Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:42, 4 April 2008

Archives
– July 2006 – October 2006 – November 2006 – January 2007 – 12 March 2007 – 5 May 2007 – 8 Sept 2007 – Dec 2007 – Feb 2008 – March 2008

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

Panathinaikos FC

Well can you please make it clear to the user Karagounis that wiki is about facts and not personal preferences.He keeps reverting the article in order not to include Nikopolidis and Konstantinou in the notable past players only because of his sentiment towards them when they moved to Olympiakos team a couple of years ago.

They keep adding also a 1911 championship when the Greek FA was established in mid-20ies and noone recognized the title.I don't really want to be involved in a constant revert war to state the obvious.Maybe you can explain him.Eagle of Pontus

• OK understood.To tell you the truth i didn't know that there was actually a 3 times revert rule,as i am thinking it, it makes sense.Thanks for the advice. Eagle of Pontus

Ante Pavelic

Please, do not contribute to the edit war here. You are an administrator - aren't you??? I verified the context and saw it well-referenced and accurate.

Hi There

I have wanted to smile at you for a long time

Why Wiki Why (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Image formatting

Hi Future Perfect. Vielend Dank auf den Warnung und Erklaerung. Koenntest du bitte mir die Seite wo es das html Kode fuer die Bilder eklaert ist? Danke.Xenovatis (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe die Loesung gefunden. Du brauchst nuer {{clear}} am Ende der Sektion schreiben und lasst es genug Raum bevor die nechste Sektion.

Aha! Muss ich mir merken :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

People's Liberation War of Macedonia

Hi again, Future. Considering you've been somewhat of a moderator of this article, I think I should discuss my intention with you first. I'm planning on carrying out an über-cleanup of the article, you know, neaten it up a bit. The thing that kind of bothers me though, and which I would like to have removed before I can properly cleanup the article is the now-"Background" section. The whole thing is an addition of Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism and is completely irrelevant to this article — I don't see what the ethnicity of Macedonians in the early 20th century, the IMRO in the 20s, the "Macedonian Question" or the Balkan Wars have anything to do with the topic of this article. What should be under the "Background" section are all the sections after "Occupation of Macedonia" but before "Beginning of the resistance movement". The background should concentrate on something that was recent to the event and was a major contributor to the start of an uprising, i.e. the Invasion of Yugoslavia. I don't want this article to be another piece of crap about Macedonians' ethnic and national identity. As far as I'm concerned, the only things that the article should cover are the Invasion of Yugoslavia, conflicts that occurred in Macedonia as a result, regardless of ethnicity (many Macedonian battalions had communist Albanian and Jewish soldiers), and the outcome (the subsequent creation of a socialist Yugoslavia). What are your thoughts? Köbra 11:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance is a pretty hard thing in this particular article. Consider both POVs in any case. I'll try to help, but time is not something I'll have till late May probably. I'll try to check all changes at least. I have info to add to the article as well, but it's a hell of a thing to start, so it'll be somewhere in the (I hope) near future. Oh, and try to be careful really, you got blocked because of this. And there's one more thing - I don't think User:Jingiby did worse things than you, but still you're going to edit the article which sparked the tensions between you, and he on the other hand - is not. I really, really don't think this is fair in any way. --Laveol 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Jingiby got banned from all Macedonia articles because he was continually disruptive, both 3RR style edit-warring and the slow kind. Everything he did was POV. Do you honestly think that his brand of edit warring is more productive than actual editing? BalkanFever 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Check Frightner for the meaning of continually disruptive and for every possible way of insulting other editors after you got banned. --Laveol 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed the part where I said I would like to remove all the Macedonian and Bulgarian propaganda included at the beginning of the article, not change it to suit my POV. As a matter of fact, I do not include my personal POV in articles, I never have, take a look at Saint Panteleimon, Ohrid for example. If I remember correctly, Jingiby was going around spreading his biased POV on all ethnic Macedonian related articles. He sure knew how to piss people off. And at that, you're starting to piss me off still calling me Frightner. Köbra 09:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Where is the best place to find map blanks of the Balkans? I'm having a hard time looking for them. BalkanFever 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Try commons:Category:Maps by country. What parts to you need? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I need political maps (borders drawn) of the whole peninsula. Couldn't find much on commons. BalkanFever 08:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have something that I could adapt for that purpose. Maybe I can upload it sometime in the afternoon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Because I do not know which is speedy deletion template and even if I use 1 you will be angry ... We need to deleted this pictures from wikipedia : , , . Reasons for speedy deletion are: recreation of deleted material and false copyright statement. That his copyright statement are false is best seen in this picture because it is cleary made long time ago. Evidence that this is recreation of deleted material are on his talk page because editor has been warned on 13 March about deleting of this pictures because of copyright problems . Pictures has been latter recreated on 24 March. --Rjecina (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you are great face in Balkan related articles I am interested to hear how is possible to use this argument for reverting and which version of article is more NPOV. If this is first or second version. I am really interested to hear your comments about that !--Rjecina (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me some time please, I'll look into it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, about those images. Re-upload after a speedy deletion is not automatically grounds for renewed deletion, if the copyright problem was fixed in the meantime. The images are now declared as self-made. I have no strong grounds for doubting this; their age is not an argument – believe it or not, but some of us Wikipedians are actually old enough to have archives of non-digital holiday photographs from fifteen years ago somewhere at home. About your dispute on Podgorica Assembly, well yes, Pax' argument may be a reasonable one, if he says your revision had deleted too much factual information. I must admit I didn't read very carefully through all the diff texts. If you object against particular bits in Pax' version, you'd need to point that out more clearly. What I can see at first sight, however, is that your version was very poor English. Sorry, I don't want to offend you, but that alone would be grounds for reverting it. One hint: If you wish to contribute to history articles, you want to learn how to use the past tense and present perfect. Historical narrative is always in the past tense in English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with article are deleting again and again from other editor of only 2 historical sources about events in question. In my thinking speach of Montenegro primeminister General Gvozdenovic on Paris peace conference and Chicago Tribune from 1919 are again and again deleted because they are killing fantasy of 1 nation (Montenegrin and Serbian) which are living in 2 states. After reading this 2 sources and today version of article can you please if this version is NPOV.

About sources on Serbian language I will give you part of our discussion on talk page of article. This is here .

All in all I am having problem with editor which is using like source page 52 (example) of the book but is deleting all statements confirmed by page 82 (example) of this book. This together with our only historical documents are point of dispute in this article. In my thinking article is very POV.

PaxEquilibrium (aka HolyRomanEmperor aka HRE) is OK user but he has kidnapped few articles. Today I will rewrite his changes in "his" article Pagania which are against editor consensus (8:1 on talk page discussions and 5:1 in consensus vote of March 2008). --Rjecina (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the end I will ask you to delete article Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy because discussion about merger has ended in November 2007 on talk page of Talk:Wesselényi conspiracy .--Rjecina (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that brakes the fantasy of 1 nation, nor it's factual relatedness (for one thing, I'm not even going to consider Gvozdenovic's pretty obvious propaganda for anything at all) to the Assembly. As I have said before - I invite(d) you to cite parts of the article in precise you don't like - and then to cite the proposed amendments to it, but you still haven't done it.

As for the Pagania article, the voting was Canvassing and based on you-know-what - but in case you haven't noticed, regardless of that, I have already started the article's amendment (the true reason though being my searching of new historical sources). ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it is not possible to other editors to believe to user which is making statements without sources on wikipedia with words "I am searching of new historical sources". You have writen this 4 times in last 24 hours !!!!

Because this is second time that this user has used word Canvassing or something similar (earlier on talk page) I am interested to hear if calling all users which has entered discussion on article talk page to vote about consensus is canvassing or not ?

I am on other side interested if PaxEquilibrium has broken any rules because of 3 years of edit warring in this article. Because of that I will ask WP:ARBMAC decisions which will ban him from editing this article.--Rjecina (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is we have been discussing this so many times across so many pages, that I can't find precisely on which I posted it. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we have please your comments about Pagania and if today version of article Podgorica Assembly is breaking wikipedia NPOV policy ( english language sources which are not allowed in article ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said - I think we have agreed on Pagania. You don't agree ol' friend? :)

Regarding the Podgorica Assembly, you still haven't expressed your objections. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying old tricks ol' friends. You have used that trick few times before... This is clear example that why we need WP:ARBMAC decision about you and this article. You have again reverted to Serbs against talk page consensus--Rjecina (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Not sure what you mean I'm afraid. You're not User:Afrika paprika, are you? ;)

Perhaps you are not aware that I's the first one who changed "Serbian" to "Slavic". Yes, I reverted your removal to every Serbian reference in the article, and also added Croatian references. I think you were too hasty and didn't observe the edits. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Nicholas Wolzen

I noticed you closed out the sock puppet case on User:Nicholas Wolzen as an obvious sock, but you mentioned the user as already being blocked. I don't see any block on ether of the sock talk pages so I was wondering if this was an oversight.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there are no notifications, but see the "block log" links for both accounts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there it is. Thanks.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Appletrees

Hello, Future Perfect. Can you please look into this matter?

This edit by Appletrees deleted the current article name "ume" from the lead section, while switching the words "Korea" and "Japan". I think he's got a serious attitude problem, and he may be trying to start a revert war.--Endroit (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go again. Endroit. You are the one having serious attitude problems like your recent fishing expedition on my RFCU report on Bason0 and this. You inserted your claim without any evidence that Ume is a common English name for Prunus mume. That is why many people gather to discuss for changing the current title. Your google reference only shows "plum blossom", not for "ume". So actually, you initiated a revert and tries to start a revert war. The species also was introduced to Korea first, and then Japan. Do you think the historical order is the same of the order with Liancourt Rocks?

Besides, why did you condone this edit by PalaceGuard008? You're the one who should respect consensus. Please say the truth. --Appletrees (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees is not making sense again. I restored the word "ume", deleted by PalaceGuard008 in the lead section.--Endroit (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you confess "you're the one who initiate the revert war" per "I restore the word "ume". Thus, it means you falsely accused me of "starting" edit wars. I really concern about your attitude. --Appletrees (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Another edit-war about fruit? Good lord, why is this again getting so important? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See the Talk:Ume#Requested move. --Appletrees (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you showing double standard, Furf? Endroit certainly takes advantage of my recent block by you, so reported about false accusation on me again just like his parade of lies at past ANI report.(false links and examples such as his mention about Saintjust's RFCU) It is so ridiculous that every time Endroit reverts someone's edit, he always claims that his edit is legitimate even though his references don't back up his claim or he fails to get a consensus like the above example. Whereas others reverts his non-consensus edit, he calls it 'disruption' and blames that he or she start an edit war. If his definition on edit war is right, his revert is nothing but a disruption and he truely initiated the edit war. --Appletrees (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, some weeks ago you went as far as revert-warring over the mere ordering of some category listing on that page, again for transparent J-K nationalist motives. That was a new low of WP:LAMEness I haven't encountered before. About the term in the lead, it is quite simple: As long as the article is at that location, the term must be listed in the lead. The current dispute seems to be about to what degree it is the predominant term in English; nobody seems to have seriously argued against it being one possible term. Making a fuss over it is disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to respect you because you're have a power, but I'm very afraid to say that I can't agree with your definition on disruption. I've tried to 'forget' the false charge on me because I'm very tired of speaking with you and anything going on here. As I said before, your blocking policy is not consistent. Going back to the article, your answer is only for articles with settled title name (regardless of real life usages) The article was moved to its biomoninal name after discussion, however, due to one editor's strong object, the discussion is reopened. Endroit's self claimed evidence (google search by just "plum blossom") fails to provide for the claim that it is a common English name. His reporting here to exaggerate mine and reduce his misconduct is also far away from good faith. You tend to think that mentioning 'intentional' and 'lie' are disruptive, but saying truth is far from what you defines. --Appletrees (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Deucalionite

I was working on the SSPs quite late last night in an attempt to clear the backlog. I've removed the archive tag but I have no idea how to restore it to the main page. Does the bot do it? My apologies for my mistake, friend. Take care! Scarian 11:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Davenbelle et al

Hi, I saw this edit summary and thought it might be another case. Cheers, (and apologies) Jack Merridew 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, sorry, not quite sure what you mean? How's the Deucalionite case related to Davenbelle? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was only referring to the edit summary and my first impression of it; see my talk page where I have admitted my past accounts — hence the apology. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy...

This guy is not you. You are way out of line. WP does not work with ultimatums, nor do you have any special authority. You dig? NikoSilver 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by "despicable whitewashing", I as an editor interested in that page I say I will not accept leaving that case out, to the extent that I can influence the page at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but your post says you'll impose it. This latter comment of yours, while disagreeable, is perfectly legitimate. Please, please, help me keep the tones low from all sides, as I always do. "This stays" and "end of story" are not arguments yourself would like to receive (not exactly applicable link, but it summarizes what I want to say, only for talkpages). Same goes for my "you dig" above, of course. NikoSilver 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

I replied on my talk page. IrishGuy 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave Elysonius alone

I'll make this brief since I am already late for an appointment today. Look, just leave Elysonius alone. I think you scared him off, which is probably why the poor guy hasn't responded to any of my emails. As far as I know, he's made positive contributions to Misplaced Pages. Not to mention the fact that he actually cooperates with other users and treats them with respect (something I didn't do often when I first started). I really hope you know what you are doing. God help you if I lose him because of your paranoid Inquisition. In the end, you really are a rogue administrator. Question is, how long will these games of yours end? I have to go. I'll get back to you tomorrow. Deucalionite (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Would it kill you to leave us mentors alone? Would it also kill you to leave my student alone? It's not like Elysonius is disrupting articles like Dodona. Sheesh. Deucalionite (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavic language (Macedonian)in Greece

I am now confused! How can be Macedonian named as dialect in Greece? A Macedonian can be named as dialect in Greece only when if the Macedonian language will be officially recognized by the Greek government as a distinct language, and only than we can talk about dialects. With the current policy of the Greek government, you cannot put dialects because you have not even recognized any language and not to speak even for dialects. Put Macedonian language or stop writing nonsenses. We are now speaking about dialect of which language in Greece? Of Greek? Come on please change it into Macedonian --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

My beef with the trolls is not on splitting or merging: I have long stated that both are viable options. It's their implicit insistence that the RoK (the 2008 Republic) and Kosovo (the piece of land) are identical and one and the same thing (and their pretended inability to even understand objections or neutral suggestions). Which is patently not the case, the same way the Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) and Kosovo the piece of land are not the same thing. If the Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) gets its own article, I really fail to see why Republic of Kosovo (2008 to present) should not. dab (𒁳) 14:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may begin to see why I didn't think the "merge" solution would pacify the trolls :) dab (𒁳) 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Pessimism is always right, sigh... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lochner-Hüttenbach

...he, he a lot, indeed a lot. I read it some few years ago and to my knowledge this is the most comprehensive work on Pelasgians. I am amazed that you are familiar with it. I can't give any page numbers if that's what you want and that's why I haven't used it in the Pelasgians talk page. I already asked a friend in the Blegen Library here in Athens to browse it for me and look for quotations confirming a) that this is more of a linguistic controversy (and an unsettled one, at that) b) that their language or languages is considered at any rate prehellenic c) that ancient authors very often use the term quite loosely c) that as far as the archaeological record is concerned they are actually invisible d) that there is no actual evidence identifying them with Greeks. I am sure I remember well what I read but I have to check it before I edit anything in here. Lochner von Hüttenbach considered Pelasgians an Urvolk but occasionally tried to link them with several later greek populations (the Athenians being amongst the most prominent examples). This might create confusion to those who want to be confused, therefore I want to get my facts straight first. I also asked my colleague to search for recent bibliography through Dyabola to dig out any recent scholarship that might prove me wrong. By the way I envy you too for your English LOL--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)...oops, forgot to ask, what did you mean by "at our place"?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite busy these last few days and I just now checked my talk page. I spoke with my friend who is now browsing the book on my behalf. He informs me that Huttenbach is indeed considered the main source for Pelasgians and that he is actually a proponent of the Illyrian connection. I have to admit that I did not remember this claim and I' ll probably check some of the relevant book reviews in the next few days to see what other scholars think about it. At any rate this means absolutely nothing about Hüttenbach's reliability. The fact that Der Kleine Pauly includes his work as a main bibliograpphical source in the Pelasgians article is proof enough for me.(For all I care he could have been right). In the meanwhile, I just found out that you are a linguist so the chapter you will probably find most interesting is Das sprachliche Material s. 151. I' ve been told there is an important article focusing on the linguistic aspect of the Pelasgian debate (it was published in Glotta) and I will probably have it by next week. I' m no expert in comparative linguistics, so could I somehow forward it to you when I get it? I think you will be in a better position than me to judge what would be important to incorporate in the article. P.S. Who is Dodona?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Sounds very interesting. I can get the book at our university on Monday and then I'll check too; perhaps I can also find the Glotta article you mention. (Got the exact bibl. ref. by chance?) – Dodona is an old acquaintance, an Albanian editor who has been extremely persistent pushing some fringe ideas about Albanian being in reality the true and only Greek/Pelasgic/Illyrian/I-don't-know-the-difference-so-just-name-whatever-language-sounds-good; and he recently got banned for disruptive editing over that. Whenever you find somebody ranting on in incomprehensible English about such topics, it's Dodona. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At it again

Bonny's (or whoever) at it again.

+1 --Illythr (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Intro

Please add your suggested changes and post results @ http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kosovo&action=edit&section=29

User_talk:Nukeh

Based on his current unblock request, I intend to unblock him, unless you feel otherwise. MBisanz 08:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead as you see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Block.

I don't have any object on your blocking User:BongGon_{Please read the "Unblock BongGone" thread}, however you should've blocked User:Sennen goroshi as well if you look to be fair. Did Sennen goroshi bring any discussion at the talk? He should be equally blammed for the disruption. He solely is blammed for the disruption.--Appletrees (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)--Appletrees (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, perhaps I misread - however I thought that we were allowed one revert and one revert only on edits that fall under the "naming lameness" category. I did read the rules of engagement, and although I noticed that my edit had been reverted, I did not make any further edits. User Bonggon was aware of the rules and he broke them, I never broke the rules or went against the spirit of the rules, I see no reason as to why I would/should be blocked for my edit on the article in question. User Bonggon has been less than civil, calling me "crazy" for example, and as an admin on Korean Misplaced Pages, he should know better. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sennen, why did you provoke him as leaving somewhat the uncivil comment? Whether he keeps his talk page as a redirect is none of your business. He said he was very angry at your "rude" comment (I of course, regarded his "will", so left a note at his "Korean talk page") And why do you start "stalking me" again? You are frequently reported for your stalking and civility issues on many editors at ANI in these days by the people angry at you. I don't want to waste my time dealing with your stalking any more. That is enough. You were rude to BongGon, and he bounced back. Your incivility could be first judged. --Appletrees (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Provoke him? I put a message on his talk page, saying that it would be nice if he had an talkpage on the English version of wikipedia - he responded by calling me crazy and calling my polite suggestion a "command" - I was not rude, end of story. If you wish to talk any further, then please talk on my talk page, I have no desire to fill someone elses talkpage with such lame arguments. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I think you're equally responsible for the lamest disruption, so I'm telling this at the admin who blocked editor on one side. You're rude and at least two people think so, end of story. As for your resumed stalking, please don't exhaust me at any time. If you stalk me one more time, I would not bear it. You're already did on me more that enough. Regard. --Appletrees (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to talk any further, then please talk on my talk page Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock BongGone

I mistook that Sennen goroshi reverted "BongGone"'s previous edit due to his edit summary and his subsequent chiding comment on BongGone's previous edti on BongGone's talk page. In turn, Sennen goroshi is the one who violated the naming order and left a wrong waring. He fooled you, another admin, and me as leaving the confusing edit comment and a false warning. In this case, Sennen goroshi should be blocked for the disruption. If you don't believe me, please check the edit history. --Appletrees (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi's revert has nothing to do with BongGone's previous edit and "the rule". What Sennen goroshi reverted is actually your revision of course without any discussion, so BongGone only restored it "per the rule".

• 2008-03-01T02:53:37 by BongGone
• 2008-03-07T14:18:01 by Kusunose
• 2008-03-07T14:48:38 by BongGone
• 2008-03-07T16:58:25 by Kusunose

• 2008-03-31T17:15:22 by Sennen goroshi
• 2008-04-03T16:01:40 by BongGone

Therefore, you blocked the wrong guy instead of Sennen goroshi. I think you should lift the block sanction on BongGone and endorse the charge to Sennen.

P.S As per 'the rule, Sennen goroshi's revert of breaking the rule is restored, so please don't block a wrong editor again. --Appletrees (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly, my edit was clearly after Bong's edit, I was merely reverting what I considered to be a lame naming edit, I don't really care about who started what. I made a single edit, as per the guidelines, Bong made numerous edits, against the guidelines. I fail to understand your point or see any logic in what you are saying, maybe there is no point, or maybe I am just getting sleepy, afterall it is past 3am in Japan.

Future Perfect, if it makes your life easier, feel free to give me a 24hr block to match that of Bong. I am not admitting any wrong-doing or accepting the accusations of Appletrees, I am just a little embarrassed at being dragged into this argument and it might make Appletrees feel some sense of justice, or whatever he is looking for. I would ask if you do ban me, based purely on my offer to be a sacrificial lamb, that your summary on the block log reflects that. But then again, if you decide that I deserve a block based on this talk section, or if you have no desire to block me, I am cool with any of the above. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NOT a minor revert, Sennen. You did not reverted BongGone's "so-called lame" edit at all, but just switched the name order for your sake to have addressed for over 3 months without any discussion with anybody.

Your change on the sentence is the most heated subject when J-K editors make edit wars per the history. You switched from Dokdo/Takesima to Takeshima/Dokdo because you thought BongGone changed it but you are wrong. Your wrong edit summary fooled many people enough. I surely want to fix this drama initiated by you. You should take the consequence and apologize to BongGone because he was falsely blocked due to you.--Appletrees (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Furf. if you don't lift BongGone's block and don't block Sennen, I would be very surprised because that is not what the 'new rule' tells us. --Appletrees (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, guys, this is indeed confusing. Appletrees got something right there. BongGone was edit-warring about the (presumably secondary) issue of the naming order in the "East island / West island" sentence. It used to be J-K, he switched it to K-J twice, being reverted once in the meantime by Kusunose. Then Sennen – I assume mistakenly – changed not that East/West island sentence back to J-K, but the main Dokdo-Takeshima sentence. Then BongGone reverted that one, and then two other users (one of them a neutral outsider) reverted in turn, so it's now again in the status quo ante. Now, who gets blocked? One certain fact is, it was BongGone who started the whole confusion, he began all the editing about name order in the first place, so he's the main culprit here, and he had richly deserved his block on the basis on his first two edits alone. I will believe Sennen that he honestly thought he was just undoing Bong's edit, sticking to the rule, and I guess we can forgive the latest two, each for thinking they were just restoring the status quo ante. Now the only issue is, let's stop this right here, on whatever is the current state of it. I could revert Bong's original change of the second paragraph sentence so that we'd have the full status quo ante on both pieces, but I'm not going to. It is of absolutely no importance which of the two orders is actually in the article, the only thing that matters is that it doesn't get changed every other day. Anybody who thinks the order of the names has any importance is a freaking idiot. So let's just stop this here and now and forget about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, why didn't you equally block Sennen goroshi? Because you missed his lame disruption unlike today? Sennen goroshi's revert was not only his own mistake but also a result from his gamming the new rule. He left an uncivil remark and then provoked BongGone "restored" Sennen goroshi's revert. I'm really shock to confirm again that your blocking policy is really unfair and inconsistent. You're an admin and take responsiblity when you block somebody who should follow rules here. Your mistook the situation and then no retract?

Why are you so generous always Japanese side this time again? I won't forget it unless you retract the unfair block and block Sennen goroshi. You didn't care BongGone's mistake, but have to care Sennen goroshi? It is really unfair. --Appletrees (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s Freaking idiots? Who are really being freaking idiots here? Please be civil and don't use such the inappropriate comment here, especially big no no for admins to be models for editors. You confused the situation without carefully looking at the history. Your block is also punitive only toward Koreans. --Appletrees (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I read your statement again, but you didn't admit your mistake. You did not block BongGone's for his second edit warring but confused that BongGone changed the most heated name order. The above statement is an ex post facto rationale like a 2channel sock said here. Your immediate block on BongGone was addressed "Per the rule", so Sennen goroshi should be judged by the same rule. Only you and Sennen goroshi can forgive your mistake so I can't do that. --Appletrees (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I unaware of the original order of the names, as I imagine were a few editors. After searching the 17 pages !! of archives, and a few million edits, I am still not sure exactly what was agreed to, and which name was first. However, as of today, it is Korea/Japan, which I have no issue with, if that order makes people happy, then leaving the order as it is, and forgetting the whole stupid issue has to be the best choice. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sennen, you haven't apologized your mistakes and Furf.Perf. obviously not lift his unfair block. You can forget the stupid isssue, because you should've blocked for your wrongdoing. It is also my mistake because I should've raise it at ANI first and believed that Furf would admit his mistake and clean up the mess. I don't believe it.--11:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, you didn't listen to what I said. I explained this all in detail. I didn't block Sennen, because I think he honestly thought the K-J order was a result of Bong's previous edit. And I kept Bong blocked because, even though his last edit wouldn't have been that abusive if he had done it in the spirit of the rule, his previous two edits were disruptive enough to warrant a block all by themselves, and also demonstrated that he had no intention of sticking with the rule anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously your statement seems to me an "ex post facto rationale" for justifying your mistake. Did you look through the history when blocking him? That is totally upon your responsibility but you defend Sennen goroshi because the two are the main contributor of this silly mess. I know why Sennen goroshi got the wrong idea to accuse BongGone because he has stalked me and saw my involvement in the previous argument just like his stalkings last year. How could I trust you as keeping unfairness and bias only toward Korean editors? When you block Korean editors, there is no second thought and very quick without carefully looking at the situations and filing RFCU and SSP. As for Japanese editors, you have given too much generosity and time to them. You even try to let a Japanese sock, user:Limited200802th to use his disruptive sockpuppeting. When it comes to me, I can put up with your abusive admin tool, however, I can't do that to other Korean editors. You are an admin to whom editors have to follow your behaviors, but when admins commit mistakes most of admins are afraid of wheel war wiht each other. Forgetting all this? For what and why? That is because your mistake? I let Spartz know this briefly, because he is one of the two admins supervising the article and conducting the new rule, so don't falsely accuse me this time of going shopping admins. The case is also worthwhile to report at ANI (I should've reported there first). --Appletrees (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll respond here to keep the discussion in one place. I left a message on BongGong's Korean userpage last night warning him not to blind revert and reminding him of the rules of engagement. I saw that he received the same warning on 7 march and that he did not discuss his revert on the article talkpage. This prompted an edit war on an article that is subject to probation because of the amount of disruption and sheer lameness that it has previously engendered. Given that BongGong was previously warned to read the terms of engagement I'd say that any block is perfectly permissable because no editor who engages in potentially disruptive changes on a article on probation should do this lightly. Apparantly BongGong has limited English. If this is the case they should take double the care. I might not have blocked because I'm a big softie but I support this block because the evidence is that BongGong had already been warned and it is incontrovertable that they made a reckless blind revert. Spartaz 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Oh, My English is not limited. Only My expression on English is limited.(in other words, I'm not good at making the sentence and writing the essay on English) And I'm not BongGong, just BongGon. And you guys insulted all Korean users and you regard them as vandalist. I granted that my action is not justified, but opponents action is not also justified. I will no longer access on Eng wiki because of this trouble, but I will check your real nature, angel or devil. BongGon (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Angel or devil"? Oh my. Somebody here is having massive problems with cross-cultural communication barriers. BongGon, I don't know what it's like in Korea, but here on en-wiki we normally try to be just humans. I had no intention to "insult" you, let alone "all Koreans" (goodness, how did I manage to do that??) I just block people I find edit-warring, is all, that's my job in this place, you know. Whether you continue contributing here or not is up to you, but if you do, please stick to our standards of politeness in future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Furf, please don't prove the angry man. I perfectly understand what absurd block makes him feel like. You didn't stick to rules here, Sennen goroshi is the evidence. This case is a mixture of your mistake and Sennen goroshi. --Appletrees (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Spartz, you might've not blocked BongGone but Furf. already blocked him so quickly without scrutiny as the result of his blind belief on Sennen goroshi's false and ill-faith edit summary. So this case shows a big difference between you and the admin. I know you blocked Odst (talk · contribs) for one month, but the case has a reasonable rationale unlike this case. Furf mentioned "per new rule", but if the new rule is working well, Sennen goroshi would have been blocked already several days ago. Furf. missed that and due to the "edit summary', he blocked BongGone. In this case, who are going to believe the deceiving new rule and admin who has no mercy only on Korean editors? As I said before, Furf did not block BongGoe for the above reason, so his mistaken block can not be justified.

However, honestly, I did not expect you would unblock him because it would be a wheel waring between admins. What I feel most absurd is that his standard is not fairly applied to Japanese editors. Not only do editors be judged by their contributions, but also do admins. Is Furf. a qualified admin to mediated or supervise J-K articles? Several Korean editors don't think so. Anyway, Spartz, thank you for your input and time.--Appletrees (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, "Spartz"? "Furf"? It's Future Perfect, two words, two grammatical categories, you know. Have they been undergoing univerbation recently? A new type of grammaticalization process I didn't know? ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Could Gollak (talk · contribs) be Dobermannp (talk · contribs)? BalkanFever 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Hello FP. Please take a look at the intro of the article. User:Karabinier made a lot of improvements in the article's structure, but he has also changed the long-standing consented version of the intro. I let him know of the issues involved in his talkpage , including WP:MOSMAC and WP:ARBMAC and the relative painstaking earlier consensus (see my edit summary here). (Also see my discussion with User:BalkanFever in my talkpage). He ignored my suggestions, did not reply, and re-reverted to a non-consented version. BTW I like his job in reorganizing the article with his other changes. NikoSilver 19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Croatia Records

I am having problem with user:64.46.2.216 in this article. He is reverting article again and again ] .About article and NPOV policy we have discussed on our talk pages, but he is insisting with POV statement which is added without confirmation by source. On other side from user:SWik78 I have recieved warning about reverting this SPA account. Few minutes before posting this on your talk page I have asked user:Kubura to protect article..--Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)