Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:00, 1 February 2006

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7

Please add new comments below.

Green Park - thanks

Thanks for sorting out the Green Park article ChrisO. Was a bit boggled to see what had been done to it, and was about to tackle it myself, then double-checked the history page and found that you'd finished your edit just a few seconds earlier - close shave there! :) -- DMS 22:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do something about Theathenae

Chris, please do something about Theathenae. He keeps pushing a POV that has no support by any source. He keeps putting refference that "the Bulgarian and Greek minorities are not recognized in Republic of Macedonia". You gave him a chanse to give his sources, but he didn't (of course when he had non).

It is a fact that all minorities have all the rights in this country. Theathenae is only trying to put dirt over the name of the country and get the attention away from the poor (or non-existant) minority rights in Greece.

Because of you beeing an administrator who already got involved in the Macedonia issue, I am begging you to do something about it. It is not fair all of us to waste time on POV pushers like Theathenae is. The same user was already banned for lifetime in the Swedish Misplaced Pages. Why he is never sanctioned here, when there is great ammount of his edits that are clearly POV push or extremely offensive. Macedonian 03:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've challenged him on his user page to provide his sources and have warned him about his conduct. We'll see if he takes the hint. -- ChrisO 08:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply

I think "User:Macedonian"'s exploits as User:I sterbinski are well-known to everybody involved. His attempt to erase any reference to the Bulgarian and Greek minorities of the FYROM are wholly unjustifiable and morally repugnant. As for your message on my talk page, you obviously didn't see my reply. Again I urge you to take a look at http://www.stat.gov.mk/pdf/kniga_13.pdf and see if you find any mention of the Bulgarians or Greeks living in the country. I don't understand your edit here, where you have reverted to an edit removing the references to the Bulgarian and Greek languages/minorities. Also, I ask you to take a look at the behaviour of User:Kastrioti, who has already been reported for violating the 3RR on Greeks and is on the verge of doing so on five other articles, where he has persistently vandalised the reference to the Greek minority: Devoll District, Kolonjë District, Korçë District, Përmet District and Vlorë District. I trust that you do not support the virtual ethnic cleansing on Misplaced Pages of the Greek minorities living in neighbouring countries.--Theathenae 08:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I did see it, but I'm afraid it doesn't constitute evidence to support your claim. I don't doubt that there are Greeks and Bulgarians in the RoM but the only conclusion you can draw from the census that you cite is that their numbers are not separately recorded. I see no reason not to believe that they're lumped together in the "other" column, particularly if they aren't very numerous.

When you say "Are we seriously to believe that the Bulgarians, Greeks, and all other ethnic groups combined amount to the mere 1% of the population classified under the Other category?" it's clear that you're using an argument from personal disbelief, a classic logical fallacy. However, I think there is a form of words that we can use as a compromise - I've added this to the article.

Thanks for letting me known about the other articles, by the way. I certainly don't approve of "virtual ethnic cleansing" and will have a look at them to see what's going on. -- ChrisO 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Is your intention to somehow draw attention from some other, more tangible disputes, such as the existence of a Macedonian minority in Greece, confirmed by the Greek Helsinki, Ethnologue, and other respected sources? I mean, how could I assume that you act in good faith when you repeatedly break Misplaced Pages policies when it comes to all articles regarding Macedonia? Why do you defend "Arvanites will not do labeled against their will", and seem to ignore Macedonians' will not to be labeled against their will (despite of the fact that 95% of the sources refer to them as "Macedonians", and clearly ignoring Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict policy)?--FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia? Yes, there is a such minority, and nobody is trying to deny it, as all individuals are free to declare their ethnic affiliation (that is not the case in Greece). There are people who identify themselves as Greeks, Bulgarians, Croatians, Egyptians, Germans, Poles - and they altogether form 1% of the population of the republic. They are listed, and they exist. You can see their composition here . Unfortunately, the Statictics Bureau didn't present their exact numbers by ethnic afillation in the summarized on-line report of the 2002 census, but I'm sure that there is a detailed offline book on this matter. The number of the Greek minority is no more than 1000 persons that declare themselves as Greek, and the number of all persons that declare themselves as Ruthenian is no more than 50 persons. --FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the Macedonian government is an evil post-communistic state that is cleansing Greeks for fun. That is a possiblity. But then, how come:

• There isn't any Greek political party, organisation (legal, or illegal) in the Republic of Macedonia or abroad, that will stop this or at least lament ethnic cleansing of Greeks, as you put it?--FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• FlavrSavr is an evil post-communist brainwashed child that's been taught to kill Greeks and eat them for breakfast, but mind if you explain him how come there is not a single international organisation, human rights group etc. to even mention that there is a Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia?--FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, it is about time to learn that Misplaced Pages is not going to mould according to your fantasy. You should be grateful that you didn't get permanently banned for your template proposal, which is (although deleted) still refused with loathing here, and your arbitrary decision to move Macedonian denar to FYROM denar. --FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If your venom against against me is any indication, one can only imagine how you really treat Greeks over there. I don't understand why Skopjans are so touchy on this issue, especially considering your obsession with promoting "Macedonian" minorities in neighbouring states. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too. It is a well-known fact that many ethnic Bulgarians and Greeks were forcibly baptised "Macedonians" under Tito's Yugoslavia. I personally know people in the FYROM who can vouch for this, but that is irrelevant here. Your expectation that we should take for granted that the Bulgarians, Greeks, and all other ethnic groups combined account for only 1% of the population would be laughable if it weren't so serious. And even if they do, that is no justification for removing any reference to the Bulgarian and Greek languages/minorities, as your compatriots have persistently done without even a whimper of protest from you. So please don't lecture me on "good faith".--Theathenae 15:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your pathetic tactic of "They are evil" is not going to work unless you provide sources to support your claim. I have asked you two logical questions, as well. The tiny Greek minority (of 500 individuals) in Macedonia is respected, and some of them are public personas such as the owner of the Cosmofon branch. There are Veropoulos stores, as well. You have a chance to provide sources, for a change. If you dispute the official figures of the Macedonian census, please provide us with links of Greek organisations (in the RoM, or abroad), or preferably, international organisations that, at least claim the same as you do. --FlavrSavr 16:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I will ignore your vitriol.--Theathenae 16:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please...

...watch over the current discussion at the Macedonians (ethnic group) talk page? I've made a proposal for a step by step joint review of the articles contents. The logic behind it is, because the whole article is more or less disputed at some point, to start with more tangible disputes, and continue with more complex disputes. For example, somebody removed the figure for the Macedonians in the United States, despite the fact that there is a verifiable source for that --FlavrSavr 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the point is to focus on solving specifing disputes in the article, because there is a tendency of some of the participants to indulge in general discussions of metaphysical questions: Do Macedonians exist or not, do they have the right to call themselves Macedonians etc. --FlavrSavr 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your, uhm, role in this would be to stop deviations of facts, and deliberate attempts to ignore facts and consensus from both sides... so what do you say? --FlavrSavr 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ukraine oblast maps in vector format

Hey ChrisO. Would you be willing to release your maps of Ukrainian oblasts in a vector format like SVG, for use at the WP commons? User:Steschke, who created the location maps here and at German Misplaced Pages would be interested in using them. (see also commons:Maps of Ukraine) —Michael Z. 2005-11-9 19:14 Z

I'm afraid they're not "my" maps - they're all derived from a single map of Ukraine by the United Nations' Cartographic Section, which you can find at http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/ukraine.pdf . -- ChrisO 20:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. —Michael Z. 2005-11-9 20:33 Z

two changes and a revert

I've made two changes yesterday - 1 and 2 - and I did one revert today. I think they are ok (that includes the small f), but please check them. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 16:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

wow

You must be interested in Talk:Arvanites#reverts. Thanks in advance. +MATIA ☎ 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed text

I proposed a text concerning the number of Greeks and Bulgarians in the relevant discussion page. So here it is:

There is a small Bulgarian and Greek minority in the country but the numbers of each of these two groups are not given separately in the 2002 census. . According to the 1994 census 1682 persons have identified themselves as Bulgarians, while 368 persons have identified themselves as Greeks. These two groups, along with the other minorities such as the Egyptians, Montenegrins, Croatians, Slovenes and others are listed under the category "Other ethnicities" who constitute 1% of the population (2002 census).--FlavrSavr 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've explained the reasons in the talk page in greater detail. In short, I've added the other small minorites (who are actually more numerous than Greeks and Bulgarians), and I've added the links to the 1994 census. There is no special discrimination against Greeks in the contemporary Republic of Macedonia, and I am waiting Theathenae to provide sources (international or Greek) that will dispute this. --FlavrSavr 16:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm feeling a bit ignored... is it because I'm a "nationalist", or is it because the text wasn't clear enough? I have nothing against Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia, nor Greeks in general. However, I believe that in this case, Theathenae acted in bad faith - (s)he knew that someone would remove the figure of Greeks, and that would make room for accusations of "virtual ethnic cleansing". And that is something unnaceptable from a person who constantly refers to ethnic Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs" or "Skopjans" (although I have provided him/her enough links to show that these terms are indeed loathed by the Macedonian community), puts "FYRO" or "Former Yugoslav" after every Republic of Macedonia that (s)he sees in articles, etc. Now, there isn't a numerous Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia, and there isn't a campaign against them. I'm waiting for Theathenae to provide sources to dispute this (Greek or international, regardless). Meanwhile, could you please tell me your opinion on the proposed text? --FlavrSavr 13:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

it's me

Category talk:Macedonian newspapers +MATIA ☎ 13:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And Category:Macedonian people. I think Velidis was a Macedonian too, if he was a greek macedonian, those people need a similar disambiguation term. I do hope they'll suggest something eventually. +MATIA ☎ 17:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Risnjak

How u find the article:)? Just wanted to ask u why u have erased that Kupa source is Vaucluse type of source? Luka Jačov 10:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Cliona ni riain

Thank you Chris. And he is a she, if we go by the name. Cheers. Fergananim 12:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for admin support

I'd like to bring to your attention the acts of User:Kastrioti who is making edit wars and violates 3RR every day in articles such as Molossians, Epirus, Greeks etc. Regards. Miskin 14:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of my edits on Narconon.

Dear Chris,

Recently you removed my edits to your version of Narconon. I work for Narconon and nothing was put of the Edits as a copy right violation. The works were added with permission of my Issue Athority at Narconon. I find it rather interesting that you removed my own success story and that of my wife from your site, stating it was copy right. Knowing that you are an administrator and have the ability to keep the site free of pro narconon information shows me that this is not a 💕, rather it is a racist and biased "front" for you to natter and spread hate towards betterment groups. I challange you to come to one of the centers, see a student graduation, hear the wins and gains, and see for yourself what is really happening at a Narconon. Please stop erassing my Edits and allow freedom of speach which you declare so rightfully in your site.

JGB

Misplaced Pages is not about free speech, it's about creating a useful encyclopedia with articles written from a neutral point of view. Thuresson 20:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

As Thuresson says! There were a number of problems with your contribution. A lot of it was, frankly, PR blurb which might be appropriate for an advertisement but not for an encyclopedic article. It was not compliant with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. It repeated some of the information already given in the article. Some of the facts were also wrong: you said that ABLE isn't part of the Church of Scientology. It's a separate corporation but it's certainly part of the Scientology management structure - ask your Issue Authority for a copy of "The Command Channels of Scientology" (a CSI Int document of 1988) and look for ABLE. Finally, success stories aren't appropriate for an article - Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO 21:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

responce

Thank you for the comment back, however the article you print on the Narconon site is different than mine in that you violate the Misplaced Pages policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. According to Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". neutral point of viewYour artical is complete bias and there is no room for others to add information of a positive nature. This is what I was trying to make known. The "fairly and without bias" is what you are lacking. Your article is also PR and propaganda horse crap and it is under the guise that you are knowledgable of Narconon and its past, however it is just propaganda, where is the neutral and truth.

JGB

Risnjak

How u find the article:)? Just wanted to ask u why u have erased that Kupa source is Vaucluse type of source? Luka Jačov 10:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Luka! I found the article on Special:Newpages and thought it was good, so I did a bit of work to fix the language in it. I'm not sure what you meant by "Kupa source is Vaucluse type of source" so I took it out, rather than leave it in and possibly cause confusion. Do you mean that the source of the river Kupa is similar to that of the river Vaucluse? -- ChrisO 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chicxulub crater gravity map.gif

I've just received the following on helpdesk-l:

Dear Helpdesk,
With reference to the/our image of the Chicxulub crater at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Chicxulub_crater_gravity_map.gif#filelinks
What is the basis for the claim that we no longer hold the copyright of this image?
<snip>
Cheers,
Alan
Alan R. Hildebrand
Canada Research Chair in Planetary Science
Coordinator of the Canadian Fireball Reporting Centre
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2N 1N4
<phone and email removed>
www.geo.ucalgary.ca
www.geo.ucalgary.ca/PMSearch/

Can you explain where you got the image and why you thought it was PD? Alphax  09:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, it was on a USGS website and covered by the usual disclaimer of copyright. See e.g. http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2003/05/meetings.html, where the image is included and the disclaimer states: "Information presented on this website is considered public information (unless otherwise noted) and may be distributed or copied." So it may have been that the image was incorrectly marked by the USGS. -- ChrisO 10:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Time for the obligatory:

Image:Chicxulub crater gravity map.gif has been listed as a possibly unfree image

Alphax  13:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Name: Macedonian Slavs<>MacedoniansMacedonians-2005-11-15T10:27:00.000Z">

Please don't make extravagant claims like this - the name "Macedonians" is relatively new in its use regarding the majority ethnic group in RoM. Until approximately the 1950s, the only name in use was "Macedonian Slavs" (when they were not called Bulgarians or simply "Slavs", of course). I can refer you to the 1911 encyclopedia on the net, to Wilkinson's Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia which describes the evolution of the term in western scholarship, to Brailsford's Macedonia, its races and their future or to any book dealing with the Balkans or Macedonia in particular issued before the 1940s. Considering that even people with pro-Macedonian publication and self-proclaimed Macedonian national consciousness (f.ex. Misirkov) use the term "Macedonian Slavs" (македонските словени), your claims are, leniently said, puzzling. VMORO 10:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Macedonians"> Macedonians">

Ed had reverted the article to a random version. If you check this diff, for example the paragraph about Greece, I believe you'll agree that it is better than the random rollback-ed version (the macedonia* related articles give me wikistress and I haven't noticed the wrong version before). The 31-31 straw poll had some agreed facts (before the poll). Most of those facts are still not in the article, making the article inacurate. The 7-2 poll is ... well it is not a poll. The new naming policy doesn't mean that we should not analyse the big poll, I still believe that the poll and the talk page of the naming policy, are two of the most interesting places for neutrals (but patience is highly required to read and analyse everything). At some point the article should include the information that at .mk domains there are "historical content" self-identifications as Macedonian*Slav*something, and that their politicians use that term too, after 1992.

One other thing is the ethnologue figure of 180000, you were part of the first discussion, and I think the paragraph about Greece that I've mentioned above analyses it properly. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the ultimate goal and the means by which is should be achieved are Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names). From "naming conflict", it emerges that 'Macedonians' should be used as that is their self-identifying name today, I doubt that many, if any, call themselves anything else (Macedonian Slavs, Bulgarians). What is past, is not important. I see this dispute like the Arvanites, who became a seperate nation from the Albanians overnight, sometime in Feb 1930. Before that they identified as Albanians; they don't anymore. Now they identify as Arvanites (the overwhelming majority) just in the same way that the Macedonians do. Also, a yahoo search for 'Macedonian Slavs' yields 12,600 results , whereas a rearch for 'Macedonians', but omitting the words 'Greece' and 'Bulgaria' yields 368,000 results, which is more than ten times as many. Therefore, according to 'common names' the name 'Macedonians' should be used. Rex 11:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe ChrisO will assure you that the historical past is an important part of wikipedia (and every encyclopedia). Arvanites prooved their feelings regarding their self-identity during 1821, first and second world war and of course the balkan wars. I've avoided expanding these in the past, but I'll do it in the future. There are also Venetian and other historical records about Arvanites, Greeks and Albanians. I don't have any idea where you got the 1930 number. Self-identification is a very important thing, and it's one of the reasons I've tried to help and co-operate with FlavrSavr after the big poll. It's the first thing wp should have taken in mind, even before the change in naming policy. But historical accuracy and NPOV must not be sacrificed and I trust that all the macedonia related articles will find their way to NPOV soon (there are too many people involved and I'm glad about that). Someday there'll be an international treaty that will solve the political name-dispute between RoM and Greece, when that day comes will we erase any mention in wikipedia of what happened since 1992? I doubt that. As for using plain vanilla Macedonians, I'd suggest to anyone interested to read the policies about disambiguation. +MATIA ☎ 12:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Did I say 1930? I meant 1830. According to the (in)famous Helsinki Report they were and identified as Albanians until the application of a state backed hellenization policy once the Greek state was established. Historical past is indeed an important part of any encyclopaedia. But what people call themselves now is the difinite criterion (as interpreted by policy - see my comments above). Why do we say Ancient Greeks, Anciant Greece and Ancient Greek? That was not their self-identifying name. It is what they are called now "backdated" to then. This kind of thing shuld apply everywhere. The name "Macedonian Slavs" is unacceptable and is found offensive by the vast majority of the people it refers to and is relatively rarely used in English as the Yahoo! search proved. Wikipedias naming conventions appy and that is why the article is where it is. Didn't you say: You cannot name people the way you want to against their will and/or against the facts? You did, that AND Misplaced Pages's policies apply and that is why they should be calles Macedonians. You failed to realise that when you had the chance and instead insisted on 'Macedonian Slavs'. Only now, when the article has actually been moved you care about disabmiguation. When it was at 'Macedonian Slavs' you (plural) didn't care about Wikipedias policies and guidelines. There is a qualifyer, the (ethnic group). How many ethnic groups do you know that call themselves Macedonians? I had suggested "Ethnic Macedonians", you (pl) refused and instead insisted on the name which is widely found offensive. Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines (and the MATIA principle) require that they be called 'Macedonians'. The qualifier is still subject to debate. if you are really interested in NPOV, you would have some idea of where it should be. And your proposal would be? Rex 13:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Macedonians"> Macedonians">

The facts REX, are in favor of Mac*Slav* or Slav*Mac* until 1992. Is this written in the article? Arvanites have chosen a unique name ;) And it will take you a lifetime to prove that I insisted (when talking with FlavrSavr) on Mac*Slav*, or before (and much more harder to proove that I "didn't care about policies"). Please avoid "putting words in my mouth". Those people should suggest a fair "qualifier" (I understand you mean a disambiguation term). Bye-bye I'm taking my wikibreak. +MATIA ☎ 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Macedonians"> Macedonians">

Evidence please? You say that you told FlavrSavr something, but that is not necessarily true. A fair qualifier is something that is not found offensive by the people in question, Macedonian Slavs is. How do you explain the fact that Britannica, CIA - The World Factbook,The Columbia Encyclopedia ,The Harvard Dictionary of Music, Philip's Encyclopedia, The Macmillan Encyclopedia, Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, Penguin Encyclopedia of Places The Companion to British History, the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia and Ethnologue call these people Macedonians without any qualifier? How do you explain the fact that the Yahoo! search returned almost ten times as many results for "Macedonians" than "Macedonian Slavs". Don't Misplaced Pages policies apply anymore? Why are so so dogmatically obsessed with naming these people against their will? They now call themselves "Macedonians", case closed! They are an ethnic group in their own right and have a right to choose what to call themselves without requesting permission from MATIA. There is an adequate qualifier which avoids confusion (as opposed to Britannica etc who don't use any qualifier). That should be sufficient for you. You say you want a "fair" qualifier, what would that be, Macedonians (Skopje)? The qualifier should not be deregotary, nor offensive, nor racist Macedonians (Slavs), you see unlike the Greeks who believe that they are the pure descendents of the Ancient Greeks, it's possible that not all ethnic Macedonians are Slavs, in fact some of them claim relation with the Ancient Macedonians. I'm not saying that that is true or false, but you are. Macedonians (ethnic group), Ethnic Macedonians are the best qualifiers I can thnk of (genetic POV should stay out of this). Earlier I asked you for a suggestion. You cunningly evaded the question. I ask you again, what do you propose as the article name? Rex 13:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

T-38

Hi, I have problem with T-38. IMHO on Picture is not T-38, because T-38 had turnet on left side, on right side was turnet of T-37. Cinik 11:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please lock Macedonians (ethnic group)

Chris, during the last 4 days about 80 edits were made on the Macedonians (ethnic group) page. This is a clear edit war.

I would like to ask you to lock the Macedonians (ethnic group) page on my last version: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Macedonians_%28ethnic_group%29&oldid=28727026. Please do this as soon as posible, before another round of the edit war starts.

You would ask me why on that version? Let me explain.

The previous version of the page was a clear descriptive of the several propagandas around the Macedonians. It was not describing the Macedonians, it was describing the ways how they are denied.

I edited several things and I think that for the first time since I am on Misplaced Pages the page is not offensive towards the Macedonians. And I beleive that is quite NPOV.

Also, I added several things supported by relevant documents, things that were ignored so far.

The biggest reason why you should lock it to this version is because I am sure that this is a change that will cause several reactions. Theredore, if the page is locked, the users will put their reactions on the talk page. So, we will finally get a chanse to talk about every single reaction and sort the argued things.

If someone gives proofs of what I wrote is wrong, I will be more than glad to accept any change, anything that is in favor of NPOV.

Please react soon, so we can finaly get this over.

I would also ask you to play the role of a mediator during this period. Also you can ask any other administrator/user that knows little more about the region to join you. Neutral side can always help. If neutral sides were little more interested about this issue in the past, we (Wikipedians) would not have to be in this situation now.

Also, please comment any of my edits, so I can explain why I made some decision or why I changed somethin.

I really want to get this over with. I am already getting critics from my wife because I spend too much time here. Please help. Thanks. Macedonian 04:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to add that in my oppinion, you should change "Macedonian Slavs" in the "watching" part of your ures page. I am aware of your neutrality, but some other users can think that you are taking anti-Macedonian side because of using the name "Macedonian Slavs"

Just a tought, hope you don't mind. Macedonian 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking of 213.157.0.0/16

Hi Chris. I received an e-mail from User:Vrykolaka, an innocent party who was blocked from editing when this IP address was blocked. I have unblocked the IP. It looks like one of those cases where one IP is shared by many. Future blocks on this IP, therefore, need to be short (Misplaced Pages rules say 15 minutes maximum), unless you can isolate User:Levzur in a block. (I know, this is a pain when dealing with habitual vandals. My IP gets flagged frequently too and being a registered user seems to make no difference. Cheers! 23skidoo 16:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Block Levzur

ChrisO, Levzur, immediately upon his release from blockage, went about double-redirecting the Bagrationi page. It is now located at Sheuracxadta brbo and needs to be moved back to its regular location. I already reverted the page to the status it belongs because he also completely erased the information. I fear he is planning to do so again, and this time permenantly.
–Whaleyland 22:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline

Hi Chris,

Are you the author of the 'Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline' page? (http://en.wikipedia.org/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline)

I've very slightly modified the text to indicate that the pipeline preferences suit Western allied interests in particular -- it was only implicit in the article, and somewhat ethnocentric. Also, I dispute the question of the US's dependence on Middle Eastern, and, more broadly, OPEC sources -- I have figures which place Middle Eastern imports a little higher (12%) from less 'colloquial' sources than an on-air interview with an oil exec. It seems that you supplied the 8-9% figure. (I'm still very new to this, tohugh, apolog

ies if it was someone else -- I'm not sure how to locate original authors in wiki.)

This is my discussion text below:

I've added some explicit 'Western interests' phrases as there was (is) too much Western and US ethnocentrism in the article - these pipeline routes have been chosen to favour Western allied interests in particular. Emerging industrial giants like Russia, China and India have an interest in direct oil routes and pipelines also. I don't really like this article, it's too 'cosy' and 'oily' (no pun intended) around Western interests and 'oil panic', and political and commercial power plays. I dispute the 8-9% of Middle Eastern oil export to US figure supplied, it could be more like 12% - ~20% of ~60% imports - hence the increasing role of unsavoury geopolitics in the region, the desire to get around OPEC countries in general (40% of US imports), not to mention profits made by infrastructure (pipeline) companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

--Sean01 00:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Xenu in popular culture

I've added a new section: Xenu#Xenu_in_popular_culture. The Marvel villain Xemnu probably deserves a mention as well - David Gerard 14:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

Chris. I noted your edits on Republika Srpska article but they were once again reverted by this User:Nikola Smolenski. I reverted the article to the original version but I doubt that this edit war will end anytime soon. Your continued interest would be greatly appriciated. See also talk page Thanks --Dado 04:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

High-Res of Daruma dolls

Hi christO,

we'd like to use your picture of the Daruma dolls. But for printing it in our magazine "Kontinente" (missionary magazine of the catholic chruch in germany) we need a highres. Can you provide it? Please leave me a message as early as convenient: veronika.buter@missio-aachen.de Sincerely yours

Veronika Buter

Re:

Hi, I have seen your message. I have tried everything to improve the articles, but there are some vandals that keeps reverting my edits. I base my edits on a relevant documents, I try to discuss but they dont act according to discussion. For instance User:Nikola Smolenski keeps destroying articles that are related to Albanians, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Croats and Kosovo etc. I was adviced by User:GeneralPatton to start a ban process (AMA request) because he is also aware of a Serb nationalists, but it is very slow process. And I didnt make a personal attacks. Otherwise Nikola called me a crazy for a few times...Emir Arven 14:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Map

.

Morwen - Talk 14:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, but the full version is not antialiased so floodfill should work. Morwen - Talk 07:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are you to find yourself intiled to "change" the history

Even when main history books state different then your oppinion

Article protection

I left the article Epirus unattended for some 10 days to see what happens, and as expected, teamed-up editors such as User:Kastrioti and User:REX had their way with it by pushing ridiculous, irrelevant and unsupported POVs. The dispute is on an Albanian-Ethnic post-WW2 which has nothing to do with the article. They refuse to start a new article on the topic and they have failed to provide any sources (except some POV college coursework of a most likely Albanian student), and yet they have edited every single section of the article. As they don't seem to be willing to stop edit-warring, I have no choice but to ask for your help. Regards. Miskin 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Epirus

I just saw what you did with Epirus, Epirus (region) and Epirus (Greece)
Woooowwwoooww!!!
--FocalPoint 07:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

i wonder why this hasn't been reported on any television network since the bombing?

Barnstar

Hi, I've noticed how long you've been here, how helpful you are and how few awards you have; please, accept this pile of barnstars as late recognition for all the aforementioned qualities. Izehar 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yellow Cake does it occur naturally?

Thanks.

No, it doesn't. It has to be created by milling uranium ore. See Yellowcake for more. -- ChrisO 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia-related vandalism

My strong suspicion is that commented-out advice is not going to be particularly effective, because the agenda involved is not to write good articles but to, um, "correct propaganda" (or generate it, for that matter). The current situation is not ideal; the amount of disruption impacts any attempt at improving the articles and contributes to an environment of suspicion and assumptions of bad faith. I don't, however, have much of an idea about an effective way to change that. Having more users watchlist the entire set of articles might be a small help. Your attention has, I am quite sure, improved the situation dramatically, and is appreciated. Jkelly 01:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian (disambiguation)

Can I ask u for administrative assistance with regard to the actions of User:Bomac in Macedonian (disamibuation) () where he is trying to present an allegation as a widely-recognised fact. I have done 3 reverts already and am pulling back. VMORO 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to present an allegation as a widely-recognised fact. In fact, VMORO's widely-recognised fact is a bit of relative. There are also widely-recognised reserches which confirm what I've wrote there. Regards, Bomac 17:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

VMORO's intentions

And from this:

Our little friend Bomac...

See the newest invention of our little friend Bomac: . VMORO 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

which you can find in user MATIA's talk-page, you'll see that VMORO "mission" here is to make quarrels and edit wars between users on "talkative" issues. Regards, Bomac 17:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

Hi. It is not clear to me that my contributions at Macedonia (Greece) are helping the situation (see the Talk page). Since you've been looking at this constellation of articles longer than I have, I'd like to ask for some advice on going forward. Jkelly 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Aryan War Front

Hi,

You speedied this AfD subject, which I nom.'ed, as non-notable. Please note that, although I don't really object, there is no such CSD ground for internet events. A7 non-notability applies to people only. I nom.'ed the thing for a reason. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

persians

I think you'll find livius.org/persia.html interesting. +MATIA ☎ 01:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a very useful resource! -- ChrisO 00:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia (Greece)

I've tried to fix IPA that was broken by JKelly and it seems I also reverted you. I would revert myself, back to your version, but then I saw it's Makedon45's version that's missing many paragraphs. I don't know what to do. (by the way, what is good about diacritics?) +MATIA ☎ 00:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Makedon45's extra paragraphs are redundant, frankly. The history of Greek Macedonia is already covered in Macedonia (region) - we should direct people there, rather than having two possibly conflicting or duplicate histories. As for the diacritics, I think it's preferable to leave them in... -- ChrisO 00:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And I thought I had seen them somewhere before. Macedonia (region) is a pretty good article. Maybe we should focus to the present time at Macedonia (Greece)? +MATIA ☎ 00:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User:85.18.14.9 at it again

More commercial link spam; since I'm not an admin and you are, plus you just recently had him briefly blocked and that did no good — your ball, alas. Support the move (see Village Pump, perennial questions) to require registration, with e-mail, to edit! Bill 18:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers

Not a great article, but being handled by AFD in the usual hamfisted consensus manner. Please add an opinion - David Gerard 14:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Möðruvallabók

Thanks for the Möðruvallabók expansion! Don't remember seeing you before on Old Norse literature pages but that was a very good edit. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Burn in hell

hi chris. you're stupid. you deleted my article. i hate you. you're a bitch. burn in hell.

I just deleted your other spam article too - happy to help. Please see WP:SPAM for the rules on this sort of article (i.e. they're not a good idea). -- ChrisO 20:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: the Wiki Scientology Article

Dear Sir,

The Scientology article should have an accurate introduction. It is completely false and can not be documented that Scientology was ever introduced, established or practiced as a therapy. In Wichita, Kansas on March the third, 1952, Mr. Hubbard introduced Scientology. His words were recorded and may be reviewed by anyone listening to Scientology's lectures. That lecture's title is: "Scientology: Milestone One". I proved this information because it is documentable information. The references to Scientology being a therapy are not documentable. Dianetics was a therapy, Scientology has never been a therapy. The Church of Scientology as we know of it today was then established in 1954, so says the COS at .

Why accept rumors and opinions in an intorduction when documented evidence is available?

I have that audio recording. I have its transcript. May I be helpful about accuracy?

ChrisO, I am pretty new on Wiki and I'm still learning my way around. I try to fit in but I hope to present accurately those things I know of. Scientology, Dianetics, how Dianetics defines "engram" and Scientology's auditing are things I know about.

Have a good one, Terry Olsen Terryeo 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

You may not even realize it, but you did something quite impressive today. Thank you. Danny 02:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't realise it. :-) What was it? -- ChrisO 07:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Google Earth images

This is regarding Lake Ohrid and Lake Prespa images. I see many satellite images for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Satellite_image_of_Greece.jpg Is only Google Earth that are prohibited or any kind of satellite image? Will edititn the existing Gogle Earth snapshot with the logo removed be sufficient for copy right problems? Thanks --Cigor 14:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If the images come from NASA (or possibly ESA), then they are generally OK to use. However, images from Google Earth come from commercial satellites and the copyright is held by companies such as DigitalGlobe. See this on Google Earth's FAQ, which effectively rules out Misplaced Pages's use of Google Earth images. Cropping out the Google Earth logo wouldn't do any good because copyright attribution data is actually embedded in the image itself. You might want to look at NASA World Wind as a copyright-friendly alternative. -- ChrisO 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the FAQs is WikiPedia considered commercial product? But anyway, I admit knowing not much of copyright violation. Thanks for the NASA tip, I’ll have a look.--Cigor 18:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages itself isn't, but bear in mind that it's supposed to be a free content encyclopedia and that its content is scraped by a lot of other websites, which may well have a commercial objective. The Google Earth copyright issue has come up before and the consensus was definitely that images from there shouldn't be used here. -- ChrisO 18:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Chersonesos

I just wanted to thank you for mending the mess I made with Chersonesos. Thanks :-) Aldux 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem! I made a trip out there in August, so I can claim to know a bit about it... ;-) -- ChrisO 17:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Double image

The image you just uploaded to wikipedia exists on commons... --Dijxtra 19:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I knew I should have checked there first... -- ChrisO 19:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Bomac

I can't stand this anymore. Is there any WP:policy which protects against "stalking"? User:Bomac follows me around and starts edit-warring on every single article I'm editing or disputing. For example I'm discussing something with other editors in Talk:St Cyril, he follows me there and starts reverting to the version that I don't agree with and then he adds more POV into it, something which according to WP:vandalism (Deleting or altering part of a Misplaced Pages official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism). is regarded as Vandalism, and therefore I have the right to revert as many times as it takes. Is there a WP:policy to protect from such kind of harrassment from editors start edit-wars? Miskin 19:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, but it is edit-warring and he's clearly violated the 3 revert rule; I've given him a 24 hour block to calm down. I have to say that you're getting very close to the line as well, so please try to discuss changes with people rather than reverting. -- ChrisO 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, although sometimes it's really unclear on whether such an act is actual vandalism or not. I always try to avoid edit-warring and sort it out in discussion first. I only went on with the 4th edit because at that point I was sure that he was performing vandalism and because if I hadn't, the article would remain on his version for the rest of the week. Anyway thanks for locking, it was really getting annoying. I'll try to make sure that it's an act of vandalism from now on. Miskin 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeap, Miskin's word rules! Cheers, Bomac 22:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedon and Macedonia disambiguation

Macedon was usually called Macedonia, and Macedon was not only the kingdom of Philip II and Alexander III. Please check the talk page, I left a link with an animated map (it covers BC and AD, Macedon was aproximately for all the BC period - something like 800 BC to 100 BC). +MATIA ☎ 19:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Scientology and disambiguation of "Christian Science"

Hi Christ, My name is Terry. About the placement of that disambiguation in the Scientology article. Don't you think it would better go later in the article than in its introduction? An introduction is meant to introduce a topic, tell when it happened, what brought it into existence and so on. A disambiguation is additional information which might apply, but its placement in an article's introduction is a negative information about it as in: "Pluots are not apples, but a combination of plums and apricots" which provides a negative information. Which tends to diffuse and confuse rather than to clarify and make easy to read.Terryeo 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Opps, Mispelled your name Chris, sorry.

It's standard Misplaced Pages practice to put the disambiguation on the top of the article - see Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links, which states: "a friendly link to the alternative article is placed at the top." For examples of how it works in other articles, see Albania and Macedon, to pick two random examples. -- ChrisO 23:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dragoljub Draža Mihailović

I'm having some trouble with User: Bosniaco's approach to editing the article on Draža Mihailović. He waded in, changing the article back to his last version after almost two months (October 20 - December 13). I changed it back to generally accepted version three times(Edit History), but unfortunately as User: Bosniaco changed it back to his version of October 7 a fourth time in 24 hours, my hands are now tied and anyway, I don't have the time or inclination to get into a long running edit war. I offered to discuss his problems with the article each time but (as you can see in the edit history), but he just compared Mihailović to Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot and Ante Pavelić, not to mention that he insinuated I was a Fascist. I am NOT asking for him to be blocked for violating the 3 revert rule (although he has), just for it to be brought to his attention that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable when working on a collaborative project. I'd really appreciate it, thanks in advance. --estavisti 07:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I've also sent this message to User: Chris 73 & User: Darwinek

advice needed

1, 2, 3. If a greek editor adds the fYRoM instead of the RoM link (or even as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), in an article he will be either reverted or blocked. And, while I think that RoM and fYRoM are practicaly the same thing, they are both valid terms and are used today. Not to mention that the RoM related articles avoid any analysis of the usage of the term Macedonian Slav, despite the fact that their politicians and their scholars also use that term (even during the last 10 years), nor the names of RoM before 1992. What can I do about these? +MATIA ☎ 10:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Makedonas took to photos that show the blue flag. +MATIA ☎ 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a line at the buttom of that article to satisfy GFDL, please copyedit my english. Thanks! +MATIA ☎ 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You had changed that instance to Slavic Macedonians (compare with Macedonians Greeks or whatever they are called at WP). See also the talk page and the edits by makedon45, please. +MATIA ☎ 23:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul H. Smith (remote_viewer)

I noticed that you speedied this article under A7. It seems to me that being one of those recruited to the remote viewing program, writing the manual on remote viewing, training several other remote viewers, and being author of the book which is the main citation on the Ingo Swann article, are all assertions of notability. What do you think? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me guess

"brought" isn't clear.  :)

Ah, don't worry, I rarely bleed over what I make, since what I make isn't for me to judge.

But let me try to rationalize "brought". Adverbs aren't good. Even in encyclopedia articles. They get in the way and make the wrong impression.

So, instead of "brought", how about "taken by force"? --VKokielov 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group)

ChrisO, sorry, but that was not agreed between me and Miskin. That version which you reverted is the reason for the latest developments of the situation. So, please revert back the last version by me. Cheers, Bomac 19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert it - please see the talk page. -- ChrisO 19:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Male and female pheasant.jpg has been listed for deletion

Problem user on Scientology articles

I see now that you're already aware of this user, but I'd appreciate if you could take a look at User talk:David Gerard#Terryeo. A lot of work has gone into making those articles as NPOV as anything so controversial can be and it shouldn't be wasted because a problem user can quote policy inconsistently and glibly to mask the wrongness of his edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the difficulties over Dianetics, and I agree that the revisions are problematic. I'm working on an alternative version of the article - to be honest, I think both your version and his are lacking some important details. I won't be able to play a full part in the debate until I get back from holiday next week, though. -- ChrisO 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking a socket puppet

Hi, there Herostratus and I suspect some users are sock puppets (see here for evidence). I tried to figure out what action we should take, but only guideline I found (this one) says I should present the case to ArbCom. Now, did I get that right or you as an admin can evaluate our evidence and block the users if you find them beeing sock puppets? --Dijxtra 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

About my copyright violation

Sorry, but I don’t know what are you talking about. My only bigger adds to the Republic of Macedonia article are these: , . I added very little text and 3 pictures made by myself. I also did another edits after that, but that was done in order to incorporate the pictures in the article (these edits are marked with bolded “m” because are minor edits).My last edit was on 08:57, 28 December 2005 . Since then, I didn’t make any single new edit to the page! I know that the same day someone made a large input to the page using the following anonymous address:212.110.79.199 (If you doubt that I anonymously made these adds, please make any neccessary checks in order to verify that the anonymous address is different from the one I used before). I also noticed the large input to the page but I decided not to involve in the edit war. I just added the following observation on the article talk page: --Bitola 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Etna 2002 eruption.jpg has been listed for deletion

dbenbenn | talk 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Hi, ChrisO, I want to inform you that Miskin has violated the 3RR in this article. Many regards, Bomac 10:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

request for free usage of your picture

Dear Chris, We are considering using your image of the Westminster Abbey for the front cover of the manual for a course Teaching The Westminister Confession of Faith taught at our school, Biblical Graduate School of Theology.

Please let us know if there are any usage restriction.

We look forward to your kind consent to use this free of charge.

Regards, Mr. Leong Kok Weng Librarian Biblical Graduate School of Theology Library 31 #01-01 Tanjong Pagar Road Singapore 088454. Tel: 62276815 Fax: 62249897 http://www.bgst.edu.sg/lib leongkw@bgst.edu.sg

We have an open request to unprotect the Macedonian redirects

User:Khoikhoi has a request up to unprotect the 5 Macedonian people redirects you protected in mid November. Unprotect? Let us know on RfP or on my talk page. Thanks. --Woohookitty 06:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics

Looks very good! I have only a few comments:

• The use of italics for quotations is, I believe, non-standard. I confess I find it visually distracting.
• In mentioning the APA's September 1950 resolution not to use Hubbard's techniques therapeutically, I'd also mention that the resolution left open the possibility of using Hubbard's techniques experimentally to test their validity -- something you don't hear very often from the Scientology camp, whose party line is that the APA at that time wanted to surpress Dianetics because they "knew" it worked.
• You mention that GUK was named "after" the rifle-cleaning fluid. I was under the impression that Hubbard had stated it actually was the rifle-cleaning fluid, with the addition of niacin. (This may have been me misunderstanding that this crazy thing Hubbard said was actually meant as a joke, as opposed to the other crazy things he said which he meant as sacraments. =) )

Overall, an excellent job. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello ChrisO. I wish to get into communication with you regarding your use of your administrative status and its intrusion into the Dianetics article. You revision of 8 Jan removed a cited list of Dianetics Publications, in Harvard style, complete with ISBNs and other cited sources. You replaced that carefully prepared, cited, information with sketchy, ill-prepared information that does not have ISBN numbers, isn't cited, doesn't have verification and, in my opinion, is counter to Wiki Policy. WHY ? Terryeo 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you have refused to communiate with anyone about your gross violations of wikipedia policy in preference to your assumed right to rewrite whole articles (the dianetics article) without any other POV presented. The reason I have tried to talk with you is because A. you are an administrator, you earned that status, it didn't just fall into your lap. and B. You have a few people who think you are doing right. I submit this information to you. No one who understands Dianetics considers your inputs helpful, in fact, in the area, Dianetics, all consider your inputs to have destroyed what was worked hard to achieve. And you persist in destroying the meaning of Dianetics with your persistent edits. And you refuse to communicate with anyone but those who think you are doing right. You, and they, don't understand Dianetics. Would you ask a plumber to build an article about carpentry? You would be wise to listen to those people with a little expertise in this hard to understand area. Is there any possibility of getting into communication with you at all ? Terryeo 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yellowcake

Hi Chris,

I posted a message in the discussion section of the "Yellowcake" entry. I believe the entry is incorrect. I will double check with some of my colleagues who work in the nuclear fuel fabrication industry, but I've looked into texts on this. I'd like your opinion also, as there has been some controversy about the term yellowcake in my professional circle. I work for the Dept of Energy in the nuclear field. I'll check back on the discussion section of yellowcake for your response.

Best regards!

Pete

Hi Chris - I added a more detailed response to the yellowcake entry. Thanks!

from user:Makedonas

Hello!First of all thank you for your neutrality about the subject.As you understood, Greeks are very sensitive about it.

1. About the flag-I know that one day I was running to photo the flag in our prefecture for allowing us to put it in the article for Macedonia, and now I watsch Skopians to put it simply in the article FYROM although they haven't the right to use it.

2. About the term "Slavomacedonians"-I'm trying to be as polite as I can. That's why I don't use the term "Skopians" as all Greeks do. The issue about the name hasn't resolved yet. From the other side I am Macedonian-How should I refer to them?

3. Some people are trying to write the "slavian names" of Greek cities as "macedonian names".I use the term "South Slavic" because in Bulgaria, in Serbia, in Croatia etc. they refer to these cities with excacly the same name.What are they trying to say?That these are "slavomacednians" cities?We are refering in Greek cities! I think it is right to write how Slavians refer to these cities, but what they do, it is very offensive!(I won't say again that in FYROM speak a Bulgarian dialect).

I 'm trying to be as fair as I can, but after living 7 years in Bulgaria, having many Skopians friends and after working 2 years in greek-skopians borders, I know very well what Slavians trying to do. Sorry about my English.--Makedonas 15:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sort Order

See my comments on Macedonia. You have to provide an objective reason why FYROM should be first. Right now you are just being arbitrary and biased. Sysin 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What is citeable, per WP:CITE

Hello ChrisO. I am letting you know that WP:CITE states: "To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." Some of your cites in some articles do not fulfill that requirement. Please feel free to read the style guideline for yourself. One cite in particular which you recently make which clearly is off Wiki guidelines involves confidential Scientology materials. Please don't get our beloved Misplaced Pages involved in legal struggles over a book cover picture. The reason I say this to you isn't because you shouldn't edit wikipedia, but because this website: states clearly: "Holding or reproducing in any manner, confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without the express permission of RTC" is a reportable matter of concern to RTC. The reproducing part of that statement says that RTC might take legal action. But with or without RTC's concern, the citation you make about confidential Scientology materials doesn't follow Misplaced Pages's WP:CITE because who but you can look at it? I hope you understand. The citation doesn't fulfill Misplaced Pages's guildlines and it presents a potential legal problem. Don't take this as a threat, take this as my carefully pointing out to you that no one can look up and read your cite but you. okay? Terryeo 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is my second contact to you ChrisO. I am letting you know it is inappropriate to cite a source which is not available to readers and to editors. In this particular case you are citing Confidential, trade secreted materials which are legally protected. Few persons but you have access to that material. It is not the intent of Misplaced Pages, I don't believe, to cite such materials. That is plain wrong. To rewrite WP:CITE as you did in an attempt to make access to citations acceptable is wrong. But it is also wrong, of its own accord, to cite trade secrets. Both are wrong. As, at this point, I am the only person who has pointed this out to you, you are not actionable in dispute resolution by normal, Request for Comment means. But whether you are actionable or not, it is the wrong thing to do. Terryeo 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, I would like to add my two-cents worth on the "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" citations. To me your citation of a personal note on confidential Class VIII materials from a book by a man being paid to dis Scientlogy is too much of a reach. This should not be used on Wiki to add extraineous, controversial and inflamatory materials to a book written in 1950, when actual claims in the book are deleted and ignored. As it stands this volatile matterial takes up at least half of the discussion space and has too large of an importance in the article itself. I see this as the basic premise. Advertizing people try to push people's buttons to get them to buy things. So what is news about that? Why do you try to dazzle people with galactic genocide and billions of people and space opera and confidential high level materials and hearsay and uncitable "facts". This whole topic seems to be your personal fascination. A book cover has a volcano on it. I can recall quite a few that also have such a cover, like Churchward's Mu series from the 30s. Big friggen deal. Is this what you get paid to do? Spirit of Man 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. Almost everything the CoS calls "confidential" is readily available. Check Xenu - the scan of Hubbard's original handwritten OT III. This is scholarly and educational use.

Also, please reread Misplaced Pages:No legal threats - you are veering a little close there - David Gerard 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the case of OT III, it's especially absurd, since Warren McShane, representing Scientology, specifically asserted in court that the Xenu story (or "Xemu", as he referred to it) was not a trade secret. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"a man being paid to dis Scientlogy" -- hmm, that's an interesting allegation. Do you have any citation for that character assassination? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 points being made to ChrisO. One is, the citing of material which is known to be confidential to the Church of Scientology, when the Church is known to raise legal questions, is not a practice even newspapers like to involve themselves in. To use Misplaced Pages in this manner is chancey at best and at least irresponsible. But even if there were good and sufficient reason to cite Trademarked material, that use of that citation doesn't contribute to understanding the article it is within. ChrisO uses the citation in an attempt to make a point. But careful reading of the citation does not state why, exactly, Publications Org, Inc. has chosen to put a volcano on the cover of DMSMH. In any event, because the reading public and editors can not view the full citation, but only the line or two which ChrisO "says" it says, it is a very poor citation and poorly used. Terryeo 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"the citing of material which is known to be confidential to the Church of Scientology, when the Church is known to raise legal questions, is not a practice even newspapers like to involve themselves in." - This is observably not the case, as in the press coverage of Tom Cruise's publicity work for War of the Worlds - every press article was Xenu, Xenu, Xenu. All of them. - David Gerard 08:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

even if there were good and sufficient reason to cite Trademarked material -- why should a trademark be any barrier whatsoever? Are you, perhaps, confused about the difference between trademark law and copyright law, as so many people are? Trademark law protects a business entity's mark of trade, nothing more; it means that if the Church of Scientology had "Xenu" registered as a trademark, I couldn't sell products or services similar to the products and services the Church of Scientology sells under a name which was similar enough to "Xenu" to cause confusion. It does not mean (and it's ridiculous to think it means) that no one except those granted permission by the trademark holder can discuss Xenu. I guarantee you that Proctor & Gamble has a trademark on Pampers; does this mean that no one can discuss Pampers unless P&G approves it? Now if these were trade secrets, that would be a different story, but again, that is exactly what Warren McShane testified on behalf of the Church of Scientology that the story of Xenu was not, and had never been. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you both refuse to acknowledge the document is a stolen document, I'll say it again here. ChrisO views my saying the document is a stolen document as a personal attack. This is not a personal attack, though he invites a personal attack because he is in possession of a stolen document. That he advertises his possession of a stolen document, attempting to 'bait' me into reading it and proving he is not constrained by Church of Scientology procedures only underlines the ciminality of his possossesion of said document. I believe you both would have been wise to simply no insist your citation on the DMSMH page was a good citation. Stolen documents do not "unimpeachable" sources make, if you follow my drift. Terryeo 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you've been conflating copyright law and trademark law and trade secret as if they were all the same thing. They aren't. You've been claiming that the story of Xenu does not appear in any Scientology or Dianetics publication. It does. You've been claiming that the Church of Scientology never made any public statement acknowledging the existence of Xenu in their doctrine, which was incorrect; when notified that your claim was incorrect, you refused to acknowledge that there was any such court case. No, we do not "acknowledge" your personal belief that the document in question is "a stolen document", because so many of your personal beliefs are in fact documentedly false. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ten-Day War

I think your contributions greatly improved the article. I only had minor edits. Thanks for your contributions. -- D.M. 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

DONT PUSH TO MUCH

The flag of vergina is a national simbol trought the ages of the macedonians and you after so many cantries have decided that is not please stay neutral according to macedonians and leave your geniality keep using your brain.

Ten-Day War

Alright, I see your point. I will be changing the term Slovene to Slovenian though.

If you check the history of the page, Slovenian and Slovene were being used interchangeably (as noun and adjective). It looked like a big mess.

Slovenian, the far more common term, was used by the original author and should be kept.

BT2 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

German images

You might like to look at the copyright status of Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg - my view is that someone else should have told you they were changing the tag. --Henrygb 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! -- ChrisO 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

GermanGov tag

Hi there, you recently uploaded an image under the {{GermanGov}} licence. This tag is invalid, and all images so tagged are now at Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_images#All_images_in_Category:German_government_images. Please re-tag as appropiate. Pilatus 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Macedonians (ethnic group)

Hi Chris. Don't you think it's time to remove the "move protected" notice from this article? You put it November 13 and it's still there; and if we can't take it away now, we'll probably never be able to do it, don't you think so? Ciao! :-) Aldux 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Judea.jpg

Hi, please post the permission for this photo on the image talk page. Thuresson 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I will if I can find it... -- ChrisO 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

user name

Hello I was just wondering where you saw this Name Jewbacca http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jewbacca

cause its my user name for neverwinter nights and first person shooters

whatsinbounds@hotmail.com

No idea where it came from - it's not my username! -- ChrisO 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Don't worry. I know. I have no intention of going beyond the three. I was trying to put an explanation on the talk page but I kept being caught in edit conflicts. FearÉIREANN\ 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I was lucky enough to avoid that fate! -- ChrisO 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't a 3rr because it was a different version and one on which I made different edits. 3rr applies to a single version which is reverted to. I didn't revert to that version that time. So not a 3rr. See the diffs. Also you were involved on the page which makes it a policy violation. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I reverted Zocky's edit, not yours. Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy says: "Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict."

Also, WP:3RR doesn't support your contention about different versions:

The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages article within 24 hours of their first reversion...

Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.

Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new. Use common sense.

The wording of the policy clearly suggests that what you were doing wasn't legitimate. -- ChrisO 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But thanks for unblocking. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself is an abuse of administrator privileges, frankly... -- ChrisO 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)