Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:42, 9 March 2009

Archives

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

An image

Sorry to annoy you once more, but could you check out this image? Part of the FUR says "It is of much lower resolution than the original" which is confusing considering the size. Also, the source seems to be a book published in Bulgaria in 1941, which wouldn't be a reliable source, would it? Thanks in advance, BalkanFever

conflict with User:Rjecina

"Is it really so difficult to use a past tense?" This is unnecessary and unhelpful. Comments like these do nothing to help resolve your dispute, but instead are deliberately aggravating. So please avoid them in the future. --Carbon Rodney 15:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in a dispute with Rjecina, thank you very much; I'm engaged in admin work stopping some (unintentionally) disruptive editing. And "is it really so difficult?" was a genuine, polite question of interest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I think infoboxes do nothing but help an article and I put them on as many of my articles as there is a pertainant infobox. The only time I don't like them as much is when the article is really short and contains no information that is not in the infobox. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What's more, just take what Misplaced Pages is, a quick, not guranteed to be accurate general reference site used by people who often do not wish to go in depth or college kids whose paper is due tomorrow and they've been out partying and need to do a last-minute half-assed job. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, "we call those people 'non-readers'", indeed. If you feel happy making Misplaced Pages accommodate kids who want to do a last-minute half-assed job, that's your choice. Me, I'd rather Misplaced Pages told such kids to f* off and do their homework. But more importantly, I think you are still mistaken: even if you want Misplaced Pages to help those kids, in many cases they'd still be better off reading the text lead than the box. Much of the material we have in infoboxes is of such a kind that you could actually take it in faster and easier from a well-written piece of prose. I believe it's a myth that tabulated boxes are generally easier to take in. If our Creator had wanted us to communicate in tabulated data sheets, he'd given us an inborn ability to parse disconnected shreds of information and category labels. He hasn't. Instead, he gave us an inborn ability to parse actual language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Arvanitiko kefali

Maybe you`re right, I am :-). The prob is that a souliot salad cannot be eaten. Of course they maybe treated as Albanians and Greeks too, but only as an Albanian community, which was finally hellenized. And they were hellenized, when the hellenization (i.e. national consciousness) existed, i.e. only after the Greek independence, i.e. when the term Souliot had no logical sense, cause they were integrated in the mainstream culture, and had no conection with Souli. Thus, they cannot be neither Greek-Albanians, nor Greeks and Albanians, but just Souliot Albanians, who became Hellenized Souliot Albanians, and who finally became Arvanites, long after seizing to be Souliotes (inhabitants of Souli, or some generations after).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's not quite true. There are plenty of sources that were already calling them "Greeks" before 1821. The Pouqeville travel report being a case in point. The Orthodox faith and the cultural and political stance that implied was linked to "being Greek" strongly enough that they were routinely perceived as Greeks by foreign observers at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources? They are plenty primary sources that does not distinct them from Albanians (lord Byron). Do not forget that Greeks was also a misname for Albanians of the Orthodox faith, so primary sources lack reliability. Secondary sources, dispute each other on calling the Albanians or Greek Albanians, or Hellenized Albanians, but never as non-Albanians. Hellenization has started as a process long after dyafotisi, and as such, Souliotes could not be Hellenized at the time that they were in Souli. If they were they would not be part of the Albanian regiment of the French Army, but they would be part of the Greek regiment, wouldn`t they?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they were part of the Albanian regiment obviously because they were Albanian-speaking. What I'm saying is just: whatever it was that "Greek" meant at the time (and it may not have been the same thing we mean by that term today), the Souliots were perceived as being part of it in some significant way. But who says we should treat them as "non-Albanians", anyway? Now you are falling into the same silly either-or trap as the other guys.

A.: They were both X and Y at the same time.

B.: No, you're wrong, they were Y!!!

C.: No, you're wrong, they were X!!!

A.: D'oh.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not falling in that trap. I just do not understand what both X and Y means. You say that they were Greeks, without the todays meaning (e.g. just Orthodox, who were called Greeks not per ethnicity but per religion), but if this is an argument, we should treat Greeks page to as that. I am just saying that they are X and became Y, when Y`s national culture existed, I am not saying that their descendants are not Greeks, I am saying that Souliotes (Marko Botsari et al) were Albanians, maybe influenced by Greek culture, but of course Albanians, as their mother tongue was Albanian and the period that they lived had no "nations", but just "ethnicities".Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I still maintain you are committing the same kind of error as the other guys on that discussion page. They insist that only the present-day meaning of the term "Albanian" counts, that the Souliotes weren't Albanian in that sense, so they can't be called by that name. You, in contrast, insist that only the present-day meaning of the term "Greek" counts, that the Souliotes weren't Greek in this sense, and that we therefore can't call them thus. You are both reifying a modern construct and projecting it back into a different time period – in both cases, with the result of finding that it can't apply.

In reality, a concept of "Greekness" did exist in the 18th century. It was not 100% identical to the present-day concept. It was a complex mixture of linguistic, cultural, political and religious criteria. Despite not being 100% identical to today's concept of Greek nationality, it morphed into the latter during the 19th century. You are now demanding that we should totally ignore the earlier concept and treat it as a mere misnomer. That's wrong, I think, and it's not what the literature does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Side-conversation carry-over

I thought I'd take a few moments to respond to the side conversation that we're having over at AN/I, as this might be a better place to discuss what we're discussing. Yep, I get that AN/I does not have moderators, and that's for a good reason. I apologise if I came across as trying to give my comments more weight than others, as that was not my intention. As a matter of fact, admin comments should have more weight than others there, so I kind of disagree when you say that "nobody's voice is special", but my disagreement actually gives your voice more weight. My choice of font color also goes to those same ends, in that it is meant to convey that I am not an admin (yet, hopefully one day eventually!), but I do fulfill a specialized role within the community. I'm a mediator. I purposefully place myself in a "buffer-zone" between other editors, attempting to be careful not to take sides in a dispute, and hopefully helping the opposing sides come to an agreeable solution, or at the very least, a "happy medium". No, I don't take myself too seriously, but I do what I do with a sense of dedication. (If you're not going to try to do it right, then why try to do it at all?) Edit Centric (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Crisis

Geia sou Fut! Do you think it's a coincidence that... "crisis" and "judgement" are the same word in Greek? Boo! Hope it hasn't affected you... NikoSilver 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that all the investment funds are down... at least my workplace hasn't burnt down yet. That's something. Public sector gets affected only indirectly and with some delay, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox/userboxes

What's wrong with having that redirect to wp:userboxes; bloody tons of pages redirect to their Misplaced Pages: counterpart. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unified login, for example, is even a soft redirect. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It redirects to bloody Wikimedia; so it's (according to you) even more heinous than a cross-link, it links to another bloody site; a sister site, but another site just the same. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross-namespaces

I support cross-namespaces; what the Hell can they hurt? Nothing. They can help, though. For example, unless you alter your search preferences, which you have to be a member to do; the msajority of users aren't; many non-cross-namespaced things such as userbox will not even show up in the bloody search results. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

?

Have you seen the citations?85.72.70.50 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If not here are some more:

The Macedonian language in the development of the Slavonic literary languages B Koneski - 1968 - Kultura

A diachronic interpretation of Macedonian verbal morphology MJ Elson - 1990 - Edwin Mellen Press

Two typological gaps in stress systems: arguments from early language acquisition S Peperkamp, E Dupoux - 2000

Macedonian as an Ausbau language OM Tomic - Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations, 1992 - Mouton De Gruyter

85.72.70.50 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ok so I guess I can proceed with my addition on the Macedonian language85.72.70.50 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the references, if that's what you mean. But I can see it's some highly specialist, technical literature on a very narrow topic regarding a minor structural property, of the phonetic details of word stress. That's just a tiny detail, and doesn't warrant mentioning in the lead. We also don't know if those study are actually saying it is more similar to Polish than to any other Slavic language, or if the study just picked those language pairs as arbitrary representative examples of what could also be found in other languages. It is in no way comparable in significance to the very salient fact of immediate relation with Serbocroatian and Bulgarian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(after ec): The new refs you posted here seem to have nothing to do with Polish at all, or do they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which but I can guess you're either a person who doesn't have a clue about Linguistics (not likely) or you don't know where to search for book content. All the books included in this list as well as the sources put in the article provide evidence which support or back the connection of word stress between Polish and the Slavomacedonian language. It's in my view an important find that further proves that there was indeed one common Slavic Dialect (Proto-Slavic language) that was originally spoken by the slavic tribes that emigrated to Europe during the migration age.85.74.200.159 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to run searching through half a dozen specialist works in a wild search for something that might be relevant to your idiosyncratic ideas just on your say-so. You'll have to give some concrete information about what precisely each of these works says, where it says it, and in what way you think it is relevant to the issue. I can't see any indication that you read and understood what I wrote in my last posting either. And: "important find that further proves that there was indeed one common Slavic Dialect"? That there was a Common Slavic is universally accepted, completely trivial and not in need of "important finds" to back it up. It's also in no way directly relevant to the status of Macedonian specifically. And you have given no evidence that whatever those similarities are are in fact interpreted as significant evidence about the genetic status of Macedonian.

If you seriously think those points are important for the article, why don't you first write a brief passage about what those supposed similarities actually are, and what reliable sources say about their significance, and put that somewhere where it might belong, in the body text? Once you've done that, we can start considering if it's important enough to be mentioned also in the lead. I doubt that it will though.

By the way, I'll also repeat my request for you to create a user account. You said the other day you don't want to get caught up in discussions, but here we are, having one. If you want to have a sustained presence on Misplaced Pages and engage in disputes, not creating an account is really a very unconstructive thing to do, and may reflect badly on your reputation as a good-faith contributor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "I'm not going to run searching through half a dozen specialist works in a wild search for something that might be relevant to your idiosyncratic ideas just on your say-so." You're obviously not interested enough on what the heck you're doing in wikipedia so why don't you call it quits. Ok Ok relax you're the big admin here so your "say-sos" and idiosyncratic ideas are much more important than anybody else... apparently...] --> ] !!!85.74.199.38 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, get yourself an account, or stay away from my page. Following your antics across all these IPs is tiresome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Edit Centric

You win. (I lay my king down, and resign.) It's all on my user page, should you wish to read it. Again, I apologize. Edit Centric (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm honestly sorry if I offended you, but I really don't see why you should feel that way. My remark was a simple polite request regarding an editing practice of yours that was rather unusual in that forum, nothing more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this...

...our indef-blocked friend? BalkanFever 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Unmistakable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I have asked a peer review about Cham Albanians. Please join.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Long time no see

Although I am no longer active in wikipedia, I just saw you were looking for Ο ελληνισμός τον 19ο αιώνα. I have the book somewhere and I' ll try and send you the excerpts you asked for one of the following days. Nowadays I visit the place ever so rarely but I am always happy to oblige with sources. Εύχομαι να τα περνάτε καλά εκεί πάνω στα βόρεια κλίματά σου.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, that'd be great! A pity you're not around more often. Hope everything is okay at home? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Greek Genocide.

Hi Fut.

I would appreciate a comment to what I have written here.

Regards, --A.Garnet (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick

Thou dick, I fuck thee with sword for all hate that thou hast toward me. - Penguin Eater/Wikinger. 91.94.53.186 (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Scanned and sent...

The file exceeded the 100kb alloted to email attachments and I had to send it through YOUSENDIT. If it is not too much of a trouble notify me when you receive it. The complete bibliographical reference is: Βασίλης Κ. Γούναρης, Σύνοικοι, θυρωροί και φιλοξενούμενοι: Διερευνώντας τη "μεθόριο" του ελληνικού και του αλβανικού έθνους κατά τον 19 αιώνα, σσ. 38-54 στο Παντελής Βουτούρης - Γιώργος Γεωργής (επίμ.) "Ο Ελληνισμός στον 19 αιώνα: ιδεολογικές και αισθητικές αναζητήσεις", Αθήνα 2006, ISBN 960-03-3945-7. I'll send you a proper email when I find some time--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. Very interesting stuff! Thank you for your efforts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my erratic interventions but since there has been so much debate about the Souliotes it is high-time somebody pointed out to all participants that the summum opus on the topic is Βάσω Ψιμούλη, "Σούλι και Σουλιώτες", Αθήνα 2006 (A doctoral thesis actually). The bibliographical note at the end of the work is quite exhaustive - if any of the interested parties would care for further reading. --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Souliotes (once more)

I think that it is clear enough from the sources we have, that Souliotes were ethnic Albanians, with a regional identity, which later became integrated into the Greek nation. Do you think that this can be a NPOV sentence for the lead?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to push it, in my view. I'm still quite satisfied with the "Greek-Albanian" compound, and I'll be happy as long as that solution doesn't again get ripped apart by the usual tug-of-war from both sides. Heh, it's my solution, after all, so it must obviously be the best. ;-) (Let me tell you, I can be an Arvanitiko kefali too, if need be.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Greek-Albanian, is just a satisfaction for both sides and not a real argument. It is only one single author who says it, while the rest say the opposite. So, it is your solution, but for sure it is not the best, it is a compromise and not an encyclopedic view. I am glad that you are an Arvanitiko kefali, cause I love speaking with my inmates :-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I want just your opinion, cause I am really confused. What makes us keep the version that you introduced, and not change it as I proposed, except the noise of editors? Every source that speaks about ethnicity, say that they were Albanians, which were integrated into the Greek society and nation, a single source that speaks about nationality says that they were Greeks, and all conclude that they had a regional identity. I mean I just cannot understand what and why. Friendly, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to your question

No, I am not affiliated with either group. Bebek101 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatia

Because in my mind you are "king" of WP:ARBMAC can you please explain me that Germans during Holocaust have been only small children compared to Croats ??

I am saying this because more Croatia WWII related articles are having more Holocaust template of Germany WWII articles ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not something I have any opinion on, and certainly not something that ARBMAC enforcement should influence. This needs to be negotiated between legitimate contributors. I'd ask you to please try to separate your content disputes from admin enforcement issues better. I know you have serious problems with genuine harassment from banned users and all that, but please don't mix such complaints with complaints about perceived content bias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

maybe

sorry, but seeing this shit, i am just outraged.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well

Thank you. Regards, Bomac (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Map with unclear origin

Hi, Future. There is a new map File:Balkan-nations.jpg on the article Ethnic Macedonians represented as Ethnic map of the Balkans (1897), showing the Macedonians as a separate people. In file history is written: The nations of the Balkan peninsula in the late 19th century, Source: Pallas Nagy Lexikon, 1897. However there is another map original on Misplaced Pages: File:Europe ethnic map 1897 (hungarian).jpg with Source: Pallas Nagy Lexikon, 1897, with shows Macedonians as Bulgarians. On the site A PALLAS NAGY LEXIKONA -- MEK HTML VÁLTOZAT does not exist such a map as the first one. I think this is late Hungarian map, probably after WWI as the Licensing of the first map is copyright violation and the source is not real. Excuse me, can you solve this casus? Jingby (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you allow me to join in, I don't think it's post-WWI because it has Ozmánok ("Ottomans") instead of Törökök ("Turks"). The weird way it treats Serbs and Macedonians in Vardar Macedonia made me think it's post-Balkan Wars but before the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, that is 1913–1923, but it has Törökország written over Macedonia, so it must be before the Balkan Wars. Kelet–Rumelia shouldn't be taken as a sign of pre-1885, de jure Eastern Rumelia existed until 1908. It might be 1897, although the colours look a bit too vivid and the quality of execution is higher than that of the other map we have. And they don't look like they come from the same source, not just because of the different way they treat the population in Macedonia... Weird. Todor→Bozhinov 09:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Both maps were uploaded by the same user, User:Olahus. Can you ask him where he got them from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

wiki matters

Do you know the history of this tag on articles? "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators". When was it first introduced? Who can introduce the tag? I think there are developments to make this 'power' more wide spread. thanks. Politis (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it." is the automatic notice you get when you open the edit window for a page that is protected. Protection is one of the special "admin buttons", and rules for its use are explained at the link above. The feature has been around for pretty much forever, as far as I know, and I'm not aware of any major changes in its application. There are also a number of protection-related tags, like {{pp-dispute}}. They can technically be introduced by any user, but have no technical effect on their own; they are mere notifications. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

map

Hi, fut., i see that in this map Corfu is included in Epirus. As far as I know, Corfu was never and is not part of Epirus. Can you reedit it please?Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

Please can you see the proposal I have made in Talk:Chameria page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Your friendly advice and kind comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Ευχαριστώ πολύ. Τάσος (Dr.K. logos 20:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Question?

Am I right on sources provided by Sthenel on Talk:Souliotes, please check them once, cause I don`t want to stop "holding my horses"-:). Also I responded to you on Talk:Chameria, it seemed that you did not understand what I was proposing. Can I have your thoughts?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So I guess I am right on Souliotes:-) For sure I am in Chameria too, but I have not made my self clear yet, my f... bad English:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)