Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:52, 6 May 2010

Archives

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

User:Bertport

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Since you blocked twice my access to English wiki, I have no choice but contact you anonymously. Firstly, I want to express my deepest regret and disaffection for the two blockages. How could people jump to a judgement only by listening to one side's words? Don't you know the villain always sues his victim before he himself is prosecuted. It's User:Bertport who made the very first revert at 00:19, 19 February 2010 while I, mainly with User:Clemensmarabu, had been contributing days to the article Tibet. I never see he does any constructive edit but only undoes others' contributions or stealthily stuffs his biased words.

I waited one week to finally edit the article, if you please have a look at what content is restored , you'll tell at once good from bad. Both sides' opinions are presented and historical events are scholarly argued, thus I wonder where come from the courage of Bertport to revert such an edit and his boldness to accuse others anticipately. Regards. -- LaGrandefr

Watch out

See this. Not another interest party flood. Just a heads up ;) Michi

Talkback

"This is hardly correct"

It is indeed correct that some Greeks palatalize l and n sounds before an "ee" sound and others do not unless there is another vowel following. Kostaki mou (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that needs a better description then (and preferably a citation), because the way it was worded – both before and after your edit – it seemed to imply a contrast between, say, μαλλί /mali/, which might come out as either or something else, and μαλλιά /malia/, which would come out always as . While the second statement would be true, the first evidently isn't: in fact, always occurs before another vowel; there are no instances of it in word-final position. Can you give a more precise description what structures you are thinking of? Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

μαλλί might come out as either /maʎi/ or /mali/. What the previous poster was saying was that a further vowel would be needed to palatalize the previous λ or ν, as in μαλλιά /maʎa/. This is the case with some speakers, but not others. It seems to me that that was clear. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When the "ee" sound (η, ι, υ, ει, οι or υι) is the only vowel following an λ or ν, it is retained (whether or not the speaker palatalizes the λ or ν). It is only lost when there is another vowel following in the same syllable (something the previous poster failed to specify, by the way). Kostaki mou (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the article again, I see what you mean. (The palatalized sound is indeed analysed as a combination of the λ or ν plus the "ee" (or "i") sound. Not so, as I think I have demonstrated.) Kostaki mou (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dardani

Could you please help on this before growing in a hot dispute? The same misused reference, is being replicated in all Illyrian related articles. Moreover look at this Peresadyes nonsense pure WP:SYNTH. Just try to figure out what this (lead of the article) could possibly mean Peresadyes, (Greek: Περεσάδυές) were most likely a Thracian tribe of the Edones or Illyrians(?!) that ruled over, or(?!) with the Encheleans, or(?!) the Sesarethi, but only(?!) if the latter were not the Encheleans themselves(?!) and were part of the Taulantii group of tribes.?!?!?!?! Thanks in advance Aigest (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about the relevant literature on these topics, and, frankly, I'm amazed that any Wikipedian, either you or your opponents, could expect to be able to say anything definite about any of these totally marginal groups at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of it, but this case is pure WP:SYNTH, just look at above sentence, does it make sense?! As I said before, this misuse of reference is spreading all over articles. Looks funny but even after me and Alexi resolved the dispute the article is protected now with the reason of an ongoing dispute:) Aigest (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at Fustanella. Seems another picture war is on the way ].Alexikoua (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I replied here but let me tell you that I was very surprised by your proposal! (Joking) Is it really you or somebody has stolen your identity ?:) Anyway my idea is that a person should be accountable for its own actions. Aigest (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's still me. I'm in ur Misplaced Pages, bein an eevyl basterd, as usual. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I replied there. Please try to understand my point. Aigest (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why did you put my name in tag teaming with other guys, here my last 500 contributions . Where do you see my tag teaming with quick reverts, except well known and now famous Dardani case, which was well explained by you in Kedadi case and where you do agree that I was right?! Aigest (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am letting you know because you participated in the thread the first time it was brought to the WP:ANI. Here are the URL and wikilink to the current discussion. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an argument you made on the WPANI discussion that I am curious about, but which I hope you don't mind if I ask you about here, rather than there. I think it is tangential to the question of the several thousand valid and useful wikilinks our nominator excised, won't explain, and won't allow to be restored.

You asked why I hadn't used piped links, rather than redirects. In my first 10 or 15 thousand edits I did make a lot of use of piped links. They seemed to make more sense to me then, although I can't remember why. But as I maintained those articles I questioned my early reliance on them.

The key link that I had originally extensively piped was AK-47/Kalashnikov. It turned out that the material I was working on required me to provide wikilinks to one or the other very frequently, probably several hundred instances.

Should I, when I write, need to know where the base article is? Should I have to know whether the base article is at AK-47, Kalashnikov, Kalashnikov rifle, or even AK-74? (AK-74 is not a typographical error. In the mid-1970s the original classic 1947 design was revised. I gather the 1974 design looks practically identical to the 1947 design, to non-gun experts at least, but has significant improvements that don't show. I gather that many rifles that are called AK-47s are actually AK-74s.) In those hundreds of references to the rifle I came across a dozen instances, or a couple of dozen instances, where Kalashnikov had been translitered as Kalisnikov, or Kalashnakov, or other similar variants. I even came across instances with names something like "Krash-nikor", which is what it sounds like when the rifle is referred to in Afghanistan.

After taking a look at all these choices I decided: I am not a gun expert. I decided I would let gun experts decide which alternate name should be the base name for the article. I decided that if the actual gun experts wanted to base their decision on how frequently each alternate name is used, it would be important I made sure I used redirects, rather than piped links, to make sure the name I quoted from the source material points to the right article. If I used redirects what links here would provide an accurate count of how many instance of each variant we had. If I used piped links the count would not be reliable.

Is there a manual of style that recommends using piped links rather than redirection? If so I'd appreciate you drawing it to my attention.

Is there some other reason you think piped links are superior to redirection?

As they say, "inquiring minds would like to know."

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and explain my view. You are of course quite right that, in general, redirects are handy and should be used as often as possible. The problem exists only if a expression is inherently vague or semantically ambiguous, where a redirect "monopolises" the term for a specific target meaning. I don't suppose there is a problem with that in the AK-74 case, but there is one in the "Uyghur house" case. The expression "Uyghur house" isn't a proper name; it is a simple, generic descriptive phrase, meaning not more an not less than "a building associated with Uyghurs". Its use in the Guantanamo contexts you work with is still part of this same, generic meaning (a possibly conventionalised more specific reference in the special context of those reports notwithstanding). Using the term for a redirect to this specific reference implies that this use is the primary meaning of the expression among all its possible uses, which most likely it isn't. This is of course especially problematic if the reference connected with this particular use has negative associations or might be felt to throw a negative light on things in the eyes of some readers. If a reader were to use the search box to look for, say, ethnic domestic architecture traditions of Uyghurs, and is instead led to an article about Al-Qaeda and Guantanamo, this would be a negative surprise for them, which we want to avoid.

I mentioned another issue, which you didn't comment on above: the reason you had the need for so many links appears to have been that you were routinely linking to things from inside literal quotes, often in cases where your link constituted an explanation not of the meaning of a term, but an "easter-egg link" trying to explain what the expression referred to in the specific context. Please check WP:MOSLINK to see why we usually don't do such links. We shouldn't intrude on literal quotes with bluelinks that aren't contained in the original text. If the quote contains an expression whose meaning or reference is truly in need of explanation, it should be done through an explicit explanatory note outside the quote itself ("in the above quote, 'Uyghur house' refers to a supposed Al-Qaeda safe house …", and this of course would need a ref.) I agree with the other editor who apparently removed many of these links, if they did it for this reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know in my talk page.

Thank you

Thank you for letting me know in my talk page that you mentioned me in the AE. Please read my last comment. I actually agree with your proposal of imposing 1RR or 3RR rules to the whole group (last person that breaks it) rather than to the single person and I thank you for coming up with it. I would suggest that we extend that for at least 3 months. To me it makes sense and will give both us and the admins a break and more quietness in our editing and article improving.

I also have to praise user:alexikoua who came up with the idea of having a Greco-Albanian group to deal off articles for Albanian-Greek problematics User_talk:Sulmues#Common_sense. Could you help us with some advise on how we could set that up? --_Sulmues 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Note, this rather disingenuous proposal comes on the heels of my discovery that Sulmues was recruiting people on the Albanian wikipedia to join him in his battles here and his ensuing refusal to translate what he wrote . Athenean (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response here. --_Sulmues 18:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should build something similar to the Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. --_Sulmues 02:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Arvanites = Albanians

The Albanian ethnicity of the Arvanites is an fundamental fact which must be taken into account no matter how much users with Greek point of views appeal to change real history. --Albanau (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You have pushed this view through repeated hit-and-run reverting attacks for more than four years now, after the orgy of revert-warring you participated in back in July 2005. You were topic-banned for a year for exactly such a hit-and-run attack in 2008. This is blatant tendentious editing; you have evidently learned nothing in all these five years. If you continue I will see to it that you are banned for good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

People actually change so I urge you to present facts on the actual issue and to stop slandering and making threats. --Albanau (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is massive sourcing to support the fact that Arvanites in Greece today do not identify ethnically as Albanians. It's in the article. And you have, of course, never in all these years brought reliable sources to the contrary, so you have no case. Yes, we had massive problems in the past about nationalist edit-warriors from the Greek side, but as far as this claim is concerned, they were absolutely right. Unless you start bringing reliable sources for your claims, I'm not going to waste any more words on debating you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well said, and I apologize cause I actually missed the actual sentence of them having a Greek consciousness now of days, though I wouldn't consider the fact as them being a population of Albanian origin as controversial and this very fundamental fact should be mentioned in the beginning of the article. --Albanau (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Shuppster is back

See the SPI here . Athenean (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn you're fast. I hadn't even finished notifying all the people he had gotten involved with. Athenean (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot this IP as well . Thanks. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Democracy

Up late tonight, are we? :) Thanks for the help on Democracy, that stuff it really out there. Athenean (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Christovasilis

Thanks for the c-e job. By the way you have been mentioned in talk:Greeks in Albania, seems we have another situation.Alexikoua (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems User Zjarri has got out of control. Disruptive activity in Anastasios Avramidis-Liaktsis, initiating moves without any discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think my changes aren't at all controversial as they are clearly stated on the talkpage. Alexikoua using partisan sources had claimed this person to be Greek while in fact he was Albanian as all non-partisan sources state. Interestingly his most used source is the company of Macedonian studies mostly known for publications trying to prove the "Greekness" of Macedonia. Note that this isn't the first time he's trying deliberately to present people as Greeks. Check Kostandin and Athanas Zografi for more.--— ZjarriRrethues —  11:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, simply put your sources on the table. Alexikoua, I cannot verify your sources say what you claim they say (unlike with Zjarri's sources, of which I can check at least one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll restore the sources since Zjarri removed them accidentally.Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the sources on the talkpage so could you give a reply there too?--— ZjarriRrethues —  11:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I added more sources and doubled the size of the article.--— ZjarriRrethues —  16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

Today, I had the chance to read your proposal at AE and I agree with it. The current situation is anything else but productive. For example as soon as Alexikoua reached 3 reverts in Greeks of Albania, Megistias started reverting . He also reverted Aigest . I remember clearly that with your help there was reached a consensus so I can't understand why he would start again reverting.--— ZjarriRrethues —  13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I had also agreed earlier, but I am adding to your suggestion in Stifle's talk page User_talk:Stifle#Albanian-Greek_collaboration_board another proposal. Could you please see that thread? --_Sulmues 22:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert notice

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic wikihounding. Thank you.--See section "Is this acceptable Wikiquette?"Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

AE Kedadi

Please note that the final decision has been made on this AE request; it will shortly be closed. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, saw it, thanks for taking care of it. Now we just need someone to also take care of the obvious socks (see current SPI on "Guildenrich" = "Stupidus Maximus"; plus "TinaTrendelina", "ObserverFromAbove", "Kushtrim123"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FPS, how can you be so sure that these people are "obvious socks"? Stupidus Maximus was already cleared by IP Checkuser, see Misplaced Pages:SPI#Guildenrich, whereas ObserverFromAbove and Kushtrim123 also were already cleared Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive#Suspected_sockpuppets. The only one that still has to be reported is User talk:TinaTrendelina. I have been accused several times to be Sarandioti and Guildenrich too, but those were proved false accusations as well. --_Sulmues 22:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll post my comments in the article's discussion page the following minutes, as per restriction. Actually the time I saved the new version I saw the note in my talk page.Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Answered you here --_Sulmues 02:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Kastri

Alexikoua insists that only Muslim Albanians can be called Cham Albanians. I was wondering what do you think about that since it seems that you have enough knowledge on the subject.--— ZjarriRrethues —  21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many theories, I choosed the one that is described in the source Zjarri. used (Kretsi), which is definitely one of the most credible sources on the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUT

Does this outing justify a block? (Taivo (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

I requested a checkuser from User:Alison because of the similarity in editing to User:Markiyan, who runs this website and has been banned from Misplaced Pages for soliciting meat puppets. (Taivo (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

The issue already got handled. Cheers, my friend. (Taivo (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Edit filter 166

Could you take a look at this one please, it seems to be a problematic false positive: ]. Thanks in advance. The user was blocked as they tripped the filter, but from what I can see they were tagging deadlinks, which are infact dead, thus I will unblock them for now. --Taelus (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional discussion here if its of any use to you: User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Edit_Filter. It might provide some context at the very least. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Another nationalist hotspot

Could you please judge the situation, as I'd better avoid interacting with the notorious certified revert-warrior and wikistalker (almost certainly he'll soon appear right here): . The problem ("Georgian" or "Jewish" or anything of this sort instead of "Soviet" when ethnicity hardly matters at all) is all over Misplaced Pages, though, so I don't know what would be a decent solution in the long run. Colchicum (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Polyphonic singing again

, your opinion would be helpful to clarify it.--— ZjarriRrethues —  21:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect these pages?

In this article Albanian Resistance of World War II there has been a continuous tendency in vandalism edits by anon IP , , , and the last one . The same thing even more exagerated happens in Albania article just look only the last days and the last one . Could you please semi-protect these pages so we can get rid of this abuse by anon IP, even other edits by IP are of no value, so we will lose nothing on allowing only established users to edit on these pages. Maybe this action can be extended over all Albanian articles which show such tendency. Aigest (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on topic ban please

FPaS, simply wanting some clarification from you if possible please. As you gave this warning, can you please advise if User:Martintg's participation at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Biophys_has_proxied and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Not_a_battleground is in fact in violation of this topic ban? As he is not a named party to the arbitration, and because this Arbitration has to do with EE-editing (yet a-f'ing'gain) from which he is topic banned, simply wanting clarification from you. Cheers, --Russavia 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would like to make the following points:

1. The ban on interaction with Russavia excludes cases of "dispute resolution" which this would fall under
2. Since these are comments on an Arb Com case page, it is up to the Arbitrators and the Clerks to decide whether or not this violates the ban

Cheers, --Martin (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Future, it isn't the interaction ban that is being raised, but rather the getting involved in issues which directly relate to the area from which a user is topic banned, and that is what the Arbcom centres on. Don't consider this a report, but rather a request for clarification from yourself, as the one who gave Martin that warning, and where you as an admin stand on issues such as this. If action should be taken, then so be it, but first and foremost it is a clarification request. Cheers, --Russavia 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the ban excludes not just any "dispute resolution". It excludes only "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". In my reading, that basically means resolution of disputes of which you are inherently part - a kind of "mind your own business" clause. (Otherwise you could simply jump into any odd discussion between Russavia and somebody else anywhere and declare it part of dispute resolution; it would essentially render the restriction vacuous.) So, to my mind this does fall under the restriction. It in fact falls under both clauses, the topic ban and the interaction ban at the same time: You are not supposed to comment on conflicts Russavia has with others; and you are not supposed to have conflicts of your own with Russavia, at least not related to any editing Russavia does on Estaern Europe, because you are not supposed to play any role in such editing to begin with. As for clerks, they have no exclusive jurisdiction over those pages; you are under normal restrictions there as everywhere else, which remain enforceable by any admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that it was Russavia who started the interaction: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Martintg/Archive#Comments_by_Russavia. Sigh. I warned everybody around long ago that EEML 11A would have to be made reciprocal to make any sense. Colchicum (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but Martin's interventions in the current Arbcom pages don't seem to be dealing with that incident, so they are not part of any concrete dispute resolution attempt of his relating to that issue initiated by Russavia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that my personal information was posted repeatedly on-wiki, including external links to google searches of my personal details, even when requested to stop. I've tried to resolve this privately via email so as not to invoke the Streisand effect, without success. Therefore, unfortuantely, my involvement is now both legitimate and necessary. In any case, the Arbitrators (who are also admins), are in the better position to determine whether my involvement on the ArbCom case page is justified. --Martin (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how these problems have anything to do with you having a need to comment on whether or not Biophys proxied for HanzoHattori? Another question: I can see you were in e-mail contact with clerk Amorymeltzer and he told you something about you being free to post to the case pages. Did he do so knowing you were under these related bans, i.e. was that intended as an explicit dispensation? – I'm going to ask Amory what his views are; until you get an explicit go-ahead again from either him or me or the arbs, I ask you to refrain from further postings to the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti

I have undone your redirect of Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti to Samtskhe-Javakheti. The latter article is on the actual region, whilst the former is an article on a large (and notable) diaspora which lives in that region. There is too much information in the former article which would be lost through the simple redirect. That the article may seem to be POV, is an issue of editing, and mainly of cleanup and better referencing. But it is a notable subject, and shouldn't be deleted by redirecting without attempting to salvage any content at all from it. Cheers, --Russavia 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, it doesn't appear to be a POVFORK of the region article, but somewhat of a split of Armenians in Georgia, and that could very well be legitimate. Don't you agree? --Russavia 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, whatever. I don't intend to get involved much with that article. If you want it retained, are you going to clean it up? I personally see little of value in it – the faults, both in language and in POV content, are so grave it would take no less work to just bring it to acceptable quality level, than to rewrite it from scratch, or merge it into the main article on the region, and until either of these are done, the quality is soo poor it's better to have nothing for the time being than to have this. I am also not convinced it needs to be a separate topic. What's the advantage in having separate articles for a region and for its (majority) population? The history and policits of the region are the history and politics of the people in it. I find it hard to think of any legitimate content in the population article that wouldn't also, automatically, be appropriate content for the region article. And in fact, the page as it stands is already going beyond its stated scope, because it is in fact dealing not just with the Armenians but with the other groups too (Meshketian Turks etc.) That does make it a POV fork, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)