User talk:Aldux

; Archives
	Complete archive; Individual archives: Jul 2005–Mar 2006; Mar 2006–Apr 2006; Apr 2006–Jun 2006; Jun 2006–Jul 2006; Jul 2006–Aug 2006; Aug 2006–Oct 2006;

Aldux is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Need your opinion, Problem - article: Kiro Gligorov

There were plenty of disputes between me and user Funkyfly on the Kiro Gligorov article (plz check version history and the discussion) but no one ever came to help us to solve them. The dispute turned into reverting of the article over and over which of course is going nowhere. Knowing that you are sort of veteran here, i hope you can check this problem out, please. If you could intervene on the Vergina Star article, Im sure you can intervene here as well (in the name of objectivity right?).

Funkyfly's side:
He/She (sorry I dont know) claims that Kiro Gligorov declared Bulgarian ethnicity in Sofia in 1942. And not only that but it seems to me personally (correct me if Im wrong) that this wikipedia user is trying to turn the whole point of this living person biographical article into "KIRO GLIGOROV IS BULGARIAN?", like it is the most important subject in the whole story. All the time he/she insists on those statements of his/hers.
To supoort such claims, that user provides links to some document scans without offering much explanations about them. And I must note, unfortunatelly user Funkyfly behaves in a quite arrogant way.

My side: I noticed those scans are published on the official website of the bulgarian nationalist political party VMRO-BND, section for the city of Plovdiv (note: this political party is quite "anti-Gligorov"). Im not saying that such documents should be always ignored! if they are published by some political party, that doesn't mean they are fake by default. Or maybe they ARE fake? We simply dont know. Seeing that the discussion goes nowhere I insisted that at least a detailed explanation of those links should be added cause the readers deserve to know what they're clicking (and they are clicking a link to a website of a political party). Contrary to him/her, for those ceratin links that I added, I also added all the possible details to help the readers (according to Wikipedia rules: detailed explanation of external links is required) so they would know what they're clicking.
Also, user Funkyfly insists that the following sentence should remain untouched, quote: During his studies in the University of Sofia in 1941, and when applying for a position as a lawyer in 1942, Kiro Gligorov declared Bulgarian ethnicity.(end of quote). No source, no citation, no footnote, absolutely nothing is provided, except those questinable scans which are actually not connected to this sentence in any way (footnote, reference or something). The sentence just stays "naked" like it is a 100% absolute truth :)
When I asked for a citation for this problematic statement, user Funkyfly removed the "citation needed" note that i left, without even trying to explain anything. If you can check at the history of the article, he/she never bothers to explain his/her changes in a normal manner.

Also I have pointed out that Gligorov was a member of the Antifascist Assembly of the National Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) in 1944 (so just two years after he "declares as Bulgarian" he suddenly fights those same Bulgarians to form a Macedonian state?!) and he was also a high ranking official during Tito's Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia recognized a separate Macedonian nation), so Gligorov is what the bulgarian nationalist can clearly label as an adherent of the macedonism which is completely contrary to the pro-Bulgarian views! Also I have pointed out that Bulgaria as Hitler's ally was not a democratic country with full respect of national rights, so logically, when Gligorov was filling those forms (the scanned documents) he certainly couldnt state any other nationality except Bulgarian of course :) Many fascist regimes during WWII imposed various measures for ethnic homogenization, assimilation etc. on the freshly occupied territories. I dont see why Bulgaria should be treated as an exception. Before the WWII Gligorov also use to have a serbian name like everybody else in what is today Republic of Macedonia, which was then a part of the serbian dominated Kingdom of Yugoslaviauntil 1941. But that certainly doesnt mean he was Serbian too, of course.

Please let me know about your opinion. Thank you. --Vbb-sk-mk 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help, Aldux, I really apprecciatte it. Now, I really dont want to bother you again, its just i want to point out that meanwhile the same user mentioned above has continued his/her misbehaviour which can be clearly noticed in another article related to Kiro Gligorov and thats ASNOM. For me as an ordinary surfer, his/her aim to take control over every article related to Republic of Macedonia is quite obvious, plz correct me if Im too paranoid. Those same statements that you removed like "Kiro Gligorov declared Bulgarian etnhnicity" and so on, are just copied and pasted in the article about ASNOM too. And again, there are no sources, no footnotes and quite poor explanations.(check the history page also plz). The situation is similar with the article about Lazar Koliševski, but thats another story. Theres no way for me to solve those problems as I do not present any authority here and that user mentioned above is treating everything as his/her private property. On the other hand I do not wish to torture u with these balkanian troubles, im sure u have more important things in life. this was just an information on how articles related to RoM are constantly being treated. Thank you again for ur kind attention.--Vbb-sk-mk 03:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess some Republicans would rather see the history of their greatest leaders "untainted" by their obvious cooperation with the Bulgarian "occupiers". /FunkyFly.talk_ 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funkfly, as you see Im trying to avoid further quarells and hostilities. Reverting the article over and over, "war of ego's" or insulting each other's nation is definetly not a solution. Im just asking for a sort of arbitration by a respected and experienced user from a "neutral country"(in this case it's Italy). As you can see I also presented the POV of the both sides in this dispute. As I said, those documents MAY be 100% true, but we are simply far from being 100% sure yet, so right now that's highly questionable. And speaking of your behaviour, its quite obvious.
For Aldux: if I said or did anything wrong Im sure you will tell me. Thank you in advance. --Vbb-sk-mk 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bla bla blah. 100% sure but still highly questionable. Make up your mind. /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afrika paprika is ignoring your block

For all this time, Afrika has been ignoring your block. No check-user is needed since the edits clearly show it's him and he self-identifies as such. --PaxEquilibrium 18:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I actually came here to report the same thing. The specific edit Pax is talking about that demonstrates the behavior is this[1]. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would you like to take a look at this article? Thanks, Bomac 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great

Hi Aldux, as you suggested, I'm trying to edit this article so it's better sourced; perhaps you'd like to see how it's going? As I suspected, one of our editors doesn't like my changes. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, Aldux. I would appreciate your opinion on this kerfuffle. As far as I am concerned, je m'en fous whether AtG is considered this or that. The issue is whether a "masticabibbia" contingent is steering the the article to its own ends. I found particularly revealing an edit comment by one of the group, "The Discussion Does not Warrant This Category given the evidence is not there; if that's the case we might as well place sexual oriented categories in every ancient Greek biography" not only because it is patently false, as have been most of their arguments, but because it offers a glimpse of where this is headed - the removal or blocking of sexual categories from a culture renowned for its homophile interests. It seems to me both dangerous and unwise to cave in to this pressure, since history has shown all too well that appeasement does not work. Haiduc 16:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aldux, this may interest you. The user has a grand total of 3 edits at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, working on a RFCU right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guagamela

I already showed you the Iranica link that clearly states that those numbers are worthless.Khosrow II 00:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica is one source, not The Truth™; its position should be stated, but you can't pretend to remove the primary sources on the battle numbers only because you don't like them. I haven't heard of the wikipolicy WP:CENSURE; so they shall remain. Obviously, you can use reliable sources that believe those numbers are untrustworthy, that explain their point.--Aldux 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mywayyy (again and again)

Hey Aldux, I think Mywayyy might be using a meatpuppet or something, but can you please semi-protect OTE and Aegean Sea? I'm sick and tired of reverting him. Thanks. —Khoi khoi 06:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please? :-) —Khoi khoi 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - also Thessaloniki. —Khoi khoi 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aldux

Hi Aldux, I was going to leave Akhilleus a message regarding the whole Alexander debate and saw your question about me being mistaken for Cretanpride again. No, I am not Cretanpride, they did have a check done on me on Akhilleus request.[2] [3] I apologize for the confusion. Regards.Apro 13 October 2006

PS: I didn't reply nor participate on any of that user James request. If for some reason my replys are coming of Cretanpridish like, that was not my intentions. If yes then I apologize for that. Apro 13 October 2006

Oh, sorry, you guys were talking about that other guy. Never mind. I apologize I thought it was about me. Regards. :) Apro 13 October 2006

People who are used synonymous with the word traitor

I listed historical people whose name has been used and are used as synonymous with betrayal and collaboration with the enemy. Ephialtes seems to be one in Greece, more internationally Brytys and Judas and Quisling. In United States everyone knows what is ment by calling someone Benedict Arnold as is the casse with Kuusinen in my home country. Brutus and Judas lived 500 years later than Ephialtes. There is no periodical connection there and it is not even needed since each time period and culture has it's own historical example of the basic character of a traitor. Ephialtes is the mythical traitor of the anticent Greek history and Brutus is the one for Imperial Rome, Judas for Christianity, Quisling for Norway and much of Western Europe under Nazis adn Kuusinen for Finns who fought the Soviets. In fact there should be a category for achtypes like traitors in history. Please, don't revert the changes.Spespatriae 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Arnold is probably the most natural eponym for treason in American English. Septentrionalis 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Al

Hope you're online. Kindly check if you can semi-protect Genocide denial. An anon persistently removes the Armenian Genocide. I'll rv for now, but can't say if the version will stay. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 20:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clevelander beat me to it. Please check about semi-protection. •NikoSilver• 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad at the Olympics

Hello, I noticed that you have just created {{CHA-Summer-Olympics}} and are editing specific "Chad at the Summer Olympics" pages. Before you get much further, I request that you look at the new infobox style for the "Nation at the Olympics" pages (e.g. {{Infobox Olympics Chad}}, and Chad at the 1968 Summer Olympics) and use those instead. Thanks. Andrwsc 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you...

...check your e-mail before you log in? •NikoSilver• 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same :-) •NikoSilver• 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra

I edited the article to best fit other cases. The article is not neutrual and shows only one side of a complex story

This is off a Discovery Channel Site

http://www.discoverychannelasia.com/ontv_egyptweek/death_cleopatra/index.shtml

The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra tackles a cold case of regal proportions. Cleopatra inherited the throne of Egypt at age 17, before dodging assassination to rule for more than 20 years. Her life is filled with the enigmatic and the unexplained… as is her untimely death. For two millennia, only one cause has been recorded – suicide by snakebite. Now, cold case criminal profiler Pat Brown and a team of experts that includes an underwater archaeologist and a toxicologist, are re-examining the circumstances of her alleged suicide. Using techniques of 21st century criminal investigations, they reconstruct the 2,000-year-old death scene (which is now submerged beneath Alexandria harbor) and reveal the sinister power games that led to her death.

Re: Congrats

Thanks Aldux! I never knew I was your model. ;-) This is indeed a great day for me as well...what do you think I should do first: semi-protect a page that Mywayyy's editing? —Khoi khoi 23:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, and then of course there's Bonaparte (he's the one with the "vote for this JEW" messages). —Khoi khoi 23:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Aldux, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 04:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for 3RR violation

Hi. I'm Ronline, another administrator at en.wiki. I've picked your name at random from the administrators list and I would like to ask for your input regarding a 3RR violation case. I've been asked by User:MariusM to block User:William Mauco over a 3RR violation. I personally believe that no such violation took place. The case was reported at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:William_Mauco_reported_by_User:MariusM_.28Result:.29. As another admin, what do you think? Ronline ✉ 09:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

In makedonia or what's the name over there, if you check, the peace agreement was not reached before november, even though they signed in august, not june, are u an admiistrator? how long? i have other concerns...

I'm an admin since July, to awnser your question. The point is you need to comply with the policy WP:V, that is, provide sources for the conclusions of the conflict, and more important, for those casualty numbers you gave. Consider also taking a username, to make it easier for you to edit and discuss. Bye,--Aldux 19:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel .Bryant 11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

And ~~"a link to the closed [ArbCom] case"~~ "[a link to] the discussion that resulted in the ban or block" would be great also. Apologies for the error - got my codes mixed up :). Daniel .Bryant 11:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not too important but...

Re this, I don't feel so strongly about it either. It's just that this was the previous version (before the anon edit), and it seems logical to me, regardless the circumstances. I hate those 'grey areas' where something is in the verge of being worthy or unworthy to be mentioned. The same happens in all articles we edit, even with much less controversy than a ...mere (!?) occupation. Sad thing. •NikoSilver• 22:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your e-mail please. •NikoSilver• 00:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, resent. :-) •NikoSilver• 11:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again per your instructions (response to yours). •NikoSilver• 13:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that I send you this. Kindly check if you can fix, or open a gmail account and change your preferences. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 08:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great

You are receiving this notice because you have recently commented on Talk:Alexander the Great. You may be interested in the mediation case located here. It is my hope that mediation will help solve the debate, but you are welcome to participate or not participate as you choose. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Κύπρια

Hi Aldux. Thanks for the note. I wasn't intending to comment but have now done so just to be clear about things. Cheers, Petrouchka 02:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renewal_efforts_of_the_Ohrid_Archbishopric

Hello, Is there any way to protect redirecting articles, since that is equivalent to deleting? I am taking about this without many explanations except the article is quite disgusting. Here is something that almost brought Macedonia under the Roman pope (for which there are documents) . Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigor (talk • contribs)

You mean protect your own version? /FunkyFly.talk_ 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your version there. And BTW you were OK with "mine" version for quite some time, until you suddenly decide you don't like it anymore.--Cigor 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)--Cigor 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course only The Wrong Version should ever be protected. I will happily declare mine to be the wrong one, if that helps. - By the way, Cigor, it's not like deletion: You can still access the edit history, get out anything you like and integrate it with the other article, that's called merging. Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any effort from you or anybody else to make the version "right". Frankly, if you can't see the article it's pretty much as good as deleted.--Cigor 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]