Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 14 April 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

Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey

Thank you for your interest; please note I've replied to your post.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping. There is much discussion, and I would like to ask you to reconsider whether you still think the argument you used is valid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed much discussion. Far too much. And I'm afraid after browsing through a few contributions (from you in particular), I'm not getting the impression there is likely to be anything among them that would change my position. In fact, on a casual glance, your side comes across as a disruptive display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. – The short answer to your question is: yes, I do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you are not confusing the sides here? You stated that sources for Wilno are not more numerous then for Vilnius. In fact, as has been pointed out several times that they are, albeit I agree, not by a significant amount. In addition, the Vilnius list is misleading (has bullet points that are claims, not sources) and unlike mine, is mostly offline (not verifiable by Google Print). Still, given that there are numerous sources for both sides, I can understand how you would not be convinced to support Wilno, but how can you justify your support for Vilnius when the numbers don't give it any significant majority (and in fact they give a slight majority to Wilno)? Hence I am inquiring why did you decide to oppose (indicating a preference for Vilnius over Wilno), instead of abstain (which would indicate no preference). Or am I misunderstanding your position here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any significant lead of either option (thank you for confirming that this is the case), I will opt for the status quo, simply for the sake of stability, noting that this choice is also strengthened by the fact that that's where the main article is. What I found offputting in the debate was mainly your insistence on discussing whether this or that language was "official" back at the time, a debate I find utterly senseless and inane. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite claims of some editors to the contrary, a ton of academic sources uses the term "official language" for that historical times. Just browse through sources at Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics - most of them should have direct links to Google Print for verifiability, and quite a few of them should use the word "official". One of them should actually go as far as to have a section on one of the Statues of Lithuania which specifically forbade use of languages other then Old Slavonic in official documents. I do think that discussion whether a historical battle named after a place should use the name which was not used in official documents (and most unofficial ones) in that place (plus it was likely not used by majority of local inhabitants) has its merit, although it is certainly not "the entire story". Yet with English language sources not giving us a clear majority, such issues should be considered. Certainly, one argument, as represented by a side there, is that we should use the modern name, case closed. I think, however, that while battle of Vilnius/Vilna/Wilno of 1655 may be less known then battle of Stalingrad by orders of magnitude, the underlying logic still holds (hence, why we don't have the battle of Volgograd other than as an amusing redirect).

Finally, I certainly can see your point with "acting for status quo"; there is however a logical fallacy here: supporting name because it was the first created simply favors the pure chance and results in random naming: if I created this article first as battle of Wilno (1655) would you oppose the move to Vilnius? Lack of clear naming policy and support of random names creates chaos, or at least, occasional conflicts like the ones we are witnessing, and worse, it creats confusion to the reader: why battle of Vilnius (1655) but battle of Wilno (1939), Vilna offensive and Vilnius Offensive (just think about those last two titles for a moment...) - all which are the aftermath of being created by different editors, and subject to chaotic RMs (some of which failed and some of which succeded, and none of which are a guarantee that those articles will stay where they are)... I am attempting to solve this mess at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Wilno.2FVilnius, but unfortunately, too many editors don't want indeed to hear the other side, and are simply defending their pet name variant :(

PS. How two people can look at the same data and draw opposite conclusions... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. Even if there was such a thing as an "official language" at the time (and I haven't yet checked your links, not sure if I will) – it is completely irrelevant to our naming decisions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then let me ask you for advice, simplifying this as follows: given a situation like present, with (very roughly) half of the sources for A, and half for B, what should we do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fall back on the modern standard name (i.e. the one used as our primary article title in the city's own article) as the default, if that is one of the two candidates; and/or simply leave an article wherever it was created. Honestly, what's so problematic about that? Why is this even an issue people waste hours upon hours debating? (Well, of course we all know why it is an issue: because you guys are all driven by national egoism. Shame.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would avoid personal attacks. I am not assuming anything but best intentions on your part, and I'd hope you'd return the favor. Please note that your view "fall back on the modern standard name etc." is contradicted by our various naming conventions (not that some of them don't contradict themselves or one another, but this is a different issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, it doesn't. We use a single (modern) name throughout by default, and we diverge from that in certain historical or topic-domain contexts only if and where a clear majority of sources does the same. That's the policy. We don't diverge from the standard modern name in favour of some culture-specific historical name automatically and simply because such a name exists, but only because our sources do so, if and where they do. (Of course, the reason for their doing so may in turn be the perceived historical/cultural affinities, but that's not something we bother about, as such.) – And don't waste your and my time complaining about my calling you out on being driven by national motives. Of course, the fact that you find a wikipedia policy interpretation convincing that just happens to point towards using the name that your nation likes to use, is purely coincidental. Yeah, that's what they all say. (And actually, I don't even doubt you and all the rest may honestly believe so. It's not your fault. Such is the power of self-deception. It's universal.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Name delisting request

Hi Future. I have withdrawn my vote from the straw poll. Could you please update your list on Talk:Greece/Naming poll and remove my name from the list. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Same as above, please remove my name from the list and make sure it is kept on no past edit. thanks. (email) Politis (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom fast track?

You might be interested in, and wish to comment about, this experiment? — Coren  14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Staffordshire University

There's an anonymous IP who keeps deleting the Macedonian alumnus (undoubtedly because you changed FYROM to "Republic of Macedonia"). Perhaps this page needs semi-protection to keep the anonymous IPs from vandalizing it. (Taivo (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Done. Wonder why this particular page is being targeted? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Because one of the Greek editors who were pushing the case against Future Perfect here posted a list of the pages where he had changed FYROM to "Republic of Macedonia". (How dare he! LOL) They took that list as a "hit list". (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

help

Hi, Fut. we have reached a consensus on Talk:Souliotes#Proposal, but we do not know if it is academically correct. As it is about linguistics, can you have a look?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What was that?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing :-) (you need to imagine it spoken in a very deep, hollow voice. In German, that's what a ghost says when he appears after you have conjured him up...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem so friendly:-). Whatsoever, is there anything wrong in it on "dead language" and "language shift"? Are they used correctly?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

g'day sunrise

(or should that be good morning?) - dunno if you've seen my ideas before - but t'would seem great minds, and all that... (or should that be fools never differ?) - thought I'd swing by and offer a thumbs up to your comments on arbitration recently.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I right?

See my discussion in Talk:Arvanites#Who_are_the_arvanites.3F. Am I right?Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I want to ask you whats the difference between Albanian language and Albanian languages, in order to create two pages for it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian dynasty

Hi Sunrise, look at this article, please. It is systematically vandalized from different IPs. Thanks. Jingby (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Will you do the honor

...and take some action against BalkanFever or should I go to the noticeboard. To be more precise - he did it again: pička ti mater gjubre niedno - I'm not entirely sure what gjubre should mean, but I've heard pička ti mater tons of times, usually on football matches in Serbia or where Serbs are present (that doesn't mean I call him Serb, just that's where I've heard it). It's pretty much the worst swear word in the language (something like "fcuk your mom"). Shouldn't he get a substantial block since he has done it before and got warned tons of times. --Laveol 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it could you tell me what the guy I reverted said? I got the gist, but I don't think google does Greeklish. BalkanFever 23:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear what tsiganoslave means, but this did not justify your words. You're both worth a block. --Laveol 09:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians (Greek) article

Hi Perfect Sunrise, I had a question for you:

1. Why is there a Macedonians (Greeks), I thought the subgroup would remain within Macedonia (Greece).
2. If Greeks with a Macedonian regional identity (subgroup) get their own article, why are Aegean Macedonians (a subgroup) forced to be apart of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? Shouldn't they get their own article also?

Mactruth (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians (Greeks)

I nominated the article for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Macedonians (Greeks). Cheers!--

Arvanites

I have an answer on Talk:Arvanites.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Historian19

Ecuadorian Stalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like him? O Fenian (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your 48-hour block of Oda Mari

User:Oda Mari today edited Liancourt Rocks twice. Each time, she reverted the article to the state in which it had been before another editor changed it. Thus she was preserving the status quo. Any change to the status quo requires agreement on the discussion page. Does a return to it also require agreement?

Yes, the edit box of the page says Users who make more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period will be blocked. So what was Oda Mari to do -- team-revert? Bring up the matter at AN/I? Maybe she goofed, but she hardly did so to the tune of a 48-hour vacation, and if you're not going to warn her before you block her you might at least put a note on her talk page after you've blocked her. This is, after all, an amicable and cooperative editor of long standing who had never before been blocked for even a single hour. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I do admit that when it comes to Liancourt Rocks, I tend to act on the principle of "block first, ask questions later". There is, after all, a huge big notice on the talk page explaining what is expected of editors at this article. The point about reverting is actually not that "reverting to the status quo" gives you any better standing, and it's definitely not the case that any change requires prior discussion. Rather to the contrary – WP:BOLD still holds. If somebody makes a self-evidently, blatant tendentious edit, it can be reverted, once; if somebody makes a potentially good-faith edit it's encumbent on whoever wants to revert to first go and discuss. My block notice contained a clear link to these rules of engagement, I believe, and I also think the editor in question has been around for long enough to know the article and its situation.

I didn't check more closely about his/her good standing. Of course he/she can be unblocked if they provide a reasonable unblock request. But personally I'd like to see a few words from them first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also puzzled about the lack of a notice on the talk-page. I went to Oda Mari's talk page expecting to see an explanation of what went on, and instead had to track down the incident at the article. And, having done so, I'll echo Hoary's doubts as to whether Oda Mari's actions warranted a 48-hour block. Dekkappai (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Fut. I would like to know if the photographies of Fred Boissonnas are in public domain. As I saw there are some photos uploaded, but I do not know if they are really in public domain, since I have no idea on when the author died, and if the Swiss copyright law, which is a bit strange in photos copyrights applies on them. Can you help me?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vevi

Do I have to repeat all my countless arguments why the "Macedonian Slavic" wording is ridiculously ambuguous and inappropriate? There was a clear consensus that it sucks, so I wouldn't insist on it. I'll wait with the revert, but my position remains adamant. Unless you have some very strong new arguments though, I'm going back to the more correct and less-POV version. Todor→Bozhinov 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have to repeat all your countless arguments. They didn't convince me the first time; they won't convince me now. There was equally strong consensus that your version sucks just as much. Bad luck. And mine isn't "ridiculously ambiguous", it's "deliberately ambiguous", because that's a Good Thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I back up Todor here, mainly cause it is really POVish to have it like that. Could you point me to the discussions so I can read the arguments myself? --Laveol 19:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you'd better think of another version because I'm vehemently opposed to this one, and don't expect me to believe you don't know why. I've said it before, but it's worth reminding you that a version that a major side strongly disagrees with is not a good version by any standard. Just forget about it, it doesn't work, plain and simple. It can't be a good thing that it's ambiguous, at least in Misplaced Pages, you should know that. The link to "Macedonian language" is more disturbing that it is ambiguous, actually.

Accept the fact that I'm not putting up with "Macedonian Slavic" and I'll do anything that is in my powers to prevent the usage of this wording. I don't mean to sound threatening or anything, but my revert is due tomorrow because you have done nothing to convince me.

I'm still eager to find a working solution though, and I'm always open for good alternative ideas. So if you feel like it, do suggest one or at least try to describe what a working solution would be in your opinion so I can do the brainstorming myself.

Yeah, in short, this isn't staying the way it is now but I'm confident we can come up with something better if we co-operate

Laveol, the discussion is at Talk:Florina#Why "Macedonian Slavic" is unacceptable. Todor→Bozhinov 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I'm fucking sick of you all. Of all this stupid idiotic lot of people pushing their separate national agendas. That includes just about every single person editing these topics. I'm so fucking sick of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)