On June 1, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coccolithovirus, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Thanks for the submission! I've used the image on the main page as well; feel free to mention on any future nominations that the article has a good image to go along with it. --Spangineer[es](háblame)22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see what may be considered polemical in Vergina's page. Apart maybe from renaming certain sub-pages, which I do not consider so important. Please advise... NikoSilver(T)@(C)18:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Francis, can I have your help in a somewhat sensitive issue please? I came across an editor, User:Deucalionite, who has created quite a few articles which I believe have serious quality problems (unsourced, OR, promoting fringe theories, often with linguistic topics). I have the feeling some cleanup needs to be done, but I don't want to appear to be stalking the guy, who is clearly a well-meaning, good-faith editor. I've started at Joseph E. Yahuda (a pseudo-linguistic crackpot theorist) - please see the article talk page, where Deucalionite has been rather defiant about previous objections and prod'ing proposals. I've also left a note to him on his talk page, hopefully friendly enough. Fut.Perf.☼19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you had reverted the vandalism by Cyde to the Ref/Note templates, but then reverted yourself. You were right the first time. This rogue admin has vandalized many pages, and otherwise abused administrative powers to push his individual ideas on reference styles (for example, converting pages directly contrary to page consensus; and falsely changing guidelines to indicate a deprecation consensus that does not exist). This earned him a couple RfC's so far; but unfortunately, not yet a desysop'ing, which he desperately needs.
I implore you to restore the templates to the version before the non-consenus, and basically simply false, deprecation notice. LotLE×talk21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I award this original barnstar to Francis for his great efforts at making the Macedonia-related articles so much more peaceful a place to edit. -- Fut.Perf.☼20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could take a look at this article. I have argued that it is based entirely on a Greek POV, and its title is innapropiate. Thanks, --A.Garnet23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been mostly spending my free time in doing my stuff at mk.wiki these days (massive update of the translation), so I haven't had the time for en.wiki. I've noticed that you have problems with Macedonia and [User:Vlatkoto|Vlatkoto], I really don't know what's up with these guys... The Macedonian diaspora has some nationalistic elements, maybe it's because some of them had a really painful childhood (the exodus of Macedonians from Greece etc.). Anyways, what do you think about Macedonia's current user page. Because I know that this flag is really contentious, I would have removed it, however, it seems somewhat similar to Telex's page at mk.wiki. Are flags also belong into the inflammatory material? As for my personal POV about this flag: I really don't know how it became the "eternal symbol" of both Macedonians and Greeks, since it was discovered in the late 70's, and as far as I know, nobody had a clue about it before. However, although I really like the new flag, and the sun symbolics, I don't really condemn those who still use the old flag (doesn't mean that they are necessary nationalists or something). For example, Eurominority still uses it (I guess as something of a "self-identifying" flag of the community) This (my opinion) also applies for the Greek variant. --FlavrSavr22:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Vlatko just uploaded Image:SkopjefromSpace.JPG, which he made using Google Earth. The problem is that it is a copyvio - Google Earth includs this condition:
This Software is for non-commercial use only and your rights in the Software are strictly limited to home, personal or recreational use only by you and not for the benefit of third parties.
The region of Macedonia as perceived by Macedonian irredentists. Ethnic Macedonian nationalists have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" (Greece)...
So by including it in your userpage, you admittedly identify as:
So I guess Britannica happens to be a "Macedonian" irredentist and an Ethnic "Macedonian" nationalist because they happen to use a similar map in their encyclopedias when depicting the Macedonian region as well as the terms Aegean and Pirin Macedonia. So I don't see how a simple map of the region of Macedonia which is currently being used by scholars in encyclopedias can be compared with a swastika. If you have any more questions you can ask me or better yet consult a Britanica. Macedonia20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt Britannica uses that map (even at all) calling it "Historical Ethnic Macedonia". Britannica is extremely sceptical regarding the so called "Macedonian ethnicity", and evades mentioning it my name whenever possible. --Telex20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding semivowels, I got that from lunt 1952, now he may well be wrong, or I might have confused the terminology. Can you point me at another study of Macedonian phonology? - FrancisTyers17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd stick with Friedman on this one. You know, that same online grammar. Friedman calls only /j/ a "glide" (= "semivowel"), while /l/, /ł/, and /r/ are just liquids - two lateral (approximant)s and one trill - i.e. the standard situation in 99% of the languages you would normally think of. There might be a lateral and a rhotic semivowel in some language, but at least I've never heard of one. --85.187.44.13107:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Francis, an article you once created as a stub, Albanisation, has been put on AfD. I haven't voted (just corrected the malformed nomination) - but I must say I wonder what you wanted to achieve with this article. It seems to me that it's doomed to be either a dicdef, or a POV dump. It's a matter of intension vs. extension: "Albanisation" as a concept (intension) is a dicdef, while in terms of extension whatever it refers to doesn't really seem to form a single coherent historical phenomenon. Of course this or that may have become "Albanised" here or there sometime in history, but does that make all these disparate historical events into a single article topic? Do we have Germanisation, Anglicisation, Swedishization, Bulgaricisation, ...? (Let's see how much of this turns blue in preview, I'm really curious.) Or is it the case that there is some particularly salient period in Balkan history characterised by a single trend of Albanian expansion, and the article is meant to describe that?
Your comments? I'll hold back any vote until I hear your opinion. I'm quite open to being convinced of the merits of the article, it's just that I can't really see it right now. The AfD nominator is an Albanian editor who seems to have issues with several Albanian-related articles. Fut.Perf.☼22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. Seems the AfD is turning safely towards keep, and I won't oppose that. I can see now that this was part of a series I wasn't aware of.
<pieve type="pet" mode="rant" switch="on">Although, to be frank, I'm still not quite happy with those kinds of articles. Somehow there's a hyper-proliferation of ethnicities-related articles, for my taste. For every nation X, where it would really suffice to have one country article ("X-istan") and one language article ("X-ese"), these days we get one ethnicity article ("X people"), one on nationalist grievances ("Anti-X-ism"), one on irredentism ("Greater X-ism"), one on assimilation ("X-ification"). The whole "X people" concept seems suspicious to me, the very article format tends to attract ethnic essentialist thinking.</pieve> -- Fut.Perf.☼08:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody considers mk.wiki as bad? :-( Bad in what way, in particular? Neutrality? (you mean, it's worse than for example bg.wiki?) --FlavrSavr23:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you read only the latest comments :-). Now, for the user pages of Macedonia and Telex - personally I don't find them chauvinistic, but rather provocative. As for the mk.wiki, I guess you meant bad in NPOV implementation. Yes, it is bad in some articles, however, I'm under the impression that is not worse than bg.wiki, for example (el.wiki and sq.wiki I don't understand). Typical Balkan POVs do influence it. However, if you think that an average mk.Wikipedian resembles Macedonia,Makedonia, Vlatkoto, you're seriously wrong - they don't even edit on mk.wiki. The most nationalistic editor we have had, is perhaps Makedonec, who left the project because we have reverted him on several occasions. He vigorously protested why we had put both Macedonian and Greek (red and blue) Vergina star flag on the general Macedonia page, and the Greeks haven't done that. --FlavrSavr00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you just had to forget INkubusse, Evla, Alexander SK (aka Realek), Guitardemon666 and whole bunch of others. Dont let me present you links with curses upon curses on Bulgarian and Greek users, just like it happens here. /FunkyFly.talk_ 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no worse than bg.wiki. You have some nerve FlavrSavr. The article about Macedonian language clearly presents both sides of the story, in excrutiating detail, much like en.wiki. For all the revolutionaries and tzar Samuil, the situation is pretty much the same as en.wiki. I dont see you comparing mk.wiki with en.wiki though. There are no propagandas on massive scale, like taking over parts of neighboring countries and claiming millions of people. Articles are fairly well sourced and chauvinism is under control. Most importantly, the self-determination principle is being followed, unlike at mk.wiki. /FunkyFly.talk_ 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only to be expected, but to be respected. Any tempering influence on the ex-Yugoslav Wikipedias (in particular, sr: and hr:) would destroy the relationship between them. At the same time, it is not all so bad that you would have the right to gasp in horror. Neither sr: nor hr: tramps more than the Serbian or Croatian media. Maybe on less, because hr: is populated with educated adults, whereas on sr:, though it is known for accomodating us punks once in a while, there nonetheless exists an internal atmosphere which will prevent any significant distortions. --VKokielov03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see there are impartial thirds dealing with the Macedonian issues and all other exclusively Greek issues in general. I thought we should be introduced! ZITO I ELLAS! ₪Hellenic Republic₪ (T)13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do yoy think that you are competent, how do you ditinguish whats inflamatory?. And therefore give your self the right to play with other user pages than yours?--Vlatko18:57, 06 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here are some: Makedonia's user page, Pulvis angelis's page... I tought that every user has the page in order to expres him self, therefore he has the liberty to write and put every kind of image or text on.?--Vlatko20:00, 06 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nexm0d is right though - it's perfectly clear that we're dealing with the same language. It should be called Yugoslavic of something else politically correct. I don't know about your Serbophobic agenda, but you certainly have a pro-FYROM agenda; you reject historical facts in favour of what is written at www.maknews.com. --Telex18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get done with it and ask for these features all together. There are only two points requesting your attention: (1)the foo/goo thing, which actually works and (2)a proposal for the text flow. Please comment on both. NikoSilver(T)@(C)16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, its me again :( Maybe it is really irelevant what we are arguing about whole night, but FunkyFly has removed sourced data from the Bitola introduction. MatriX20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, if you want to discuss the linguistic classification of Arvanitika, then please read all the archives. There is not one source describing it as a seperate language from Albanian, whereas there are multiple sources (Trudgill included) calling it a "dialect". See this letter to see how this Arvanite at least feels. --Telex18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and he won't say where he got them, or, if he made them, if he was free to use the used images. I'm afraid I don't trust his GFDL claims. About the Skopje emblem, he uploaded it and released it under the GFDL, while saying he got of from the city's website. This is too inconsistent. --Telex13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, he's even edit warring with me over it [5]. He claims he made the picture, but if he made it using unfree images, then it's still a copyvio. --Telex13:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)::[reply]
Telex, I created the image Skopje real using macromedia fireworks, I created also and other images, lotss of, I enjoy drawing, and I have skils. And tell me who are you to take such actions, Than tell me who made the picture Skopje real> the coat of skopje is taken from the official site. Realy you are not doing nothing good here.--Vlatko15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you took the arms of Skopje from their website, then you cannot release it under the GFDL, as it is copyrighted. You can only upload it for fair use purposes, something you clearly have not done. --Telex13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will review the copiright information of the images I used, And if I find problems I will ask you to delete the image.---Vlatko15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Francis I agree, but I will upload images that can be uploaded without "problem", you know what i mean. And why is the image removed from Skopje article, I think it should stay there till we see its copiright status, we have seven days or less for. ? .---Vlatko18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please have a look at Nakhichevan? Fadix is trying to include in the article the info which he failed to substantiate on the talk page by waging a revert war. I would appreciate your efforts to mediate. Regards, Grandmaster18:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! Regarding the Islam in the Soviet Union, I'm curious about how to proceed. There are two appraches in my mind..
Break it down in to an era by Era section, so "Under Lenin", to "under Stalin" all the way to "Under Gorby". This will mean it will be in accurate chronological order, but will treat the varying Ethnic groups as Homogenous.
Break it into a Republic, or Area, by Republic secion, so "In Tajikistan", "In Kazakhstan", even a "In Afghanistan" - This I do not favour, for while the ethnic groups do have different histories, are they significantly different enough in the context of the history of the Soviet Union?
Hi Francis, I'm afraid the story between me and Deucalionite is at a stage where some admin advice is required. Could I have your opinion? Deuc. is now taking the matter personally and is seriously enraged at me, it seems. He's been reverting a {copyvio} tag I put on a new article by him, Stradioti. I don't want to do this alone so as not to make it appear some kind of personal stalking vendetta of mine, so some outside advice would be appreciated. I've taken the freedom of asking dab too. Fut.Perf.☼17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick action. You're right of course about the "commerciality" clause. But looking at the deletion log now ([6]), I see an earlier version of the same page, marked as a copyvio from a mirror of the same external article, had been deleted earlier in May. I don't know if that was also created by Deuc., but wouldn't this mean it should be speedied as recreation of previously deleted article? Thanks, Fut.Perf.☼17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You criticize bgwiki when you get the chance, but when it comes to burying mkwiki, you go all soft and "let him without sin cast the first stone". You're far from neutral - are you a closet Macedonian Slav, maybe? --Telex23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonian Wikipedia is just as bad as the rest of them. And I'm shocked, you finally uncovered my secret! I'm not going to unilaterally condemn FlavrSavr just because he removed some chauvinistic BS from a users talk page. Just as I wouldn't criticise a Greek who removed United Macedonia crap from the talk page of a user on el.wiki or an Albanian who removed "Kosovo je Serbije" or whatever those nationalist fucktards write on their user pages from a page on the Albanian wikipedia. - FrancisTyers·00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Francis, could you please have a look at the article and help end the recent edit war? The page was protected, and I think we need your take of the situation. Grandmaster10:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A user moved my little (original research) research from my user namespace to the article namespace (something he shouldn't have done). After reverting him, the redirects need deleting. Thanks. --Telex20:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, could you please have a word with Vlatko about the dangers of chauvinism. It's generally thought of as improper to present provinces of independent countries as though they rightfully belonged to another independent country. In case you're wondering, that anon is Vlatko. --Telex18:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are related with the ones I added, and the chovinism is expresed by Telex in the statement above. But Francis tell me isn't that part of their history (it seems you had made an order to me here:[8]. And please delete the image cose two of the pictures i Have used are copyrighted :-(.--Vlatko21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Funky is on wikipedia just for "Bubling", I knew not about the copyright of the images, admiting that, I showed that a made the mestake without a bad intention, why should i do something like that.--Vlatko15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Francis. Sorry for dragging you into this again, but would you be so kind as to see what’s going on Nakhichevan? I personally consider Fadix’s behavior to be very inadequate, and we need somebody to mediate the dispute. Maybe you could help us to end this argument. Regards, Grandmaster06:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Francis, I've read your note on Grandmaster talkpage. I beg to disagree, the only things I haven't done is to source those footnotes you filled, because every of those were documented in the talk page and my answer to you alone contained two of them. Had this been a normal article, I would not need to cite more than 2 notable sources. I even proposed a change insteed of targeted using the word 'most affected.' I wonder what I can provide more, and the word as well is not POV. It is stupid for me to assume good faith when Grandmaster report as such a mass scale resettelement of Muslims which he doesn't document and claim he does not have to document anything. Fad(ix)19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, I have little patience when the person with whom I debate request something which is not available for other subjects covering the period. This should have been an easy matter, even the Ottoman until its fall did not have proper census and only was an accurate uses of record has been used in the Russian Empire in the 19th century with the punching card system. Google is a great tool, but also can become for the worst of Wikipedia. We should not use it to advance a position, but use it to confirm something. I have seriously researched in various databases, in fact even without typing the term Armenian, and I was getting results in regard to Armenians. He started a fight if I remember correctly for the migration of Armenians in Erivan, which is included in the Nakhichevan article and is unrelated with the subject, did you see me revert waring and placing this into context by highlining one of the major reasons which was the prior years Armenian immigration for Georgia? I don't know if you have followed the discussion about the etymology of the word Nakhichevan, take a look a the section: the name of Nakhichevan was altered many times, changing to: Nakshijahan, Nuhchikhan (the place where Noah landed), Nesheva and etc. This of course isen't supported by any reputable publication, had the situation been reversed he would have not wasted the time to add that officially it is recognized that it is etymologically an Armenian word. I am tired to leave things because Grandmaster doesn't want to make any concession in the fact of the obvious. This mediation was to fail, how many mediations have ever succeeded when the matter was between me and Grandmaster? This is politically motivated, and he is under constant belief that if it is highloined that Armenians were those most affected from some twisted logic the legitimity of Nakhichevan autonomous republic will be questioned. Fad(ix)21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Karabakh cases it was a question of semantics, this is a cases of history, haven't I sourced all the points? To resolve an issue both parties should be ready to make concessions, I have changed targeted for 'most affected' Grandmaster never proposed any amendement, it was clear for him that any referrence to the Armenians in particular in regards to Abbas decision was out of question. This in my opinion is the reason why the mediation did not succeed. You do not start a mediation when one party does not want to make amendements neither concessions. I am not saying that I am not to blame, but I won't take any blame for not documenting. Again, I stress to the fact that this is an easy issue. What is reported? Is it a position? Regardless of if Grandmaster agree or not, most reputable sources say this and this position exist. Have I made a big story over the signed declaration of Khojali massacre claiming genocide? No, I stopped interfering on that, and even you admitted it was nonesense, here the cases is documented and Grandmaster just won't listen. Fad(ix)21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes in the article about Macedonism, I tried to make the article more neutral, please look at it and tell me what do you think about?--Vlatko15:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, you keep inserting "Bulgarian POV" without realizing this is the only POV in existence. The term is еxquisitively used in the political sense, I dare you to point a page where it is used as "symbolizing cultural influece". Look even the Serbs use it this way, let alone Republicans and Bulgarians. /FunkyFly.talk_ 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, totaly diferent is that the term as it uses the name macedonia within it refers to Macedonian (as you want) political influence, and there is no need for a "google site", it refers to something macedonian, and implicating bulgarian POV makes the statements in the artical unrelevant, but if you want so, continue to do it, cose I give up, you have google here to be the smartest, congratulations. (not everithing is written "on" internet).--Vlatko00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And for you Francis thanx for the answer.--Vlatko 00:01,14 June 2006 (UTC)
But Francis I already did it so, as you can see Funky edits the article as it is his own invention and so it "updates it", I sugest copyright ampblems to be puteed on "such articles",
Hahaha, here is your english level, Funky, the metaphore I used is to show your flexibility, cose you even don't read what one has writen, you just revert.--Vlatko21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, can we do something about this anonynous user claiming he is Vlatkoto. I mean what if someone else starts claiming he is Vlatkoto from another IP? /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fran. The time for Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Poll will expire today. You're an admin, so would you care closing it? Please make special reference to two things that I think were quite interesting:
My rsp to David Ruben about 6.1: "...we will force the hidden refs that don't correspond to a non-hidden ref within the body text to produce an error, so you will not be able to include un-linked refs."
Hmmm, should we notify all voters to upgrade this bug in Bugzilla too? Also, what about the rest of them? You still won't be able to have hidden bibliographic refs and stuff. :-( NikoSilver(T)@(C)20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the whereabouts of Bugzilla, so I guess I'm the one to notify the voters. Kindly provide me with the links for the listed bugs. I'll prepare some nice note (which must be also posted below the poll)... NikoSilver(T)@(C)21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope we saved the day there, I didn't wish to piss people off or anything, but darn text is apparently much less friendlier than actual talk. My intentions would be evident, if the guy was able to see my (and your, I presume) face. Now to your q: No, we want to file one according to this. Read it. It's cool!
Your intervention on that page left some points in suspense. You removed category:Hungary-related lists, but also :Romania-related lists. In the case of the latter, I have to point out (as I have did on all my replies on the talk page) that its inclusion in cat:Romania-related is perfectly justified - not by the number of Romanians listed (which would be idiotic considering several facts - including that of ethnicity not implying citizenship, therefore "Romanians" not equating "Romania", which is certainly true for Transylvanian Romanians for centuries on a row), but by the fact that Transylvania is part of Romania. Since this grouping was according to region of birth, and was not meant to imply that people on it have Romanian ethnicity or have had Romanian citizenship, it is as justified to indicate that this is related to Romania in the same way as Brttany is related to France and Bavaria to Germany. Dahn16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am intersted in transliteration from Arabic script to Latin script. I am not a programmer, so I do not understand the technical side of the job. What is your opinion on this? Is it possible? How accurate the results would be? Just let me know your opinion on this matter. Thank you very much. Bye. --TimBits03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan Workers Party (with all names later-on) is an internationally recongnised(by EU, USA, Russia and many other individual countries) TERRORIST organization which took 30.000 lives of Turkish citizens! Stop tagging the name "militant" instead of "terrorist" as if they were fighting for a reasonable cause in reasonable manners.
--User:Kertenkelebek14:57, 16 June 2006 (EET)
And here a list of images, that I not intentionaly uploaded on in order to break the copyright policy, cose I did not understood the meaning of the GFDL licence:
What the hell do you want Fank, is this here your problem, or you are one, "just continue to not make mestakes human"!.--Vlatko22:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of images from TrekEarth.com Vlatkoto has uploaded as {{GFDL}}, although all content on TreakEearth is copyrighted. Here's what it says in the copyright policy section:
Copyright 2006 TrekEarth
All rights reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by the copyright laws of the United States of America and recognized nations and states. No portion of these original works shall be reproduced or transmitted in any way without prior, written permission from TrekEarth.
Photographs from the TrekEarth Gallery section are also protected under United States and international copyright laws and may not be reproduced or transmitted in any way without prior, written permission from the respective photographer.
Yes, I did uploaded the images, not knowing what GFDL is, sorry.
Well, then would you please be so kind to make yourself familiar with the licensing issues here and list all your copyvios, so they could be deleted? Thanks in advance! Todor→Bozhinov20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realy do not understand where does this concerns you, but thanx. And I hope you as an editor mostly in Bulgaria related articles will add the census data regarding the macedonian numbers in Bulgaria in Bulgarian demographics history article and others relevantly regarding the mentioned subject. That would be nice and correct from your side, and will make a rightfull fighter for the global humanright policies. Thanx in advance.--Vlatko02:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, really pitfull from your side, when I asked you to explain that to me, you "pragmticly reverted mine POV", and later stated it as yours obviously, would had be nice just to be said not to be played. Really smart and mature FUNK.--Vlatko02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Francis. I know that you are away, but whenever you get time I would appreciate if you could have a look at Nagorno-Karabakh page. We have a heated debate over the intro again, which I thought was resolved long time ago. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I would appreciate if you participated in the discussions on NK page. I think we need to do something to resolve the dispute with participation of third parties, because I see no end to this dispute. Regards, Grandmaster05:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm confused. I can't locate the posting that you refer to. Have I said anything about the Peerage article? Tony07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A user User:Pecher had been made multiple personal attack against me. I have recently decided to warn him 3-times as suggested at [[10]] so that I can report him eventally at [[11]]. Hence when I had written the warning message on his talk page herethen he had removed it. What I suppose to do? I am afraid that he will soon archieve the talk section and I will not able to find the warnings. Looking for your advice. --- Faisal21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I' can't understand again, but I'll :-(, this with the copiright and reproducing I get it, but the program and makeing it as another image is something different, some of the images that are now deleted, I had made as a glass copy with macromedia fireworks an for that I uploaded them as mine works, but cant see how did I broke the copy.... than. Can you explain that to me, please--Vlatko12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a comment, it is an insult, please don't continue reverting, it will direct the talk page to totally different dimensions, resulting in unwanted discussions. No one has the right to insult Turkish people by calling "The Father of Turks" a murderer. There's no good-faith in continuously adding an irrelevant an biased quote to the discussion page even several times after somebody took it as an offensive. Kertenkelebek(talk)12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not exactly spam. It's a personal note. I don't really know Tajik, but I think it says "Hey everyone, I'm from Uzbekistan, I .... articles in this site... my email is ...". I think it's an offer to help out, though I'm not sure. But I do know it's not an article about Asia. --Node00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I doubt this person knows English. Unless you know Russian, it probably wouldn't help much to e-mail him/her. --Node13:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, you've aimed Toteng. Yes, there is not much to write about the village (Funny, I thought it was town, but nevermind). Well, if I find of any place (it will be town, I promise ;-)) that is not much written of, I'll write you. Regards, Bomac20:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you can take a look at it. Someone referred the article to me, the info looks like it conforms to media reports from that time but is written in a rather sensationalistic manner akin to yellow journalism in order to garner sympathy rather than to simply inform and state facts. Some of the information looks inaccurate too, I don't think its completely habitant-less like it claims. Can you attach a tag if you think it violates one thing or another. Thanks.--MarshallBagramyan19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just made my link section, which includes your page. I also remembered something I wanted to tell you. I was in Seattle during a pro-immigration protest a few months ago. Anyways, I was hanging out with two anarchists I had met up there and as we were leaving, we ran across a sign in Russian that said "No one is illegal" (one of the people with us is really interested in Russian related issues and hence speaks Russian). It was pretty funny. We took it back to the local infoshop where she volunteers, and as far as I know it's hanging up there now, although I was only in Seattle for a few days so I'm not sure. Next time I go back I'll have to check! The Ungovernable Force05:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you moved around a lot of the stuff related to American individualist anarchism, and now I can't find it. Why did you do this without discussing with anyone on the appropriate talk pages? MrVoluntarist00:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Albanian Wikipedia was somewhat of an extraordinary case. User:Dori (of whom you may already know) had translated the entire interface and created some articles, however, he said that it wasn't fun for him to add new articles to a practically-empty Wikipedia, and so it was a nice-looking but dormant and nearly empty Wikipedia for quite some time. I decided to add quite a few country articles, one example is [14]. Whether or not it was my edits that caused the Wikipedia to become active shortly thereafter is debatable, however I am certainly the one who ended the trend of inactivity.
In most other Wikipedias, I worked really only on the Table of Contents: Limburgish (I am 24.251....), Maltese (same IP, this time I really only corrected spellings and uploaded a logo), Haitian Creole (same IP, as well as my username), Amharic, as well as similar activity on the Romansh, Georgian, Armenian, etc. Wikipedias.
The only Wikipedia whose interface I translated at all (to which I am willing to admit), with the exception of Gothic, is the Yiddish Wikipedia.
I also added some basic seed articles to the Sindhi Wikipedia before it became active (although it seems to be inactive again now).
There is also the sad story of the Navajo Wikipedia, which was the first out of all Wikipedias I ever tried to do anything for really. So far, I'm really the only contributor there. This is probably attributable to low native-language literacy rates among the Navajo (the current official orthography was introduced by the same man who shot most of the Navajos' sheep, which makes elderly people not want to use it, so mostly only the younger people know it), as well as low on-reservation internet access. I imagine though that if the Navajo were as well-connected as the Limburgians, the Navajo Wikipedia would be doing pretty well now.
When it comes down to it, there is no way to make a definite connection between my activity and the sudden expansion of these Wikipedias by native speakers. However, in most cases (main exception is Amharic), activity started within a couple of months, while these Wikipedias had already existed for sometimes over a year already. --Node13:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your action. I've done a bit on the Aegean section, but the recent edit wars seem to have been related more with the Smyrna things. I don't have much to contribute to that. I think it wouldn't be quite fair if I now applied for page protection to protect "my" new version - but if you want to protect against the warring over the Smyrna section, go ahead. Fut.Perf.☼09:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, technically, I think you need to unblock the guy first before you extend to a longer block, otherwise the shorter one takes precedence. Or has that changed recently? Fut.Perf.☼11:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what about that other guy, SotirisVa? He's put an {unblock} request up and says something that sounds as if he was hoping for an arrangement with you. He's a newbie too and sounds as if he was genuinely willing to mend his ways. Are you going to show mercy? You didn't unblock him yet, did you? Fut.Perf.☼13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your trust in me :-) I'll keep an eye on the situation. He seems currently to be caught in an autoblock, could you lift that too? Fut.Perf.☼15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10:30, 26 June 2006, FrancisTyers (Talk) blocked #196233 (expires 08:47, 27 June 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "SotirisVa". The reason given for SotirisVa's block is: "3rr on Greco-Turkish relations".)
If he has a dynamic IP, autoblocks are not a problem (as I discovered on mowiki when my accounts were being blocked for being to similar to those of Bonaparte :p). --Tēlex15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Francis, I've also responded on the noticeboard. I think you're too kind with the guy. The relevant policy must be Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Expiry times and application. It says: "Disruption — For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time." If I were you, I'd block for really long at the next juncture, and let him off only on condition that he subscribes to a zero-revert parole on that particular naming issue. That basically equals an indefinite topic ban. I think he really should not entertain hopes that after all this he should ever again have any say in Greek-Turkish geographical naming issues, unless he reforms thoroughly. Fut.Perf.☼13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only dropped in the other day for a reasin I have forgotten about!
Silly question, because I would have moved it back if I had known what to do. What did you do to move it back? I could just not see how to revert it. Was it hiding in plain sight?
There has been a lot of reverting going on in the Alexandroupoli artcile. (I did couple of reverts myself, too). It involves one of the users you recently blocked. Can you take a look at it? Oh, there is also a discussion going on about the issue, which started way after the reverting began. Thanks DeliDumrul13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis I think that User:Telex has missunderstood his role as an free editor on wikipedia with an administrator, the last that he has done, was to revert the Pirin Macedonia article to a previous one, why? ...As he's saying he reverted unsourced Slav POV ... Well at least he could do is to leave the sourced added sentences like that throught the period when Pirin Macedonians enjoied free expresion prime minister of Communist Bulgaria was Georgi Dimitrov (I added to the article that he was of Macedonian descandency) <<I can source that. But not only this time all the time he only reverts and reads not what has been written. Please warn him in the future to be more flexible thanx.--Vlatko 21:51, 27 JUne 2006 (UTC)
Vlatko, it's a big claim that people in Bulgaria had more freedom of expression under a Stalinist dictatorship than now, when Bulgaria is acceding to the EU. Cite sources, otherwise such talk is nothing more than a POV. --Tēlex12:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis/Vlatko, Telex usually meddles into stuff which he is clueless about. He has no idea who rajputs are but wants to have a final word. Such users should be thrown out. Tamzigh12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telex, it is entering, (even a macedonian party can't be registrered in a "democratic land like". Bulgaria was condemned cose of its imperialistics delusions by Strasbourg...)... And Greece is in EU, what should I say abou the rights of the Macedonian people in this EU land? BTW Francis thanx very much for the administrative arbitration.--Vlatko20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I have forgot to point [[16]]. Has he a right to play with other's userpages when he is not an administrator or we can just complain for that to administrators?
Even so, I do not know if you have or anyone else has the right to touch other user pages. Francis is there any wikipedia policy regarding this?--Vlatko18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you help with a serious problem we've been having. The article Rajput and is being edited (i.e. trolled) by sockpuppets of certain users banned from editing that article in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput. The article is semi-protected now, but he's using all his old sockpuppets (the ones he revert warred on tens of articles with, and is doing so as we speak). Could you please do something. Thanks. --Tēlex12:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you ban the users involved per the arbitration rulling - they can be blocked for violating the rulling, something which is occuring. --Tēlex12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shivraj Singh / DPSingh. These were the two main subjects of the Arbcom ruling. We don't know which of them is the current Rajput vandal, or whether they were the same person from the beginning, but he is clearly related to them. This has been going on for weeks, but if he now starts following people like Telex around even into non-Rajput articles there's a new level of escalation. The only help is to get every new incarnation indef-blocked as quickly as possible once he starts editing. Fut.Perf.☼12:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've now been testing a new way of reporting each new incarnation on WP:AIV immediately to get them blocked before they can do major damage. Today there were six of them, and most were blocked within half an hour. Would be great if you could help keep an eye on AIV during the hours of the morning, that's when he's mostly active but relatively few admins are around. Thanks! Fut.Perf.☼16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made my user page blank after User:The MAN vandailzed my user page by posting the entire Beverly Hills High School article on it. He has been doing more than just that! You suspended him for 3 hours after he posted all those personal insults in the history part of the Beverly High article. All his edits did was revert the article to a old version that had less information and has less references! This person has posted under other names, like User:MrManhattenProject and now he has another name User:Gunbolt who filed a request for mediation on the Beverly High article, but the request was delisted before I knew about it! The strange thing is, Gunbolt said on the history page of the Beverly High article that if I want to request mediation, I should. But Gunbolt already did just that and it was delisted!
I pointed out that this request was delisted on my user talk page! I also pointed out that I think he doesn't want to believe that some students who go to Beverly Hills High School are wealthy and have connections in the entertainment industry. It is NO secret that there are wealthy people who live in Beverly Hills who have connections in the entertainment industry who have children that go to the high school! This is quite bizarre! Look at all the notable alumni that went to Beverly, listed at the end of the article!
This person also has vandalized the article many times, deleting the entire article and replacing it with "Karmak is a faggot with no life"
I believe that this person is too immature to be a wikipedia editor, and he is a vandal! I think he should be restricted, if not blocked completely from editing wikipedia in the future! Wikipedia is not a place for vandals! Of course, what you want to do with him is up to you.
After looking at the User talk:Gunbolt page, I see he has already vandalized the Jimmy Wales article by deleting the entire article and replacing it with something like "your mom's a faggot." He was given a final warning! This guy is trouble! Karmak20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my dear Francis - anything for a handsome Wikipedian (well, nearly anything ;) I'll let you know when I'm done, k? Big hug, Phædriel♥tell me - 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I know you told me to take my time - but since I was at it, it was easier to get it finished right away. So there you go; I hope you like it :) Just as I told you before, have a great trip home, dear Francis, and even better vacation! Big hugs, Phædriel♥tell me - 19:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, sweets - I'm so glad you like it! :) You're too kind to post that note on your page; I usually don't like to sign my own designs... Anyway, I also took the liberty of rearranging your right table, since it looked out of center in Firefox after you moved it - it should be ok to go. Kisses! :) Phædriel♥tell me - 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I thought that Greeks has matured, and irredentist sentiments have been replaced with modern European thinking. Not the case - check this far-right ultra-nationalist website I just found (especially the Greater Greece map at the bottom of the page) [17]. --Tēlex20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW do you know what I find odd. The region of southern Italy (Magna Graecia or Mezzogiorno) has a population of 17,368,857. The Greek minority of southern Italy (who speak the Griko dialect) number c. 20,000 (see the article in question). What do they want it for? It seems that the Megali Idea is even worse than the United Macedonia doctrine. --Tēlex23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could restore that deleted article (in a temporary subpage if needed), because I'm really curious to know what they're saying. I found the AFD by checking the contributions of the user who uploaded the map on our friend User:Kamikazi2's userpage. I'm familiar with the ideology, but I don't know what Wikipedia had to say. About the Greeks of Pontus, they have larger numbers - 600,000 (i.e. anyway still a minor minority) according to the Columbia Encyclopedia [18]. I'm pretty sure that that figure includes the what Greeks call the crypto-Christians of Pontus (i.e. Muslim Greek speakers with a Turkish national identity). --Tēlex23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an article, it's advertising (it tries to persuade the reader); no wonder it was deleted! Personally, I this that such exclusive and devoted alliances regardless of right or wrong are dangerous, and the fact that the Greek far-right supports it makes me even more suspicious. See how it led Greeks to participate in what was found to be a genocide by the ICTY. See these sites criticizing it [19][20] - you'll have to run them through babelfish as they're in Greek. Anyway, it's late over here - good night :) --Tēlex23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC) (thanks for the undeletion)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer to the WPTL. Once things settle down a bit around here, I'll definitely join up and help out. I'm ashamed to say that I have, on several occasions, sought an answer to a dumb syntax question (what's a 'probe' again?) on Wikipedia, not found an article on it, found the information elsewhere, and then *not* returned to Wikipedia to fill in the hole. Now I've a chance to do penance. --RobinJ16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please protect Goce Delchev, because there is an ongoing edit war out there? I have presented loads of sources, and I have been continously reverted. The other side doesn't provide sources, and I'm getting the impression that they conciously lead me into breaking the 3RR rule. You can check out the talk page, as well. --FlavrSavr18:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and someone just used a sockpuppet to revert all my edits [21]. What do you think my chances are of getting a checkuser? --Tēlex19:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dirty tricks. Do you think you could add a POV ({{POV}}) tag to the article until things are worked out (and maybe correct the spelling errors). It this kind of thing becomes a habit, I will be seeking IP checks. --Tēlex19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for bothering you again, but I'm afraid someone needs to have a serious word with User:Deucalionite for once. Could you have a look at the last section of Talk:Souliotes? That guy earlier had developed a pattern of calling me "dishonest" or "narrow-minded" in every second edit summary or so, that's why I'm growing a bit thin-skinned against his insinuations against my academic integrity. Fut.Perf.☼20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh okay, I live on Main Street. Kinda wierd to find someone living in the same village since its such a small village and a lot of the people tend not to be... on the internet so much.
I know the person who did the website, i'll speak to him about releasing it under the gfdl when I get a chance. --JaJake19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at loughborough grammar doing all 3 sciences, just about to start A2's. So looking to go on to do a science degree at uni then... heh. I see you're finishing your linguistics degree. Lot of hard work? Is the dissertation really long? What are you hoping to go on to do?--JaJake23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Sounds like a lot of work :| Going to have to do huuuge project on it for your PhD then :P. I'm probably leaning towards chemistry or biology, might even consider doing pharmacology. Not too bothered really since they all seem to end up in careers in research... I'm probably going to apply for Edinburgh, Bristol, Bath, York, Newcastle and one other. Good mix in there I think :) Really looking forward to going to uni, 6th form has been a bit of a drag really. --JaJake14:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh i'd hate that! Yeah I really like edinburgh, its a really nice city and I hear a lot of good things about the uni. Its just reaaaly far :( First year at Edinburgh is basically an extension of A levels too so that should be even easier. Will probably stay on to do a masters though unless I get a massive urge to go get a job :P Yeah research seems like something easy enough I could handle doing for quite a while :) --JaJake21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Francis, Mywayyy was blocked for another week yesterday for renewed edit-warring, and is again block-evading immediately. See Samothrace and others. Somebody needs to impress on him that an indef ban is pretty close, I'd say. Fut.Perf.☼06:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clarify what the requested move is. You may want to change your vote there. It is currently under Oppose, but based on your comments, it looks like you support moving Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse. older ≠ wiser15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you think you could help with a sockpuppet problem we seem to be having. A user I believe is User:Amacos has been conducting a sockpuppet edit war with anon IPs. Some affected articles are Dame Gruev, Gjorche Petrov and Jane Sandanski. Is this thing allowed, or is the kind of thing people get away with, in which case I should make a sock army as well? If it's the kind of thing winners do, why not? Could you please have a word with him - I don't think that I have a chance of getting a sock check - the last two sock checks I've been involved in have been turned down. --Tēlex11:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About Georgia? Yes I did, and I also saw the example of moving Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan (country) - I would oppose such a move (even though the population of Iranian Azarbaijan in relation to that of Azerbaijan (country) is similar to that of Georgia (USA) and Georgia (country)). Anyway - I've changed my "vote". --Tēlex12:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since u are an admin, Francis, i have one question to make: why User:Amacos is not treated the same way as User:Mywayyy? The cases are quite similar: usage of sockpuppets and bothering with specific articles with the only aim to push POV... Take a look in the case please... --Hectorian13:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amacos has not yet been blocked for violating the 3RR, so he's not evading it. He's a smart vandal [22][23], and uses sockpuppets from the start, unlike Mywayyy. I think an IP check would be needed if we are to connect all those anons to Amacos. It could be a coincidence that all those anons behave exactly like him and revert to his versions and have similar interests in historical revisionism ;-) Be patient though - if the anon trolling continues, I think we should request an IP check, and it will be granted. --Tēlex14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be patient...:). i just sometimes get angry, cause instead of us making some useful edits, we spend our time in reverting anon vandals and POV-pushers... --Hectorian23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you have to vote, Fran? I was going to ask you to close the polls and perform the moves. Now we'll have to wait for some admin to get to them through WP:RM, in a few months. I wanted to perform a mass rewrite or both of them and now I'll have to wait :-( --Tēlex15:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of answer do you want. BTW I was bored, so I decided to run a whois check on the websites www.maknews.com lists as Macedonians in Greece, Macedonians in Bulgaria and Macedonians in Albania. Guess what I found: they are all registered to people in Toronto, Canada. So much for them being the "official sites" of people in the respective countries, when they are managed by people half a hemisphere away. What stops me starting a website and calling it the official website of the Chinese minority of Ethiopia? --Tēlex15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If you want to check real minority websites which can be traced to people in Greece, check these: three websites of Aromanian associations: [24][25][26], and one website of an Arvanite association: [27]. It's rather sad really - that Macedonian Human Rights Movement International (in Toronto, Canada of course) must be really highly thought of by Macedonian Slavs worldwide, as they create the illusion that their nationalist fantasies have some truth in them; they fill all the bored Macedonian Slavs crawling the web with hope that their nationlist mythology might be true. --Tēlex16:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, Karl Meier keeps redirecting Tactics_of_Kurdistan_Workers_Party article. I see there's some important information there which enriches Wiki, and I see that you were also involved in the article in the past. Can you please take a look and be a third party to help end edit warring? thanks 24.211.192.25023:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing dispute on the talk page about whether it should be called caron or háček/hacek. It has been suggested that professional linguists' advice would be beneficial. Would you please consider participating in the vote? 85.70.5.6623:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, you might see Hexagon's recent "spamming" of the Caron poll vote. It seems to me that there is no consensus to move the article to Háček but if you will look at the article you will see that I have tried to satisfy people by making the typographic use and the linguistic use more clear. Evertype13:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he reverted twice on Macedonism. This sock thing must be easy enough for anyone to do! Anyway - it's probably a public PC, he used after his own IP got autoblocked. Thanks :-) --Tēlex20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to is pro-FYROM agenda and rewarding sockpuppetry. He didn't protect the second affected article though, as that was not in the sock (i.e. the "right") version at the time, even though it had seen more reverts than Macedonism. Francis, you're becoming a bit too obvious ;-) --Tēlex20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for my masters, that depends on whether or not the university where I will choose to earn my Ph.D. requires one. But I have plenty of time to decide on that as I have to work on finishing the remainder of my undergraduate education. I'm glad that my translation was helpful to you. And thanks for the congrats & good luck on my RfA as well as the support vote. It looks like I may not reach a consensus the way things are going now, which isn't a big deal since there's no rush, really. Anyhoot, see ya around Wikipedia. --Chris S.21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since anarchism had the semi-protect removed, hogeye started editing with IPs (probably open proxies) again. User:64.159.81.81 is the one I'm dealing with most right now. Others include User:217.160.230.161, User:Beeboe and User:FreeJohnG, as well as a few IP's that have already been blocked. I suggest semi-protecting anarchism again, and blocking all the socks. Also, keep an eye on American individualist anarchism, which is a POV fork created by one of the Hogeye socks a while ago. It currently redirects to Individualist anarchism in the United States, but hogeye readded their POV fork after I reverted it back to the redirect (calling me an asshole in their edit summary no less). Thanks. The Ungovernable Force01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Francis. Thanks for the heads-up. I agree that the article could use some expanding and balancing. Unfortunately, I'm pretty ignorant of anarchist history and theory; I just have an interest in the subject. I am definitely not qualified to expand any of the articles, since I do not read many anarchist texts or texts about anarchism. If you look more closely, most of my editing is cutting and trimming. ;-) --AaronS20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Francis, I removed the cleanup tag on the Brian Boru article. Having looked through the edit history, I just wanted to acknowledge the good work you did there. --Coil0021:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see nothing in the guideline about striking out votes on straw polls if they are from IP users. AfD, RfA etc are for sure different, because they concern the structure of wikipedia community and you should be a part of the community to participate on the decision process, but this is a content dispute and I think that my support is valid as it is supported by an argument. However, the main argument for you is that the straw polls guideline doesn't mention ignoring votes from IP users. 85.70.5.6609:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Muslim minority (Greece), because it's official name is "Muslim minority" (Musulmaniki mionotita). If we had an article on the Roman Catholic minority in Athens, then we could call it Catholics in Athens, because that it their official name (en Athine Katholiki). --Tēlex10:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YAY!!! 3rd AfD in 7 months :D some Greeks really want this article to go :D question is what kind of Greeks want this article gone... Project2501a12:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Article kept! could you aslo add a justification as to why the article was kept? i don't want anybody to say that the article was kept "just because"
Could you explain exactly why you have selectively removed posts made on the British Isles talk page by myself and regarded these as "inflammitory"? If you had cared to read what I actually wrote in detail you would see that I was making perfectly valid points in response to tribal and overly nationalistic comments by another user. I see you seem to have a campaign against nationalism and overly nationalistic comments - if you had read my points in detail, you would discover that they were speaking against a form of overly nationalist comments, in comparison to myself who was speaking in terms of a more global society, promoting multiculturalism, and suggesting ways to improve international relations between 2 neigbouring countries.
I also see that you have removed a "personal attack". If you had read the entire talk page you would have also discovered that this was in reponse to an attack on myself by another user (jtdirl) and others. I do not object to removal of such attacks as debate can become heated at times, but I would much appreciate if you could be more consistent in your approach to removing such comments. In particular I am quite disappointed that false claims are able to be made against me and many others by jtdirl (an admin with a reputation and long history of ignoring civility rules and making personal attacks) and yet these are not removed. Additional personal attacks have been added later and yet are also left intact.
Surely wikipedia should encourage open debate rather than censoring individuals comments just bcause in your subjective view you may disagree with them. By doing so you are limiting the effectiveness of such a project by acting as some sort of corrupt member within the inner geek 1337 circles of wikipedia.
Jonto01:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restored my comments as I think I made some very relevant points and don't think they should be censored. I also tried to tone it down slightly, so if you still have any issues could you pease contact me first? Jonto01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you do something about Sockpuppets in the Petar Pop Arsov article? User:Arhiepiskopot Ohridski i Makedonski and User:Kiro Gligorov seem to be registered for the sole purpose of supporting FunkyFly versions or some flavor of it. Also, not one of them provided any reference him being a Bulgarian. There is no discussion in the talk page so I am forced to do 2-3 reverts a day in order to avoid block. I am following the rules but this is absurd...--Cigor13:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that there should be an article about "Anarchism in the United States" go ahead and create it. "Individualist anarchism in the US" is already has over 40KB, so it doesn’t need expanding. Don’t manipulate with work of your fellow editors and abuse your administrator powers and authority. -- Vision Thing --14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinary user can't move a page to an article with existing edit history and with "Anarchism in the United States" you did that. Is this note: "I do not use my admin powers on articles I edit for content" obsolete? -- Vision Thing --16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that shows that you are the only one who revered me. The Ungovernable Force revered Drowner on suspicion that he is a sock-puppet of banned user. Further, that shows that I'm not the only one who thinks that the move of that page is a contentious one. -- Vision Thing --17:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to have a look on that article. Certain users (especially User:Kertenkelebek and others) keep vandalising it by deleting neutral and cited information and replacing it with their POV. As an adminstrator you can do something (propably block him from editing). Thanks Mitsos14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you unblocked this editor, it looks like you didn't check for autoblocks. I checked just now and there was one which I released. This editor (or anyone on the same IP number) should now be able to continue editing.
I understand the concern over partisanship, but in this case we have the unhappy situation of factual evidence (albeit edited) presented in a plausibly partisan publication. There is no dispute that Yugoslavia forecefully interfered in the Greek civil war, both in terms of supplying arms, safe heavens and propaganda. There must be a (time consuming) way to track down Tito's relevant speeches and therelevant Nova Makedonija papers. At least we have the references. Politis14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the article, but i cannot find the 1945 reference. Anyway, we are still in 1945 and the greek source states it was introduced in 1945, therefor we have concurence. Otherwise, I would be happy to exclude the references to Aegean etc all together. But it would be nicer in the main text. Politis
Ah, I found it.
As mentioned. We both found 1945. That is what I call concurence. So now we can agree to go into the main text. Well done with your insistence. Politis15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, perhaps you missed it.
Your wrote: Your source is disputed [13], I'm removing it. - FrancisTyers · 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
DISPUTED? Allow me to kindly suggest that I think we concur. The Greek source gives 1945, and, as I indicated, it concerns the officialisation of the term. The source you so kindly provided, also gives 1945: Some of them even participated in the so-called “First Aegean Macedonian brigade” which, in the beginning of 1945, was active in West Yugoslav Macedonia.... I mean, we are talking 1945. So since, we concur and I utterly respect Francis' concerns, I suggest we include the footnote in the main text. Politis 15:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The date is 1945, not 1944; that is why I said that we both concur. You do not have the book, I presume, hence some of your comments are not quite apposite. The Greek source is just a FOOTNOTE on page 47. It reads, 'Δια του νέου όρου 'Μακεδονία του Αιγαίου' οι Γιουγκοσλαύοι ενοούν την Ελληνικήν Μακεδονίαν'.
As I said, WE CONCUR, in other words, both our finding give us 1945. We agree, we both found the same dates.
You thought that my sources was 'disputed' and gave an example. But it concured. Thank you. I will be using it.
Yes, I have that also, it brings us to November 1944. And we still have it as 'official', in 1945. That is, 1945 officially. Gourvernment sources are usually correct when they quote, because the worst that can happen is to be revealed as 'inventing quotes'. Bang goes their credibility. The book gives dates, people and places. That is, dates, people and places for anyone wishing to double check. Dates, people and places. I am sure you will eventually be able to distinguish some things. Sorry if I hurt your pride (it happens to all of us) Book gives, date, place and person. Politis17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just READ for crying out loud before asking things. Dont you ever take notes? All the info was there at the beginning from the piece you edited out! Sorry, but you are behaving like a spoil brat in a playground. Politis17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: The book gives "Dates", "Places" and "People" — is it comprehensive? - FrancisTyers · 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)..... Now, do you think that the information extracted from the book was comprehensive? I mean, did it give date, place and person and quote? I know Reuters would be happy with such referrences, and I know lecturers marking essays would be happy with such references. And so would you. I conclude that you fail to read and fail to take notes... elementary. Politis17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, if you want something relaxing and easy to do on the side, could you have a quick look at Talk:Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi and do a little requested move for us? Someone did an uncontroversial but cut-n-paste move and we now need an admin to perform the clean move in its stead. Fut.Perf.☼18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been right or wrong about the edits. I may have misjudged or been misjudged. That is human. But, I am afraid I cannot let pass what I perceive as racist bias. That is something completely different. Please think about it. Politis18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Racist bias because he implied your perspective in looking on the Macedonian issues was inherently related to you being a Greek (naturalised or otherwise)? Come on, Politis, be reasonable. Fut.Perf.☼19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis would you be so kind to add this to the article regarding Macedonians. I don't like to that by my self, reason: Reverting war with Telex and the Funk. If you don't want to do this please explain me why.--Vlatko08:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were discussing this the other day in the context of Talk:Greeks, also see my talkpage User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Greeks. It's basically the same study as the one mentioned here [29] (same author, same method, partly same results), and that study was criticised in rather extreme terms by some of the most prominent human geneticists as being totally unscientific. I'd suggest extreme caution with it. Moreover, if you guys decide to introduce it, make sure it doesn't insinuate to the lay reader something that it doesn't even say. If those claims are/were true, then the only conclusion we can draw from it, if we read it correctly, is that the Greek population has been remarkably stable over the last 7 millennia and kept itself distinct from other surrounding groups, whereas the present-day Macedonians are more of the typical, general mongrel mixture characteristic of the Mediterranean as a whole. So what? -- Fut.Perf.☼09:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that there were two Macedonian Slavs on that team conducting the research. They were from some blood institute in Skopje. --Tēlex10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, interestig I must recognise, but seen this way "How is it posible that the father who created you, geneticaly proven. Is not your father? But the neighbour who is saying so, having no DNK in you is the one? How it posible the gens of the ancient macedonians to be prsentinnovadays macedonians, but they to be not them... the greeks are macedonians without any relation by blood. Think a little. (BTW I'm not competitive to talk on my own about the research, to many names are mentioned with states and institutions...).--Vlatko 12:43 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Vlatko, please understand that it's a myth that that research says that the Ancient Macedonians have a genetic connection to the Macedonian Slavs. If you read it, it doesn't even mention Ancient Macedonians. It's sad really, because all the propaganda sites say it does ;-) --Tēlex10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen Telex, I'm bored of your pretending beeing "Greek", if you want to be so reallfull than plese start redefinig your history. I have nothing more to say to an amateur like you. And I think that Francis is clear enough with the facts and must stop with this play of your patriotism and hidding facts game. And Francis if you do not want to add this, than mentione it :-), "relatively" you must add it.--Vlatko 12:55 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just so that everyone knows, this is a purely fabricated Slav Macedonian paper. Arnaiz-Villenaz has no role in this. In his own paper he drew the evident conclusion that Greeks are a "newer" group of Indo-Europeans than say the Illyrians, Anatolians etc [30], because they came to Europe in 2000 BC. Basically his research verified history and proves rather the opposite from the Slavic article. He never speaks of Ethiopians and he never speaks of any "Macedonians". His name was used in a fabricated paper and his scientific work was manipulated, I bet he's not happy about it either. Miskin11:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All facts in all articles should be referenced - and interwiki tags definitely don't count as a reference. I am not disputing any of these details at all, but NikoSilver invited (at FAC) anybody who thought a reference was needed anywhere to put the template in. Lets put it this way: in an article about "Macedonian people" I wouldn't demand a reference to the fact they were called Macedonian people. That would be just silly! But this is different because it is an article about controversial terminology. Therefore the very first thing that springs to mind as requiring a reference, is that terminology itself! In this article, the terminology itself is not trivial. I'm not actually disputing the details I put the {{fact}} tag by. "Macedonians (as an ethnic group) refers to the majority of the population of the Republic of Macedonia.[citation needed]" actually seemed a perfectly good place to whack in a "citation needed". It's a non-trivial fact that the majority of the Republic of Macedonia's inhabitants are ethnically Macedonian. To say "Albania's population is Albanian" would be trivial, to claim that the majority of Macedonia's population holds that ethnic identity is not. To give you a very good reason it's non-trivial, consider Bosnia-Herzegovina. The majority of that country do not hold the ethnic/national identity of being "Bosniaks". Can you see my point? TheGrappler13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks :). But I fail to see why this is important for the lead, the lead is already politicized, do we really need to include every moves and changing of decision of the Soviet Union? Because if you want to include in this timeline all the important events affecting Karabakh there are about a dozen until the NKAO, not to include the incorporation of Lachine in Soviet official maps, to its removal, to the creation of a Kurdish administration to its removal etc. Yes! Those are all relevant things to add in the article, which lack of, I have already criticised, but how those informations are relevant for the introduction of the article I don't see. But anyway, it still is interesting that those points are raised to later be incorporated in the article. Fad(ix)23:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, it started from 1918 local administration to 1923 and officialised in 1924. It all dependent from where you start and where you stop. Fad(ix)15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, Nagorno Karabakh was delimitated clearly by Abbas permission of the 5 Melikdoms for autonomy. But if you are talking about after WWI, Nagorno-Karabakh was autonomous in 1918 with independence and with a local autority, after the temporary decision to place it under Azeri juridiction, Karabakh still in 1919 did not recognize Azeris government juridiction (read my note page on that). There are various important events from 1918 to 1923, do you all want them? If so, I will include them. Fad(ix)15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, it never really was until Armenia officially surrendered to the Bolshevics on December. It had up until then an Armenian administration which was not recognizing Bolshevic Azerbaijan's governance. The Bolshevics used Karabakh as hostage to drag Armenia in the conferderation, they'll permit its attachement to Armenia only when Armenia join the confederation(which happened the same day as Armenian officially entered it), but before December, it was autonomous, a self declared state which was not recognizing Azerbaijani autorities rule, neither had the League of Nations recognized at that time. Fad(ix)16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's inaccurate, Fadix. Armenians of NK did recognize Azerbaijan's rule, I can site my sources. Actually, I have already done that on NK talk. Grandmaster18:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The reference you have provided is not sourced by Potier and contradicted by official records of that time.[31] Karabakh has refused Azeris autorities from 1919 to current time. They did it in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and the most recorded in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s to current time. That was the main point of contention, as Karabakh never recognized Azerbaijani government, while Nakhichevan referundum result was respected, Karabakh Referundum results were not, which makes of the decision illegal according to Karabakh and many other sources. e.g [32]. Armenia was forced to accept due to threats of cutting oil supply to the Soviet Union, but Karabakh as far as I am aware of never accepted Azeris rule. Fad(ix)19:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armenians of Karabakh did recognize the rule of Azerbaijan, and interestingly not only Potier says so, but even such POV source as Libaridian, who strongly condemns Azeris and British for everything that went wrong also acknowledges this fact. I cited this source too. Grandmaster08:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Svante Cornell: the British who replaced the Ottomans after their withdrawal reaffirmed Karabakh’s belonging to Azerbaijan, by appointing a Muslim governor in Shusha. This led to protests among the local Armenians, who only reluctantly accepted Azerbaijani jurisdiction in February of 1920. Grandmaster09:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, the British decided to take a temporary decision, the League of Nations the equivalent of the UN at that time, did not recognize it. Under international law, since Nagorno Karabakh had its own autorities, which BTW was democratically elected at that time, and that the Russian Empire border was annuled, no decisions or Treaty could have been signed without an arministice first. This is to prevent the annexian after an invasion. Legally speaking, there is no question that Karabakh autority have been dissolved. There was a pending referundum even after the change of move by AzSSr. The transfer was illegal, and Karabakh autority under the juridiction have never recognized Az legitimity.--Fad(ix)14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to Hague Treaties on the rule of wars (starting I think with the one of 1899). Beside I don't see any interpreation there.--Fad(ix)15:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, given that you need it for the introduction, I think it's fine. Had it been for inside the text, there is no limit in adding dates. Fad(ix)19:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted the anarcho-capitalism article to undergo a major review due to my belief that it is not up to the standards of being the best wikipedia has to offer. If you are interested in participating in the process please do. Blahblahblahblahblahblah11:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help with Greier's sockpuppet on Hellenization. He's been trolling it for ages with POV edits like this [33]. There is absolutely no evidence that there are any Vlach associations which ascribe to the Vlachs a non-Greek origin, and he keeps minimizing the numbers. At least 84 Vlach associations located throughout Greece (the membership of the PFCAV who voted for the statute saying so) claim that the Vlachs are Latin-speaking Greeks and he keeps saying it's 2. As he's using an IP sockpuppet he's unanswerable. Please semi-protect the page. That article has become a circus anyway. I reported him yesterday for violating the 3RR (on a different article), and no one has responded yet. --Tēlex19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Could you also help fix the article (and work though all Greier's [citation needed] templates). Most of them were probably placed out of spite - once anyone raises the question of the Vlachs' Greek self-identification, he goes mad, e.g. here where he reverts to an unreferenced version and removes perfectly sourced material as "ultranationalist" just because he doesn't like it. --Tēlex20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as far as events since November 1920 are concerned, yes, I have put everything that I think is important. I have excluded events prior to that (i.e. the British appointing an Azeri warlord over NK on a preliminary basis, Armenians refusing, Azeris attacking, Armenians preliminarily agreeing, Azeris violating the agreement, Armenians revoking the agreement etc.)
As far as my satisfaction with the timeline is concerned, I am only happy with those wordings added by me and Fadix. So, whenever GM and me have added an entry for the same date, I am ok only with the one added by me. An example is the July 4 Kavburo decision. GM made it sound like the two decisions (recognizing NK as part of Armenia, and letting the RCP decide the issue) were part of the same decision. What I clarified is that, first Kavburo recognized NK as part of Armenia, then Narimanov complained and made a suggestion, and then Kavburo went along with the suggestion. --TigranTheGreat20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, I oppose dumping dates on the lead and make of it heavier (at least not this way), the lead already lack of relevant other materials which relate to the region and its history which should be added before having to further poiiticise the issue and make of it a question of border etc. Anyway, I will probably be unavailable Sunday, I'll come back to it Monday. Fad(ix)05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23:58, 14 July 2006 Tajik (Talk | contribs) (rvv of various edits by User:Tajik-afghan)
Anyway, I think they've run out of reverts, so they should stop soon - it's not a big revert war. User:Tajik and User:Tajik-afghan revert warring on Tajiks in broken English ;-) --Tēlex22:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've been glancing at it, but my energy for that article has, for the moment, been drained. I'll get back into it at some point. --Golbez01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand who gave this user: User:Telex the right to invent and to do clasifications by his own believes, it's a game what he is doing here. He clasified the language spoken in greece (just cose it is on other state teritory, well we know the reason) as a slavic, not as macedonian and "edited" this Slavic language (Greece). He has no right to make such things. Is he the allknowing one? At least he could do is to do it this way ...Slavic (Greece) and to mention the conection. Shell I invent a new language for the albanians in Macedonia as he did to us in Greece. Please rename the article as "Status of Slavic languages in Greece" it would be correct and not implicative different--Vlatko08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's not me who created it. It's Greek state propaganda (just like the Titoist propaganda which renamed the western Bulgarian dialects to "Macedonian language"). The 1951 census recorded 41,017 speakers of Slavic, not "Macedonian". The ABECEDAR was written in a language officially referred to as Slavic, etc. --Tēlex08:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must recognise that most of the time we are lead by our self created nationalism and we do dispute things with unreal adition of facts. BUT It is realy stupid and offending that what you have done with the change of the name of the macedonian language in greese. At leats you can remove that from the template of Slavic languages and do a correction link.--Vlatko08:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vlatko, the people themselves still call the language Slavic. Only the Rainbow party and their 2,995 voters call it "Macedonian". --Tēlex09:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totaly agree with you, and your sources, propaganda and state. How could you? You are here to be taken seriously?--Vlatko09:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am here to be taken seriously. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of Macedonian Slav national narratives within Greece. Northern Greece is inhabited by ethnic Greeks, some of whom speak in addition to Greek, a language known as Slavic language (Greece) (they don't even consider it a Slavic language according to the Helsinki Monitor, but a mixture of Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Vlach and Turkish). In fact, a finding in the Bletsas trial was that there are no Slavic speaking communities (or any minority language communities at all for that matter). They found that minority languages are spoken by isolated individuals, and I would suspect largely in old people's homes - most of whose only concern in the world is what happened in the last episodes of the soap opera Λάμψη and Καλημέρα Ζωή (the Greek equivalents of Coronation Street). The Macedonian Slav nationalist ideal of an Aegean Macedonia inhabited primarily by an underground community of "Macedonians" who pretend to be Greeks in the presence of the "Turkish Christian refugees" is confined, I'm afraid, to the Rainbow Party and it's 2,995 voters. Aegean Macedonia and it's inhabitants belong to the enemy now, get used to it. If you don't believe me, come and see for yourself. --Tēlex09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the more neutral users thought that a seperate article for the Greek-identifying Slavic speaking minority of Greece which is claimed by both Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs is a good idea. --Tēlex09:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the reason for you to invent a new Slavic language, congratulations you told me everithing. And I'm not your enemy, whith what did my words and toughts atacked you, where is the negative sence of what I believe should be done... aha, here it is, some stupid human rights recognition that are designeted to all of as by birth..realy how can i be so bad hhehehehuuuhhuhuuheeehehe :-). Some things are not Ideal or propagandistic, they are natural.--Vlatko10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, it's not my invention. It's their invention. Here you say that it bellongs [sic.] to Macedonian [sic.]. Well, the Bulgarians think it belongs to Bulgarian, and the Serbs think it belongs to Serbian [34] (although that last one has very little backing by international linguists). --Tēlex10:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And remove that from the template, as that is not the right place for. This template disambiguates only the slavic languages that are different languages, not personal points of view, put a link in some article not in this template, understand that that is not the right place for this artice.--Vlatko10:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis added it. When Montenegrin, Serbo-Croatian and other pseudo-languages are removed, this can be removed also. In fact, I'm thinking of adding an infobox just like the ones at Montenegrin language and Serbo-Croatian language. if self-identification is the key, then it should be applied in this case also; the people declared themselves speakers of Slavic, not "Macedonian". --Tēlex10:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I've always thought Serbian and Croatian were Pseudo-languages, while Serbo-Croat was the true stuff ;-) (at least in my university it's the latter that was, and still is, teached). And I'm not so sure that self-identification is enough for languages; after all, a language is not an ethnicity.--Aldux11:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also contrary to the proud Macedonistic doctrine, which makes the western Bulgarian dialects into a "Macedonian language", and the western Bulgarians into "Macedonians". --Tēlex11:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telex, you know that there are many sources which say that Macedonians are not Bulgarians, which makes your upper sentence untrue and simply your POV. Bomac11:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Sleeping Beauty. Bomac, I'm afraid there is no evidence of a Macedonian people or language. There were just proposals, e.g. Misirkov and Sandanski. It was seen as a future enterprise - the missing nationality. No one doubts that today's ethnic Macedonians are not Bulgarians (if they don't want to be, they are not). Their historians however, have striven to rewrite history from ancient times to make room for the Macedonian ethnicity. --Tēlex11:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW this made me laugh. It says it is in Macedonian, Greek, Vlach and Albanian. What a pity the document says Bulgarian, not Macedonian. Whoever wrote that website probably thought the readers didn't know Greek. --Tēlex11:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a dictionary of four languages from Daniil from Moskopole. The speech under the "Vulgarika" graphe is Ohrid dialect, which exists today and is a dialect of the Macedonian codificated literary language. Bomac11:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should upload that image. It's public domain, we could use the {{PD-old}} tag. You can tell from the welcome note at my talk page and my old "I'm a cosmopolitan userpage" that I like messages to be translated into various languages and displayed side by side. --Tēlex11:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, there is a long tradition of cosmopolitans who like messages to be translated into various languages... ;-) Bomac11:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was at the library reading Britannica, and it restored my faith in humanity. In their article on Macedonia (region), they place the number of the "Asian Greek Refugees" (as User:Macedonia calls them on his userpage) at 640,000 in return for 375,000 refugees to Turkey. If ethnic Greeks actually form the majority of the population of Aegean Macedonia (which is confirmed by Britannica in their article on Macedonia (Greece)), those refugees must have bred like rabbits in order to form the majority of a region with a population of 2,625,681 today! Also, in their article on Macedonia (Greece), they list all ethnic groups inhabiting the region. They say that Greeks form the majority and are followed by approximately 20,000 Muslims (who are mostly Pomaks), Vlachs, and there are small enclaves of "Gypsies" and Albanians. I find it most interesting that they do not mention "Macedonians" or Bulgarians, yet they do say that "Macedonian" and Bulgarian are languages spoken in Greece in the respective articles (presumably referring to Slavic language (Greece)). Britannica has the reassuring air of neutrality, and always finds the most tactful and neutral ways of saying things... --Tēlex16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, Grandmaster isen't making any concession he is turning this as if he is doing it. This proposition does not use the term granted for both, from one side its says that it was granted to Armenia and then it says that it was granted an autonomy inside Azerbaijan which is different than saying that it was granted to Azerbaijan with an autonomy, because the verb is not used the same way for both. So, I won't sayd that Grandmaster is respecting the restrictions you have imposed, he is twisting the text to give the illusion that he is doing it. Fad(ix)19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Francis. I'd like to take a break from wasting time on anarchism and do something a bit more productive with the encyclopaedia. How does one get involved with the Mediation Cabal? Do I just start helping out, or is there a more formal process? Thanks in advance. --AaronS14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't placed them on preference order. It is easy to do that when you only have two or three choices, but given that I included all except two, it is hard. If it will help in the decision what I think is better, I'll do it. Just tell. Fad(ix)17:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For letting me know. Considering the situation, I was thinking it best that I not even respond: there is simply no case there, and that editor has already been notified about incivility towards me and others. I've been civil and tried to comply with some unreasonable requests he has made of me, so I'm unclear why he keeps after me. Am I expected to respond, or do you think it's best left alone? It just seems to me that a response from me could serve no purpose except to escalate the issue, but on the other hand, I don't know policy in these cases, and whether a response from me, setting the record straight, is expected. Thanks for letting me know, thanks for the kind words, and any advice you have is welcome :-) Sandy19:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all ! Thanks again for letting me know, and for the kind words. Wikipedia is quite a curious place ! I'll check in later tonight to see if a further response from me is needed. Sandy20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I probably shouldn't have responded there yesterday at all, considering I was trying to get out the door to an app't. Now that I've read the instructions on that page, I see that he shouldn't have posted his dispute there anyway, and that he should have taken it through different channels. Another editor is asking if we can archive Talk:Asperger syndrome, but since Zeraeph has pointed to it as a reference for his "abuse" claim, I'm kind of stuck. It seems to me (?) that, considering the level of personal attack, the whole thing should be struck from ANI (?), taken to the proper channels, and we should go ahead and archive the talk page in the meantime. Not sure what to do. He still hasn't attempted to resolve this directly with me, in spite of my invitation. Any advice? Sandy16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new title "Shia and Islam" just doesn't sound good and is not representative of what is covered there either. It is like saying : "Babtist and Christianity". What was the problem with "misconceptions about shia"? --Aminz22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought for awhile for a good title for the article. "Negative consideration in views about Shia's."... The new title "Shia and Islam" does not represent what the authurs of the article had in mind. Similar to the historical biased view of west about Islam (as scholar such as William Montgomery Watt, Edward Said, or Karen Armstrong(if one call she an scholar (not a writer) of course), and philosophers such as Voltaire point out), there has been a historical bias toward Shias. Wikipedia should somewhere cover this if not in a separate article. Regards, --Aminz00:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, with the very greatest respect, though I have noted your opinion, to the best of my knowledge I still have the right to make my own decision on how and where to seek resolution for this problem. I must stress to you that there is nothing anybody could do or say to make me doubt my impression of the situation, as long as there was I would never have mentioned it. I am almost 50, with a lot of experience of life, people and abuse, I have no doubts about what I have seen, as no doubt, time will tell.
I did initially approach WP:MEDCAB but seeing the responses from User:SandyGeorgia I realise that was a mistake, I personally find it impossible to resolve anything when the only reaction of the other party is to manipulate and misrepresent the facts of what has happened. That solves nothing and there is nothing to base negotiation or mediation upon.
Hypothetically, I would also request that you recuse yourself from any attempt at mediation, not because I believe there is anything wrong with you, I don't, nor because I do not believe you do your best to approach mediation as impartially as possibly, because I do, but simply because some people are more susceptible to certain types of manipiulative behvior than others and in this instance I see reason to suspect you fall into that category.
So, for the present I shall say whatever needs to be said WP:AN/I, though for the moment, as long as User:SandyGeorgia makes no further attempt to misrepresent the facts of what she has done, and knows that there are now a few admins keeping an eye on the situation, there is, I hope, effectively, no problem. --Zeraeph18:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me I already got the best possible response from WP:AN/I, because SandyGeorgia has stopped most of her toxic behaviors, very probably for the simple reason that, if she doesn't, she will prove me right. It isn't perfect, it's the right response for the wrong reason, and it won't last, but it is the best anyone can get from somebody like that.
Hi. I really appreciate all your help during the last week. I've been wanting to make similar changes for the past few months, but I've already upset enough people. –jonsafari00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've checked out the Tajik alphabet article. It's really impressive. I think it's on its way for a good article/featured article nomination. I'll read over it more closely this week and make any useful changes. I have a friend who knows of an excellent Tajik grammar, written in Russian. If you're interested I can find out more info.
If you've got suggestions on the Persian grammar and/or phonology articles, feel free to lemme know. I haven't done much with them lately, busy and all. Also, I just noticed a lacking in Persian rug articles, so I'd like to beef up that section soon. –jonsafari02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fran, I really need your help. I'me having big problems with a newbie, User:Objectivee. This editor made all in once massive additions to the article [35], which were utterly unsourced and blatantly violated NPOV. What's worst, his peronal attacks against me are becoming more and more furious [36], [37], [38]. I don't know how much I'll be able to bear him; the quantity of insults I can stomach has a limit. Could you consider protecting the article to stop his disruption and see if you can explain him that peronal attacks? Thanks for anything you can do, and sorry for asking your help, but I was too involved personally to use my admin powers.--Aldux20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fran, lets hope the tone of the discussion quiets down a bit. Mainly I hope that an editor like Telex, that has already made much worked on the article, would search the sources. The problem is that for me it's hard to accept new edits in blatant violation of the WP:V; I can't remove all that isn't sourced, or else nothing on the Balkans-related article would remain, but I can try to make it a rule for the new edits, especially when speaking of contentious material in controversial articles.--Aldux23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To put it mildly, have you gone completely bonkers? It is one sentence sourced from a secondary source. The information is from a Newspaper clip. This is draconianism at its extreme. Guy Montag00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, also you can't extend the ban for a year, probation ends on October 2006 and so does your ability to harrass me.
Are you telling me you can't recognize ridiculously exaggerated speech of a person with a persecution complex! Shame on you! :) I jest.
Anyways, no hard feelings. I am gonna call up the Zionist Organization of America, get in writing that they don't care if we use their information along with their permission, and we can get back to editing per the due process of the tag you inserted. I could have gotten permission within a day if you notified me without immediately slapping the tag on, but whatever.
Hi Francis, thank you for your note and for asking for a second opinion. I know nothing about the Deir Yassin issue, except that Guy is up against a number of editors on that page who appear to have strong views, at least two of whom are, I would say, somewhat out to get him, and that should perhaps be borne in mind when assessing any reports from them (if, indeed, there was a report). Regarding the copyvio, I would say it depends on how much was copied, and whether it was copied word for word. If it was one sentence, as Guy says, I'd say that wouldn't be grounds for a ban. If it was a significant amount, that would be a different matter, but I haven't checked. SlimVirgin(talk)01:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bhouston identifies two paragraphs that he says were copyvios, and commented them out here. The first one does seem to have been copied, but the second one not, as follows:
The Wikipedia article says:
The most comprehensive study was commissioned by Birzeit University, whose researchers tracked down the surviving Arab eyewitnesses to the attack and interviewed them. Their findings report that "for the most part, we have gathered the information in this monograph during the months of February-May 1985 from Deir Yassin natives living in the Ramallah region, who were extremely cooperative," listing by name twelve former Deir Yassin residents whom they had interviewed concerning the battle. The study continued: "The [historical] sources which discuss the Deir Yassin massacre unanimously agree that number of victims ranges between 250-254; however, when we examined the names which appear in the various sources, we became absolutely convinced that the number of those killed does not exceed 120, and that the [Irgun-Lehi] exaggerated the numbers in order to frighten Palestinian residents into leaving their villages and cities without resistance." A list of 107 people killed and twelve wounded was given.49
The article it's allegedly copied from says:
In 1987, the Research and Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, a prominent Arab university in the territory now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, published a comprehensive study of the history of Deir Yassin, as part of its "Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project." The Center's findings concerning Deir Yassin were published, in Arabic only, as the fourth booklet in its "Destroyed Arab Villages Series." The purpose of the project, according to its directors, is "to gather information from persons who lived in these villages and were directly familiar with them, and then to compare these reports and publish them in order to preserve for future generations the special identity and particular characteristics of each village."88 The Bir Zeit study's description of the 1948 battle of Deir Yassin began with the hyperbole typical of many accounts of the event, calling it "a massacre the likes of which history has rarely known."89 But unlike the authors of any other previous study of Deir Yassin, the Bir Zeit researchers tracked down the surviving Arab eyewitness to the attack and personally interviewed each of them. "For the most part, we have gathered the information in this monograph during the months of February-May 1985 from Deir Yassin natives living in the Ramallah region, who were extremely cooperative," the Bir Zeit authors explained, listing by name twelve former Deir Yassin residents whom they had interviewed concerning the battle. The study continued: "The [historical] sources which discuss the Deir Yassin massacre unanimously agree that number of victims ranges between 250-254; however, when we examined the names which appear in the various sources, we became absolutely convinced that the number of those killed does not exceed 120, and that the groups which carried out the massacre exaggerated the numbers in order to frighten Palestinian residents into leaving their villages and cities without resistance."90 The authors concluded: "Below is a list of the names and ages of those killed at Deir Yassin in the massacre which took place on April 9, 1948, which was compiled by us on the basis of the testimony of Deir Yassin natives. We have invested great effort in checking it and in making certain of each name on it, such that we can say, with no hesitation, that it is the most accurate list of its type until today." A list of 107 people killed and twelve wounded followed. [39]
The only parts that are identical (in bold) are the quotes from the Bir Zeit study, but then they would be.
I would say this situation might be a case of careless attribution rather than deliberate plagiarism and copyvio. In the example above, Guy is using as a reference the same sources the article he's alleged to have copied from used, but that's not the way we're supposed to cite. When we borrow someone else's sources, we have to acknowledge them e.g. we write as a reference "Source 2 cited in Source 1," and we give full details of both. Perhaps it would be sufficient if someone explained that to Guy, rather than banning him from the page? SlimVirgin(talk)01:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I should note that people do that all the time: quote the source their source quotes, without acknowledging the middle man. Even academics do it. SlimVirgin(talk)02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, I just noticed that you're involved in the disputes, or in one of them anyway, on the talk page. That means you can't take administrative action in relation to that page. Would you mind unbanning Guy and handing this over to an involved admin? SlimVirgin(talk)02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're almost done for the FA status, but there is too little time to deal with some final opjections, mainly in citation. Your help is needed, see talk! :NikoSilver:15:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Francis. Can you help me figure out the next step in a dispute process, with respect to Hugo Chávez and Criticism of Hugo Chávez? I've already had extensive talk page discussions in several places with User:SuperFlanker, been through mediation, and requested (and received) help on RFC. Flanker persists in blanking the Criticism article, and working outside of consensus, taking extreme measures which have led to numerous revert wars. Another editor asked me if it wasn't time to have him blocked from editing: I don't know. I don't know what sort of things lead to blocking an editor, or how we can get him back to working via consensus. What do you suggest might be my next step? (By the way, I really regret that the other situation put me in a position where I can't give a final vote on Macedonia, as it could be viewed as a conflict of interest. At least I had remained neutral, and I hope you all know how impressed I am with the effort.) Sandy16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your inquiry about that book on Tajik grammar that I told you about, here's the response from my buddy:
The book was published in something like 1967. It's by a lady with the surname of Rastorgueva I believe. There's a newer book on Tajik grammar by John Perry, and if someone actually wants to learn Tajik, there's a good textbook for it that can be found on Amazon. I can't remember the name of it this very second.
My intention was to make sure the stories were distinguished from the info paragraphs, and I eliminated the mention of cobbling from the intro as it is mentioned in almost identical wording later on. I thought generally seemed to fit better than genuinly because it is mentioned that they can be deceitful and malicious and therefore probably aren't genuinely nice. I may be wrong. ReverendG 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
you handled this situation quite well, no wonder you're an administrator. ReverendG00:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
===>I'm posting this at the talk page for both Feel free to respond at either. I changed the size of the box because it screwed up some stuff with my userpage at smaller resolutions. But it really doesn't matter. I'm thinking of fixing it up soon anyway, as all the moving and deleting of userboxes ruined my page (which made me a little angry, I must say.) Go ahead and leave it as is. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was the same day. Sorry. It was the night before so I was thinking of it as yesterday. Can you not interject a piece of one comment I made into another comment I made, making them look like they were made at the same time? Thanks. Shannonduck talk00:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
₪Hellenic Republic₪ (T) 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Skopje_Real1.png&curid=5347746&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
)
