Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:53, 28 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

Karposh's Rebellion

Hi Katze, is it possible, because of permanent vandalism from IP-s this article to be semi-protected? Jingby (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, what about my question? Jingby (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for not answering earlier. It didn't seem to rise to the levels of disruption that would justify protection, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My topic ban

I think it's quite unfair that i got banned,while editors who are messing up hunders of articles are free to do what they want.I'ts really enoying to have to read the same articles over and over every few days just to protect them.Why is nothing beeing done about those people?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So how about a response?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously I don't find it unfair that you got banned. Your ban had nothing to do with other people's poor editing, it had everything to do with your poor behaviour. As for disruption from other people, we try to check as much as we can. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well,I'm sorry i lost my temper,but this is going on for far too long.I'm so tired of reading the same articles over and over again and so are other editors.It's sad that every deacent editor eventualy gives up on fixing the articles and just stops contributing to wikipedia 'cause as soon you fix something it gets trashed again.People are tired of wasting their time with nonsense and because of that they have less time for editing and contributing.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Blockable?

anon invasion and presistence. What should we do?Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still think that the page should be semi-protected.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On "Blocked"

Future Perfect Sunrise, you did unlawfully block my account for 24 hours, having unjustly accused me of "display aggressive and disruptive ... tactics on the talk page". You must have been dreaming or hallucinating! Which disruption and which aggressive behaviour were you talking about? Present some explicit examples! You owe me an unconditional apology and an explanation! I am absolutely mystified by your behaviour. Of course, it is conceivable that you may be enjoying exerting undue power over others, in which case you are demonstrably unfit for your present administrative position at Misplaced Pages, but for the time being I am not going to consider this possibility. I was at the very least entitled to know the basis for your utterly unfounded accusations at my address before having my account blocked! Your statements on my talk page amount to no more than unfounded assertions. I am further dumbfounded that you suddenly appeared out of the blue! What caused you to come over and for absolutely no reason block my account? Who egged you to do so?

As for "edit warring" on "Shatt al-Arab", you must have mistaken me with User:Ev. If you read my comments on the talk page of the latter entry, you will realise that I have repeatedly asked Ev to explain the basis underlying his edit warring! He solely referred me (not once, but every time that he responded to me) to a page that he himself has edited; he brazenly justified his edit warring on the basis of the contents of this self-made page (nowhere in the world can a defendant act as his own witness – one needs independent and impartial witnesses; Ev has created a vicious circle — you should also realise that Ev has no contribution to any Misplaced Pages entry regarding Iran and/or Arabic countries; how is it possible that he has become an expert regarding the name "Shatt al-Arab" – a word that cannot have existed before 1920 and a word that is essentially a creation of Saddam Hossein who, along with his henchmen, believed that God should not have created three things: Persians, Jews, and Flies.). Please read my comments! The name Arvand Rud is the name explicitly referred to in the Algiers Treaty of 1975; this Treaty being ratified by the Parliaments of both Iran and Iraq, its contents are constituents of International Law (ask this from someone who is familiar with International Law). I have asked repeatedly from Ev to present a document in which "Shatt al-Arab" were the legal name. His sole argument is that Goolgle hits m times "Shatt al-Arab" and n times "Arvand Rud" and since m > n, "Shatt al-Arab" were the correct name. What kind of a logic is this? There are at least over 70 million Iranians who refer to this river as Arvand Rud? Where is this fact reflected? The methodology as employed by Ev has absolutely no validity – no one, except those who know absolutely nothing about a subject matter, uses this methodology.

Aside from all these, if you look at my edits, you will realise that in my edits I did nothing to the word "Shatt al-Arab"; the only thing that I did was adding the name "Arvand Rud" after "Shatt al-Arab" in the captions of figures. Where has Ev got the right to remove this addition? There is no reason why the name Arvand Rud cannot be in the captions of figures (we are not dealing with an imaginary name!). Ev seems to be someone with a political agenda, and you have been, whether wittingly or unwittingly, acting as his facilitator on Misplaced Pages! That is unforgivable!

As I said above, I expect an unconditional apology from you – what you did was absolutely unacceptable. You even did not have the civility to tell me about your intention of blocking my account before proceeding with this blocking. Have I not had the right to know about the accusations, so as to be able to defend myself? It seems to me that you and Ev must have had some secret dealings with each other: you took his side, without considering to provide me with a chance to clarify my position (it is highly suspect that you somehow appeared from nowhere – you must have had some prior discussions and agreements with Ev about which I have been left totally in the dark). Of course, you both may hate Iranians, but as an administrator you are supposed at least to keep up the semblance of impartiality. Your failure to apologise, will lead me to lodge an official complaint against you – failing to apologize will establish that you do not posses the qualities expected from an administrator, who must be impartial and fair-minded.
PS: I am bringing this comment to the attention of User:Stifle, User:Khoikhoi and User:Hiberniantears. --BF 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this posting is the best demonstration of why your block was absolutely justified. I will have no compunctions blocking you again, and for longer, if you continue editing in this disruptive style. That said, your above rant is so chock-full of irrelevancies, misrepresentations and assumption of bad faith that I'm not going to waste a minute responding to its contents. If you want to be talked to seriously, learn to communicate reasonably. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you fully agree with yourself. You also decline to apologize and explain the reason for getting involved into a problem in which you never had been a party. Let us hope that there is no evidence to be found on the Misplaced Pages pages showing your collusion with User:Ev. --BF 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

It's quite easy: Ev reported the matter to the admin noticeboard. That's where I found it. That's the full extent of our interaction. Ev also notified you of this report, on the Shatt al-Arab talk page. Yes, I'd never been a party to this problem, indeed. That's just as it should be, because I dealt with it as an entirely uninvolved admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion had been going on without I ever having been made aware of it. This is an example of the abhorrent underhand activities that are being pursed by some on Misplaced Pages. This is totally unacceptable! Somewhere in the latter page you refer to the people with "nationalistic pride" (you even call out "Block them."), supposedly considering me as one. If so, you are utterly mistaken: telling the truth has nothing to do with "nationalistic pride". The fact of the matter is that there is no historical reference to "Shatt al-Arab". Iraq did not exist until 1920 so that "Shatt al-Arab" is a post-1920 creation (this fact can even be surmised: the region that became Iraq was before the creation of Iraq part of the Ottoman Empire; Ottomans being Turks, they would never have named the river at issue as "Shatt al-Arab" – I have explained all these in my comments on the pertinent talk page); it is very likely that the name "Shatt al-Arab" is a creation of Saddam Hossein in the 1970s, when he came to power and started his anti-Iranian crusade (even moments before being hanged, he was spouting abuse at "Persians"). In contrast, the name "Arvand Rud" is even mentioned in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and the historical sources underlying Shahnameh pre-date even Zoroastrianism (and tomorrow we will enter the Zoroastrian year 3747). I am very sorry, I am not going to shrink from telling the truth because someone like you, who clearly knowns nothing about the details of the subject matter, would call me someone with "nationalistic pride". Actually, you are entitled to think of me the way you like best; what you are not entitled to is blocking my account on the basis of your perception of me. Your failure to distinguish between your private thoughts and your public duties makes you unfit for your present position. --BF 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, hate when activities are pursed. I'm more of a wallet kind of guy. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pursing my activities further, I just idly checked a bit for how long the name has been in use in English. It's quite easy to find English attestations of "Shatt el-Arab" from the mid-19th century, so it definitely predates the creation of Iraq, and most certainly "Saddam Hossein in 1970s". Haven't got access to the OED right now. Don't know what the Ottomans used to call it. Not that it matters, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please give the relevant references, containing full details concerning the geographical location named Shatt al-Arab! You will have to realise that there is a massive falsification going on. They are removing (by paying mercenaries) references to "Persian Gulf" and calling it "Arabian Gulf" --- historically, "Arabian Gulf" is the name of the Red Sea. The same applies to Shatt al-Arab. If you look at it logically, Shatt al-Arab cannot have been the name of a river opening into Persian Gulf. Please find a 19th-century map on which Shatt al-Arab is recorded where Arvand Rud flows. Without this I am not sure we are talking about the same river (consider the example of "Arabian Gulf" which indeed exists, but rather than being the well-known Persian Gulf is the Red Sea as referred to during the ancient times). This article (which I presented at the time on the talk page of Shatt al-Arab) indicates that not until the early 1970s was there any dispute about the name of the river at issue.

Below Ev comes along with his ever-ready reference to Penny Cyclopaedia. The one he cites is published in 1835 in London. A little bit of knowledge regarding history would be useful here: 19th-Century was the time of the Great Game and the British Imperial power was amongst many things involved in a heavy propaganda war. The Anglo-Persian War was not far in the future when Penny Cyclopaedia was being penned in London. As late as 1924, the British were heavily involved in getting Khuzestan separated from Iran. For doing so, giving the local river an Arabic name would prove auspicious (why would otherwise the Khuzestani's want to separate from Iran?). In short, a reference to Shatt al-Arab in a 19th-century British source cannot be viewed as proving anything; the source is not impartial. To appreciate this, one should consult some of the books written during the Soviet era in Russia: almost all major and minor inventions and discoveries were ascribed to the Soviet thinkers and scientists of good standing with the Politburo.

The Penny Cyclopaedia at issue posits the question as to why Shatt al-Arab is not called Euprates or Tigris, and provides a quasi answer to this self-posed question (it brazenly says that this was because the local people were not sure whether Tigris contributed more to the river at hand or Euphrates, and thus they opted for Shatt al-Arab!). The most logical answer to this question would be that Tigris means The Swift River, which is also the exact meaning of Arvand Rud (see the above-cited article in Encyclopaedia Iranica, that is this). Similarly, Euphrates is also Persian; it is the Graecized form of the name Forāt. In other words, Penny Cyclopaedia contrives a convoluted reason for convincing her readership why a river with a Persian name somehow miraculously has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab! (Tigris has in Modern Persian become Dajle so that in Modern Persian Tigris and Euphrates is referred to as Dajle va Forāt.) Just imagine: a river whose origin consists of two rivers with Persian names, opening further into Persian Gulf, somehow mysteriously has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab in the middle. To accept this nonsense, requires a total denial of human logic. As I have mentioned earlier, even the name Baghdad is an Old Persian name, consisting of Bagh (God) and Dād (Gave). The capital city of Iraq has a Persian name, but a piece of river to its East has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab! Could this be feasible, given the fact that the Arabs in this region of the world had not the political clout to give names to major geographical locations? --BF 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've seen enough of this. This has now been the third time I see you in action with this same disruptive style (one was the Unruled Paper (film) issue, one was the issue of the non-free images the other day). In each case, your behaviour have been a mixture of aggressive blustering, attacks, veiled threats, confused waffling on talk pages, failure to respond rationally to other people's points, and a downright refusal to heed Misplaced Pages's agreed policies. I am now putting you officially on notice that if I should see you stirring up the fuss again in similar ways, on this or on a different issue, I will block you for longish periods. – Now please stop posting here about the Shatt el Arab issue; your rants are not welcome on my talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you consider it as your birthright to keep hurling insults at me: "aggressive blustering, attacks, veiled threats, confused waffling on talk pages, failure to respond rationally to other people's points, and a downright refusal to heed Misplaced Pages's agreed policies"! You are either insolent, or downright illiterate in the language that you purport to know, or both: "waffling", of "waff", is the "yelping of a dog"! (Typical of the people who "learn" English on streets, or in gutters, without ever considering to read a proper book.) Did you respond to any of my above points? Points that you raised yourself. As for Unruled Paper (film), that AzureFury had, by his own admission, not seen the film, not read a word about the film previously, did not know the language, and did not now any of the persons involved in the film, and yet had the temerity to vandalise the entry (now it is Ev's turn to pontificate on the name of an Iranian river and get his way under your protective shield). It seems that all these are fine from your point of view! These are all hubris and unmistakable signs of utter disrespect towards the people of a certain origin, which you have made abundantly clear in your way of addressing me time and again. Not only have you not apologized (for blocking my account without informing me of what had happened in the background – you accepted Ev's assertions, without ever considering to hear my part of the story), but have adopted your offensive mode and are in your usual manner threatening to block my account. As for my "rants" on your page, I should say get yourself some proper education and learn some civilized manners! Insolence is not a merit. --BF 12:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents at 16:38, 16 March. I informed you (and everyone involved) at Talk:Shatt al-Arab at 18:07, 16 March, an hour and a half later (my apologies for the delay).

A few examples of English-language books published in the 19th century using the name Shatt al-Arab for the waterway are found on this Google Book search (so much for Saddam inventing it).

In any case, Misplaced Pages's naming conventions policy and its indications for geographic names are the only relevant factors to determine what names are used in our articles. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have noted User:BehnamFaird's comments and indicated to him the existence of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not quite sure if that was the best piece of advice for him though. He can't file an RfC/U, because he won't have a second certifier as matters stand now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again

anon invasion again. I`ve reverted him some 100 times, but I dont think that this is part of 3rrBalkanian`s word (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but why did you fully-protected those pages? Established users have a consensus on them, semi-protection is what is needed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On revert limitation

In the pages I am concerning for now, there are concensuses to deal with. As such, I do not think I need a limitation, as there is no revert I have to make if a vandalism does not occur. For, what you said, as far as I know reverting vandalism is not edit warring, and as such, I do not think I was part of any edit war. You fully protected the page on the wrong version, although you could just change it on the right version, as for all consensuses we have. Per WP:CONSENSUS I request the removing of fully-protection.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What is vandalism then? Removing well-referenced text, without an explanation, isn`t a vandalism? If it is not, I just did not knew it. In every case, why should you protect the page in that version, as you perfectly know that it is not the WP:WRONG VERSION, but the actually wrong version, the one were no consensus exists, where an anon, who does not know wiki rules intervines, with just say-so edits, etc.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that fully-protecting those pages for three days, was the most wise move?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

hello please take a look here User talk:85.74.200.102 if you havent so i have no unfinished business85.74.246.179 (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sakis Rouvas

Hi there. I noticed that you edited the corresponding article a while back. Since then it has been re-expanded. His personal life section has been filled with tabloid gossip and I feel that this poses a gross WP:BLP violation. I have tried in vain to explain to this person what is wrong with what he is doing but he keeps reverting my edits and does not even seem to grasp the concept of reliable sources and NPOV. I have nor the time nor energy to keep this up. Could you please help? Best wishes, ギリシャ人 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the quick block of Windowsforgood. Since this kind of thing often sits in AIV for a while and I try my best to stay as far away from ANI as possible, I was afraid that I'd be reverting Copyvios all night :) Cheers! Apparition /Mistakes 07:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

- Just a heads up. A comment from the protecting admin weighing in about this one would be helpful. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Can we have your opinion on unprotection request on Cham Albanians?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Can we have your opinion on unprotection request on Cham Albanians?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to NIR-Warrior?

Please see what User:AddBOT is doing to Bucharest. AddBOT seems to be restoring everything that has been cleaned up after the banned sock NIR-Warrior and his IP look-alikes 79.101.200.189 and 88.250.20.5 (I called your attention to these look-alikes here). Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, a sockpuppet posing as a bot, that's a new one. He gets a point for inventiveness, at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your instant action. --Zlerman (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul Pic

Hello, as you might have seen on the talk page of Istanbul, I am really a dumb when it comes to computers and so, can, you, or anyone you might know or recommend, help us on doing a NYC kind of montage that would please everyone?? (I opened the topic on the talk page, no one responded yet :( ).

Cheers! --Emir Ali Enç (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Rant"

This is the second time you are dismissing my serious questions in my posts as a "rant" which deserves no reply. Straightforward question: Do you have any personal problem with me? Because it definitely looks like it when you are not responding to the essence of my post. (And btw, no, WP:UE is a guideline, NOT a policy, so be a little more cautious). NikoSilver 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with you personally. You know I like you and I consider you my friend. But, I can't help it, I sometimes have this feeling in discussion with you, your logic simply evades me. I'm lost for words. It feels like arguing against a smokescreen. There are just too many loose ends and too many logical inconsistencies in your argument to address them all at once. I don't know where to start. Trying to address them would dissolve the whole argument into a hopeless tangle.

It's different with Kekrops. He can be the most pig-headed wiki-lawyer the world has seen, but at least when debating with him I have the feeling there's some thread of coherence between us and we somehow seem to understand what the other is saying.

Sorry if I offended you, but I can't help it, I really don't see how I could meaningfully respond to posts like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Σταματήστε, θα δακρύσω. Τόση φιλία δεν την αντέχει ο ευαίσθητος συναισθηματικός μου κόσμος... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted and friendship mutual and appreciated. Now did you ever think there's nowhere to start from because there simply aren't any loose ends in my logic? I mean when someone disagrees with you, does he always have to be wrong? Please try re-reading my post a sentence at a time. The last time we disagreed on the exact same arguments, it was in the MOSMAC talkpage (which I was summarizing). But we respected each other's arguments then. What changed since? NikoSilver 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I did re-read your post, sentence by sentence. Sorry, but every single sentence is wrong. There isn't a single one that's salvagable. And yes, we've been through it all, and I haven't got anything more to say about them than what I said back then. Some of your arguments are really, forgive my frankness, laughable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what is laughable is the idea that a mere disambiguation before a name is worth risking millions of lives. Maybe what is laughable is WP's priorities. Maybe what is laughable is the creation and the interpretation of certain tailor-made guidelines which were designed to serve the exact same purpose for years. Maybe what is laughable is me continuing to deal with all this appalling system here. But, surely, what is mostly laughable is that people of a high mental capacity tend to behave like a modern Socrates in supporting the system, despite it being evidently completely rotten. Although a Greek, I'd choose Che myself. NikoSilver 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I throw up my hands in despair. If this topic is too hot for you to debate it reasonably, better not try. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I picture your gesture... I love it when Germans become passionate! You'll come around. You'll see. NikoSilver 11:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are lucky you never saw me eating my hat in despair. I once had a real-to-life depiction of it here on Misplaced Pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:LOBU#Rjecina

FWIW, the entries use {{vandal-s}}, not {{userlinks}}. Also, you're not supposed to sign your post after an entry. Cheers, →Dyl@n620 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NIR-Warrior2

I was wondering if you would take a look at this user, as you have blocked the initial user in the past, who then performed a huge edit on the Cyprus page with a rather threatening explanation. I don't want to start an edit war, but as you have experience with this user, I was hoping you'd take a look at his/her activity. Angryapathy (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

left question for you there. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I agree entirely with your comment about Kekrops needing a topic ban - he has clearly violated the arbitration sanctions in this case (see WP:ARBMAC#Decorum in particular). I've therefore proposed a topic ban at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Greek nationalist disruption on Republic of Macedonia. Your views would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear,

I am sorry that it’s about two years that you deal with a text of “Eagle’s wing” magazine, pretending that it is too much tendentious but in fact the pages of this magazine are used often as references even from your encyclopedia. I am saying, “dear”, because it can’t be different. This magazine is really the only information source for the Cham problem, which is a big problem for the international justice and politics, not only for Albania. In these conditions, notwithstanding the deletion of this article from your pages, it will remain a source of references for everybody who wants to know more about the Cham Albanians. You have to know that with your action you have caused trouble to a big community of writers, journalists, artists etc. If you had had the good desire, you would have edited the page, as you did with Bilal Xhaferri’s page. And you wouldn’t delete it completely. If something tendentious was in it, you had to edit it. I think that it’s in your honor to review this severe attitude and find the way that even “Eagle’s magazine” can be viewed in the pages of your encyclopedia. In this way you will respect the fifty years work of the dissident Cham intellectuals. Respectfully Xanxari en. March 26, 2009

--Xanxari en. (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I have no problem if you can write a decent little article on that thing. Under the following conditions:

1. Convincing references to neutral third-party sources talking about that journal, documenting that it is notable
2. No text copied from elsewhere
3. No WP:PEACOCK language boosting the importance of the journal artificially
4. No tendentious wording promoting the political ideas expressed by the journal

Can you do that? It's really not that hard, you know. And please stop spamming links to non-notable sites into other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, once more, ...

Can you take a look on Markos Botsaris and Talk:Markos Botsaris, sourced material has been removed, the user has broken 3RR (not me this time, surprisingly) and he refuts to WP guidelines, missinterpreting them.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection has expired and the game started again, anons attacking as always. Are you going to do something?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please can you answer me on the five annon war in Markos Botsaris? And by the way, please can you take part in the talk page in my dispute with Kapnisma?Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

?

Hi Future, how about this edit? Jingby (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have now two articles: Aegean Macedonians and Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, or what? Jingby (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Racist

Thank you for confirming that Misplaced Pages is racist against Macedonians, nothing was conducted to punish ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, and there is a reason behind that. Mactruth (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear

User:Future_Perfect,

According to your words we put again “Eagle’s wing” magazine in the pages of the encyclopedia, yesterday on 26 March with the changes you recommend to us. Surprisingly today it has been deleted again by the administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Woohookitty. This history it’s about two years going on without any valid reason. As we agreed yesterday, this magazine represents a big Albanian community, in need, which is almost equal with Kosovo population. It represents even the Albanian communities in Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia and USA. This is the unique magazine that is used as a reference source for the problems of these communities. And it has more reason to be displayed in the pages of your encyclopedia than being deleted. It makes favors to you encyclopedia because it is widely read. We will put again the material in your pages and we hope to find again your support to avoid its deletion again. Regarding the references sources we will try to fulfill them, following your conditions. Again I repeat you that this is an article widely read and it does a favor to your encyclopedia. Respectfully Xanxari en. March 27, 2009

--Xanxari en. (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, couple of things:

1. Your page still contained a huge lot of unsourced assertions, a good bit of tendentious wording (though not as bad as before), and basically no sourcing whatsoever with respect to the notability of the whole thing. You need independent neutral sources for that, and you need to refer to them in support of every individual piece of information.
2. I haven't checked to what extent the new text was free of copyright violations. Given the past history, this will require some checks. Please keep in mind that it is also not okay to take an existing Albanian text from somewhere else and translate it into English; that's still a copyright violation.
3. The article was still in very poor English.
4. You evidently are associated with that organisation and are here to advocate for it. Please see our guideline on "conflict of interest", regarding legitimate and illegitimate behaviour of editors under such conditions. If your magazine is truly notable, then somebody other than you will certainly want to create an article on it sooner or later. If nobody has felt the need for that yet, maybe that's truly a sign it isn't that notable after all?

In sum, I strongly recommend you should not re-create the page at this point. If you truly feel you can meet the conditions, you are free to create a draft in your own user space (e.g. at User:Xanxari en./Krahu i shqiponjës), and I'll have a look at it later.

By the way, why are your talking of yourself as "we"? Is your account used by more than one person? Please be aware that this is not allowed here. Each user should have their own individual account at all times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just chiming in here to say that I am more than willing to help Xanxari en. with the English in his/her draft if they would like. I think the language barrier is playing a major role here. But yes, I deleted it again for the reasons you stated here. --User:Woohookitty 11:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear

At first I want to say you that I am from Kosovo and for this reason I have the right to protect an Albanian magazine that has treated the Kosovo problem too. Speaking the Albanian language, I have the right to display this article because an Albanian will put it in the encyclopedia. I have contributed too much in the encyclopedia pages of the Albanian language and I know more than anybody else the Kosovo problem, the Cham problem and other Albanian problems. Being a good connoisseur of these problems I can bring more precise arguments that honor the encyclopedia. My contributions in the English language in this encyclopedia maybe are few for the little time we have collaborated but they are more precise because of my knowledge. I think that in this article I fulfill an emptiness of this encyclopedia for the Cham problem. And I think that the article is really neutral. I can say that are many references sources in the Albanian language for this magazine but they are too little in English, and you see this through Google.

Dear, you say in your page that you speak the German language and you have knowledge in other languages too. As a German speaking person I want to remind you that the Germans are the best albanologs for a hundred year period. I am surprised by the fact that you, as A German, don’t have the power to admit an article from Albania and for sake of the truth you could edit it (where necessary) and this would be in your honor. I don’t know any German who is such a little well-wisher toward the Albanians. This make me suspect that maybe you are not the one you declare. Maybe I am wrong.

Once again I am doing a pray to your conscience to view you attitude toward this article. It’s surprising that you raise too many doubts for such a simple article! I can respond to this fact with a proverb that is said in Kosovo and Albania: “The tree that produces fruits is more hit with stones than the one who doesn’t.” I am saying that you didn’t keep the promise you made me. The writing doesn’t have any conflict of interests, it doesn’t violated the copy right too. I don’t know if there is any conflict of interests if a German writes something about Germany or an English man writes something about Britain.

I don’t want to last this discussion because I think that even though you accept this article you will stimulate another administrator to delete it. However I can tell you that the Cham problem will find a solution even though you stop this article with every kind of justifications. If you have the desire you can edit this article where necessary and this could be a noble action. Waiting for your positive reaction

Respectfully

Xanxari, from Kosovo. --Xanxari en. (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Fut. I noticed that Lord Byron had written that Souliotes were Albanians, in here. I know that Byron is not a RS, but giving the fact that he had known well the region and both Albanians and Greeks, and that he was a friend of Botsaris and later a leader of the Botsaris clan, I wonder if he could be included in the article?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Germany article

You have removed major longterm established content from a FA article without discussion. Be reminded that this violates several Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. Lear 21 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For Chrissake, give it up already. You've had several blocks for stubborn edit-warring. It's patently obvious that you'll soon get another. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You call Upholding the quality and long-established content of one of most read and highest rated articles edit warring, interesting. So far, your account has not contributed a single argument during several discussions and still you are reverting or deleting. There are many editors and administrators who would not hesitate to call your actions disruptive. Lear 21 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Then report me. Have fun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please

Can you take a look in Markos Botsaris, there is ], who only reverts with nonsense edit summaries.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

h kanvassismos

ena, dia... BalkanFever 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

too much of a block

Your block of 85.75.0.0/16 has blocked nearly half of Greece (Otenet) and large parts of US (Virginia, etc), as well as some users in Germany and Switzerland. Maybe it's time to unblock this range and only block more specific IPs? Fotisaros (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A /16 block is effectively blocking 65,534 ips. This seems like more of victory for the vandal than it does for Misplaced Pages. Chillum 23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't aware it was also blocking IPs outside Greece. From the Whois entries I thought it was all OTENet. Have there been concrete reports of collateral damage?

The alternative is for me to routinely semiprotect every page I edit – preemptively, even before the vandal strikes. At this point, I am no longer even willing to wait till he does; it's become too much of a nuisance. Blocking single IPs has no effect at all, he can hop from one to the next within a minute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you just say above that you deliberately blocked the largest Greek internet provider, coincidentally just at the same time when a poll is running where Greek people are likely to vote against your opinion?--Avg (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Greek genocide - the other sources check

You had said:

..."As for the other sources, the real ones, I'm only slowly picking up on them. I have neither much time nor easy technical access to most of this material; given the tendency of tendentious and distorting quotation I've witnessed here (see Levene, for the umpteenth time), I'm not willing to give any premature comment or endorsement to any contention based on mere lists of names"

That was more than 2 weeks ago. Please define "slowly". NikoSilver 01:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)