to "supervision" throughout.
As the third paragraph of the remedy states, the supervisor is expected to not only deal with misuse of administrative tools per se, but also to help train the administrator "to conduct themselves in a manner appropriate for an administrator". There are a great many administrators who do their jobs very effectively without ever coming up for sanctions; I'd like for you to train yourself to act as they do. Basically, I'd much prefer to have a model administrator than to have no administrator at all; but either is preferable to having an administrator that conducts themselves inappropriately.

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; the supervising admin is free to set limits, but not required to do so in any particular way. Personally, I'd expect them to take fairly general forms (e.g. no using tools in some topic area, no blocking editors, and so forth), not a requirement for individual approval of each action. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange stuff

There's an user that kinda scrambled a couple of articles (User:Pyraechmes, but that's not my point) and who has created a new account - see User:Pelegon. Now, when you look at his last comment on his old talkpage and his new user page, what do you make of it. I mean, isn't this sorta anti-semitic and well... I'm not sure. Take a peek, please, and then decide if any action is appropriate. --Laveol ^T 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wasn't aware he had created the new account. I've blocked it and told him to return to the old one and request an unblock there. BTW, I actually think those "I hate Jews" remarks were just being sarcastic, but they are certainly unhelpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to qualify them. Thanks, anyway and luck on the arb. I hope you don't get desysopped or anything. I'm not sure if there's anyone to take over. --Laveol ^T 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue was covered here. It seems to be over for now. PMK1 (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hy, long time havent talk

Just one thing? Can this be asumed like good references?

Makedonij (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fix the links.Makedonij (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kontogiorgi book looks decent enough, at first sight, although you should keep in mind that its actual academic focus and expertise is on a later period, so Kontogiorgi's presentation of the 19th-century situations may not be representative of her own first-hand research to the same degree as what she writes about the 1920s. For the earlier stuff, it might be preferable to go back to whatever other secondary sources she relies on, or to other more specialised literature. The John Shea book is not quite first-rate. It can be used for its description of the present-day conflict, I suppose, but it's not really expert stuff when it comes to history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Shea's own words in this book : "I don't claim to be unbiased...". I don't think it would be prudent to use him as a source but you could look into his claims and references and use him as a guide. GK1973 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalemate

A referee to do what? We are not talking about changing the reference to RoM here, a term appearing only TWICE in the whole article, but about editors wanting to edit other aspects of the article. Should we lock any article referring to this country? Sorry FP but I cannot see any logic here. A simple reminder of an impending ban on anyone going against the injunction would suffice to thwart any regular editors from playing with the name in question. I know that Horologium will most possibly NOT agree, but I have to state my opinion. Anyways, I have opened a topic about this Greek motto and we will see what happens next. GK1973 (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both know that articles about Ancient Macedonians, Sts Cyrill and Methodios, Alexander, the Rosetta Stone etc are all the time being war edited and attacked by such editors. This does not justify keeping an article about a COUNTRY locked. RoM references will be arbitrated and we will see whether this arbitration will be respected or not. I proposed that the ArbCom should issue a decision instead of organizing a committee, which will engage in a fruitful discussion with the community, which will propose a poll, which will be disputed, which will be arbitrated etc. I think that no "neutral" committee's decision will ever be respected, since it can only PROPOSE and not IMPOSE its will... I see that the same thing happens in every other naming issue in Wikipedia and I am sure that this is what will happen here. Thus, being somewhat of a pessimist and knowing that ArbCom will not impose a decision but urge for consensus (unless they surprise us...), I think that what we are doing here is seriously disrupting Wikipedia, much more than a few edits and reverts would. You know my POV, but here we are not just discussing POVs about the name, but also implementing strategies of pressure to a community, which cannot be characterizd as Wikipedia-like. What we are doing here and our refusing to unlock Greece really sends a message that unless the Greek-sympathizing community will unconditionally agree with the other POV, they will not be able to update the article of the state. Bearing in mind that the name of RoM appears only ONCE as RoM and ONCE as FYRoM, I really believe that this is a clear overkill. Keeping an article locked for a week is understandable, but keeping it locked for months (or years in this case, since you know as well as I do that NO respected compromise will be found, as is the case in EVERY other such case in Wikipedia) is illogical. In my opinion we are already walking a dangerous path imposing a new disputed and here arbitrated status quo over the established status quo ante and I am really concerned of possible implications, once other involved admins start following the examples we set here. Should ArbCom be able to give a swift decision, it would be no problem, but in such cases... GK1973 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

Hello there :) I left a message about you here. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: PBUH editing

Future Perfect,
I got your message. Thanks. I'm working on being more civil and less cantankerous :) ) I'll re-word my note to that gentleman. You're right, he might be offended if I call Mohammed "his deity". Thanks

_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

FUT
That user Laveol is folowing me like a dog, and he tray to provoke me to do some stupid things, for shure he will obtain his goal for another BAN for me, but how can i stop that?
Hmmm, I am not following you - I've got the page on my talkpage. And I'm certainly not waiting for you to do stupid things since you already called me some names in your latest edit summary. --Laveol ^T 20:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just sneaking on me ha? Makedonij (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said Makedonij, it should be no suprise that so many Greeks and Bulgarians are obsessed with Macedonia related issues... after all Greek secret services were caught trying to change WP policy, I wouldn't be surprised if Leveol is just another paid "agent". After all, isn't it strange that a non-administrator is on WP 24/7 like its the only thing he has to live for? Mactruth (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you, please, stop speculating about my personal life. The fact that you don't like me does not justify comments like these. The problems are to be sought entirely in you.--Laveol ^T 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Mactruth, but can someone please explain me how to avoid this conflicts, becouse all my edits are reverted by him, i tray and i'm traying to avoid articles that are of Bulgarian interest, and i went to edit towns in Macedonia, then he present his humor on that page to and provoking E war, he knows the rules more then me, and accuse me when evere i go wrong. But who will accuse him? I wish to send him in PM, but i will earn another Block like always. I will stick to other wiki language becuse this one is ironic, in evry single article related to Macedonians and Macedonia, it is Bulgarian mentionig of something. Yea we know what they think of us, and they express it in evry single article, but if one of us mention their Tataric origin, we get blocked, when Greeks call us Skopians it is fine in the end they will achive what they want, becouse of their larger number of editors. And yes my english is not fine, but i think that you guys understand what i say.Makedonij (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man. Guys, I'm currently rather preoccupied with other stuff so I don't really think I can help you a lot with your dispute right now. I've blocked Mactruth for this rather crass personal attack above – sorry for not seeing it earlier; I must admit I didn't really read these posts very carefully. But Makeonij and Laveol, could you perhaps try to solve this in some way without me, just for today? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll try thinking of something for today. But you've got till the end of Arbitration :) --Laveol ^T 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aegean Macedonians vs Greek Macedonians/Bulgarian Macedonians
Hi Future,
I want an explanation as to why the article Aegean Macedonians was forced into the article Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, while Greek Macedonians and Bulgarian Macedonians get to have their own article instead of being within the article Macedonia (Greece) and Blagoevgrad Province respectfully?
Aegean Macedonian is a subgroup just like Greek Macedonian, or Bulgarian Macedonian is. I believe Aegean Macedonian should have their own article if the other two subgroups are allowed too. Mactruth (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant ?
Future Perfect,
Who's being defiant? I merely explained my actions. Why the revert was made, how it was made and that it was done in good faith. Your first post on the matter was you coming out with guns blazing:
Wait a moment, can I get this straight please. KoshVorlon, you are saying you made this revert because the other editor was referring to Tamerlane, and you think that because that name incorporates the historic nickname "The Lame" it was vandalism? Can you please quickly say something that convinces me you are not on a trolling spree here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You assumed bad faith automatically.
That's not warranted. I didn't return and edit war on the page. I made one edit only to revert (in good faith) what looked to be vandalism. That's all. It didn't warrant the trolling mention you put on the page.
I didn't revert your removal of my closure either. It's still opened. Let's assume good faith in the future ok ? _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Well, you are certainly making it more difficult than it need be. Last time I counted you had repeated three or four times in a row that you still thought the edit actually was vandalism, when just following the link for once and glancing at the article could have informed you that it wasn't; plus, I'm still surprised you could even think the edit you reverted had inserted that phrase, when it had in fact not even touched it. If you'd simply investigated the edit for two minutes, after people had brought it to your attention, you could easily have said: "Okay, sorry, I made a mistake there, misread the diff", and all would have been over. I never blamed you for not knowing that Tamerlane actually was called "the Lame" (although, I have to admit, I would have thought it was common knowledge, probably I shouldn't make such assumptions), what I found questionable about your behaviour was that you still hadn't worked this out in the meantime, when it would have cost you only a click to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction
Regarding the removal of the image, here you stated:
rem image again, no non-free images of living public individuals, per [WP:NFC [1]
There are several reasons why this statment is false. First of all, the image is free, second Wikipedia:NFC makes no mention of "living public individuals"
There is a essay about this:
Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people but it has been marked historical.
So please be careful before you delete other editors contributions next time. There has to be some kind of basis in your deletions. Calendar (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, on point one,[2] Calendar (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's a misunderstanding here: The image I removed was indeed a non-free one. There is now a Commons image under the same title which is free; I actually deleted the old non-free one more quickly at the request of the uploader, to make the free Commons image shine through. As for the policy: Photographs of living individuals, with very narrow exceptions (of which this wasn't one), fall under WP:NFCC 1 ("no free equivalent is available, or could be created"), as illustrated further on the same page in the example list of "unacceptable uses", #12 ("Pictures of people still alive [...] provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"). This is also enshrined in the Foundation's licensing policy [3], which says that projects "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". That's the rule I was referring to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admin reeducation/supervision/rehabilitation
I just read this and the bottom section just gave me a little smile and I have to share with someone. "Reeducation" was, of course, what the Vietnamese Communists called the "program" that they forced on members of the South Vietnamese government after the war was over. And "rehabilitation" sounds like a 12-step program. Sometimes Wikipedia takes itself too seriously. (Taivo (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed. I've tried my best avoiding to heap scorn on the arb(s) for the rather shocking naming gaffe of "reeducation", but I hope they won't bear me a grudge if I'll be mildly poking fun at it from time to time. What is really more disconcerting is the thought that there might be more than just coincidence in this naming choice. Not that I'd suspect Kirill to have secret Maoist tendencies, but could it be that there is something parallel in the social dynamics of conflict resolution among those engaged in building up the perfect new world of socialism, and those engaged in building up the perfect new world of Wikipedia, that leads them to the same tendency towards uncontrolled use of euphemism? Not a nice thought. – Other than that, preparation for a "supervision" arrangement is actually going fine so far; if they go ahead with that, I'll be ready. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you end up needing it, I totally have a bilingual copy of the Little Red Book. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested to know that there's now a thread on this at Wikipedia Review which, for once, has some sensible things to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's the best reading I've done all night. My wife is Ukrainian and was educated while it was still the Soviet Union. Remember, "Lenin is just Lenin, he has no title, he's just Lenin". (Taivo (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the copy-editing
I appreciate your use of English and thanks for copy-editing my syntax at Macedonians (Greeks). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pyraechmes
Ok, thanks for that. I agree that an indefinite block for one comment is a bit much but he's been here a few months and has been told a few times not to mess around. I may ask User:DragonflySixtyseven myself if Yannismarou doesn't. Perhaps mentoring could help more than anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User: MacedonianBoy
Excuse me, but this guy is again in action, vandalizing some articles as Macedonian Bulgarians and List of Macedonians (Bulgarian). He even deleted indisputable persons as Nikola Vaptsarov from there. Please, help. Jingby (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"brief responses"
Just look what happened at the PD talk after your one-line comment about "brief responses" :) It might be impossible to be brief and summarize in this case. I have great trouble doing that myself. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me again
I was looking in to this], and i know that you know Greek, this words, most of them are used in present Macedonian language, dont think this like a POV pushing, just a question? Here is a translation of them, if you admins will alow i would like to translate them in Macedonian to?They are written in Greek, and it is not known how the original was writen or spoken, like this.
δάνος dánοs ('death', from PIE *dhenh2- 'to leave') ???

ἀβροῦτες abroûtes or ἀβροῦϜες abroûwes -(in Macedonian used today) OBRVI it is used in Slovenian to,(eyebrows)

Βερενίκη Bereníkē versus Attic Φερενίκη Phereníkē-(in Macedonian used today) BERENIK-POBEDNIK- (victorius one)

ἄδραια adraia ('bright weather'), -(in Macedonian used today) vedro-nebo vreme - (bright weather)
.....I could translate them all , same meaning?!Makedonij (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, sorry, I don't think you should try going down that road. That will only end in a rather amateurish OR disaster. Indo-European etymology is really not a topic for these kinds of easy analogies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll back up Future on this. Generally Slavic and Hellenic cognates bear little overt resemblance because of the massive palatalizations that the Slavic branch underwent. I'm always skeptical of cognates that look alike, but give me a cognate set like do and faire and τιθημι and I salivate ;) (Taivo (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Ahem. Stop salivating on Wikipedia, Taivo. Where's your dignity. Really. (Dang it, I wasn't even aware do and tithemi are cognates. Damned aspirates. ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, to bad that you dont know basic of slavic language to,you would know what i'm talkink about.:)Makedonij (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - you'll soon find out he does have quite some knowledge on Slavic languages ;) Plus, I surely understand you - we have pretty much the same words in Bulgarian. --Laveol ^T 21:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I apologize for bothering you.
I talked with Shell_Kinney about my ban. Because she gave me an advice at ANI [4] I obeyed her order for months, and I have not edit the areas where was you banned from 20 January 2009. Please, look my editions during the past few months. I've learned to handle dispute, for example about battle ship Yamato. However, you may think there are few example, but I haven't encounter the persons who had not talked in Talk page after the ban. So there are few examples. Please recall the edition of Comfort women, I talked in Talk:Comfort women, but opponents didn't reply and revert without sufficient explanations. I tried to talk in talk page. And my edition remains for months until now, it tells us my edition is not bad faith. However, I admit that I have tended to revert editions before the ban done, sorry. I mend my rough behavior. I keep promise, trust me. Please release my ban.--Bukubku (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am currently too preoccupied with other issues to give further attention to your issue. If you want to have your ban lifted, I recommend to take it to the wider community (best post an appeal at WP:AN); if admins there agree to lift it, they are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for generous reply. I try to post at WP:AN. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you give me generous comment. However Admins think this time my ban release is too premature. I will get better than now. thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, man. Not this guy again...
Hey, Future. You remember me, right? Just saying hi, as I haven't seen you outside of the nationalist circles lately ;p ... Ah, those nationalists. What a wonderful bunch of individuals they are. Am-I-right? Köbra ☠ 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Krahu i shqiponjës is back
I was going to delete it but then thought I should see if you have any ideas as to how to handle this. It's gotten to the point where User:Xanxari en. simply waits a few weeks after deletion and then recreates the article verbatim. I don't want to block him but on the other hand, do we really want to just keep deleting this article over and over and over again? I'm a bit lost at this point. Since the user seems to think that you and I are both involved in some conspiracy to get this article deleted, I almost wonder if adding a speedy tag and having another admin delete the article might be a good idea. Thoughts? --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert..
Thanks for the handy revert. I was unaware that I was of Albanian descent. ;) PMK1 (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Krahu i shqiponjës
You are insisting too much with the deletion of Eagle’s wing magazine. And it’s clear that I have the right to think that you are included in some conspiracies. You are acting on the back of encyclopedia. I am going to complain at the highest instances, up to “New York Times” for your conspiratorial attitude. . You would better include the article because it is the only reference for the Cham issue, for whose solution western diplomacies are so interested in. Positively the article Cham Albanians which takes about tens pages at your encyclopedia has as a main references source our magazine. I am once again waiting for your fair, impartial and honest judgment to put once again the article in the encyclopedia. If more reliable references are needed I can find and put them.
--Xanxari en. (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep missing the main point, which has absolutely nothing to do with a conspiracy. The main point is that this article was deleted per a perfectly valid deletion vote. And what you keep reposting is essentially the same article. This has been explained to you numerous times now. You need to come up with better, more reliable sourcing instead of just continually reposting the same article. There is no "conspiracy" involved here and there never has been. I can't speak for Future, but I know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. I also know very little about the Cham Albanians. As an administrator, our job is to act impartially based on Wikipedia's guidelines/policies and that's what we are doing. You simply cannot get past the article for deletion or G4 in the speedy deletion guidelines. As long as you keep reposting an article legitimately deleted per a AfD, it will keep being deleted. You need to come up with better sourcing or something to make the article significantly different. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Krahu i shqiponjës
User talk:Future Perfect,
Three users don’t comprise a community and they don’t have the right to speak for a whole community and hundreds of users of Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia. You should try to be “perfect” and rational in your attitudes. I am not exasperated if the article is or not in the encyclopedia pages but we are worried and disgusted by your unfair attitude against our community. We are against holocaust and genocides that different world dictators have practiced. Germans and Albanians have been friends all the centuries and I am surprised why a German has such an unfair attitude against the Albanian issue. Once again I can say that at this point it doesn’t matter if the article will never be part of the encyclopedia pages, controlled by a “perfect friend” like you, and is sufficient that our issue today is in the mouth of gigantesque America and fair Germany etc. We don’t enforce anyone but we were waiting for an argumentative response by you why those hundreds articles with two rows, with any source and reference, aren’t deleted and you go on dealing with “Eagle’s wing” article.
Respectfully
Elim Xanxari
Journalist of “Eagle’s wing” magazine
--Xanxari en. (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krahu i shqiponjës
You can read the article at the address below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xanxari_en./Krahu_i_shqiponj%C3%ABs
And if you are careful, you will notice that there are new sources and references of the most reliable. I don’t know what can be more reliable than the president of the Parliament of a country (Pjetër Arbnori}) and the National Library of a country?! There are photos there and documents (facsimile):
http://www.shefkihysa.com/al/xhaferri.html
which prove that Albanian state is our collaborator. See them and suggest us what other reliable sources can we find?!
--Xanxari en. (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I going to have to take this?
See User:Pristinick comments: [5] and [6]. I try to cleanup the article and I get harassed and taunted by the user. I can't just make an edit to bring the article up to MOS standards he/she has to make a personal attack and break civility? And not to mention completely revert all my edits. _{El Greco}^(talk) 14:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming it's another sock of our old friend Shuppiluliuma. He's always had a rather, let's say, possessive attitude towards that article. Please let me know when the next sock turns up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So should I take any further actions against Pristinick as User:Dinkytown suggests or let it go until another sock puppet arises. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother; he's indef-banned anyway, there's not much more we can do about it, except blocking any new socks whenever they turn up. I'm sorry to see he's still making a nuisance of himself, but his socking energy is apparently inexhaustible. Please report any new appearances here or to User:Hiberniantears, he's experienced with the case too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the help. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image
I tray to upload this file, but it shows me old version when i upload it. Can you please delete two last uploadings by me? The problem with it is, Strumica is not part of that group of estern dialect, it is part of yellow colored southern part, also the part of Štips and saraundings is deeper to the border including Vinica, Makedonska Kamenica and Radoviš. I fixet that, but when i upload it it shows previus image, can you do it please? Thanks.Makedonij (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]