Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 18 May 2010

Archives

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

User:Bertport

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

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

Watch out

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

Talkback

AN

your opinion would be helpful because I've been waiting for about a month and no one has replied.--— ZjarriRrethues —  16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi Future, for your information Historian19 is back , usual predictable behaviour, if you are interested in sorting him out again :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 02:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hat links

Hat links are not needed at pages such as Macedonia (Greece) or Macedonia (food). The reader is already at the desired page.  Andreas  18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, that's the standard rule. In the Mac. cases, there seemed to be a kind of consensus at some point that we should have some nevertheless. I have no strong opinion on it, personally. The other guy appears to be right that if we have a hat link, it may be preferable to direct it through the "...(disambiguation)" form (even if that is itself a redirect). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

71.172.192.37

As he does seem determined, I'd appreciate some evidence that he's Deucalionite. I don't need a lot of diffs, just something that makes clear there's a connection. Also, just to clarify, is there anything wrong with this edit or the sourcing, or are you objecting only because he's banned? SlimVirgin 13:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hello Future! I would like some advice regarding Pumpie (talk · contribs). On the one hand he is the only one who bothers creating articles on some rather obscure Greek people and villages, on the other his contributions consist of nothing but horrible machine-translations and a huge number of often ridiculously implausible redirects. He really doesn't seem to understand Greek, or be very good at English. He's been repeatedly admonished about the machine translations both by me and many other users to no avail, and has been banned in the German Wiki. As I patrol new pages under WPGR scope, I come often across his articles, and am growing exasperated. My question is, is there a way to make him either give more attention to his edits (at least to smooth out the mangled English) or, failing that, make him stay off? Constantine ✍ 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

About "exist but are incorrect"

Hi! I have transposed your question to the discussion of the article and answered there. FlavianusEP (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Voyevoda

It seems he has a new sock - http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Kievlyanin . A lot of his items correspond to V's edits on ruwiki.--Galassi (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Can you please take a look here Talk:Evllogji Kurilla. A recent move was performed without any discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Souliotes

Don't know if you keep that article watchlisted, but if you don't, I suggest you start doing so. Balkanian's word has recently gone on one of his nationalist editing sprees, ramming through a highly POV-ish "Ethnicity" section together with his trademark 15 references . This, without any prior discussion and clearly against the painstakingly agreed-upon previous consensus hammered out by Moreschi to NOT include an "ethnicity" section (though that time he was addressing himself to Factuarius). Cheers, Athenean (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I read Moreschi's thoughts. At that time (28-29 october 2009) the prevalent thought was "their ethnicity was disputed". Today Balkanian's word brought very good references to prove that Souliotes ethnicity was Albanian. If the ethnicity is disputed, then bring references to dispute that. I still have to see one single reference to show that they were Greek by ethnicity. --_Sulmues 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't "very good" at all, they are the same old crap that was removed in the first place. He essentially just reverted to his old, pre-consensus version. The guy suffers from a serious case of WP:OWN on all articles touching on the Cham Albanians. Athenean (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus changes(like wikipedia) and his sources seem to pass WP:RS so I wouldn't use your terminology Athenean.--— ZjarriRrethues —  20:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but only when a meaningful number of users, many of them neutral, reaches a new consensus after discussion on the talkpage. Balkanian's sources were removed by consensus. They were aggressively re-inserted without any discussion and with revert-warring on your part. 3 albanian nationalists (You, him, and Sulmues) are not "consensus can change". Got it? Athenean (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, why don't you bring this discussion in the Albanian-Greek talk page rather than in FPaS's talkpage? You seem quite excitable and throwing too many accusations. --_Sulmues 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing against Moreschi, the first sentence goes "The national identity of Souliotes is hard to be provided, in a period where the national consciousness was not eminent in the region where they lived.", i.e disputed. The second one "As sources claim, Souliotes had a rather strong local identity." in which we all have agreed. The third one is about their ethnicity, not nationality, either identity, and finally that they were Hellenized and became part of the Greek nation. 2. It is not in the lead, which was actually the problem when Moreschi got in the debate. Feel free to express your views, in Talk:Souliotes.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Arvanites

It seems the banned user returned to Arvanites with a new IP, so I've semi-protected it indefinitely, and blocked him again. I'll leave you to decide whether the edit needs to be reverted too. SlimVirgin 15:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your watchfulness. It seems to be the same edit he tried to push through earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What shou;d i do? Stupidus Maximus (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your warning

Can you tell me why you left a warning on only my page when there's another party to the reverting? If you look at the edit history you'll see that the guy has blanked referenced text and has been shadowing my edits and reverting blanking out text and references.. Reverting and blanking out text is basically all that this guy goes on wiki I have no problems respecting revert policies but not when it's applied and warning given out selectively. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never been threatened by an admin like that before. Are you sure you're an admin??? It's one thing to call me out on the reverts but to take a POV position and threaten blocks is pretty out there.

Atrocious?? You're kidding right? The text was REFERENCED. Even if there is text that an editor may feel need verification BLANKING isn't justified. Please remember that editors are asked to assume good faith and there are fact tags and talk pages to discuss issues of verifiability without just reverting text and citations. Again I can admit to playing my part in the reverting but to your claim that my reverts were more atrocious is simply ridiculous.

Also my reference in the Miura Goro article is the only inline citation in the entire article. I also don't have copy of that book anymore. I'll be glad to include the page number when I get my hands on the book again but deleting text and references for lack of citation is nonsensical. If lack of page number is enough to blank the citation and text then entire article should be blanked. If you check the text and citations of that article you'll see that my citation is the most accurate citation in that article.

Again I have no problems following policies and rules but you're applying them selectively and it's your bias undermines your credibility.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

About the "Korea under Japanese rule" article: no, the text was not referenced. It was first added completely unsourced, and then somebody added a link to it, which, however, turned out to not support the claim that was being made. Phoenix7777 quite clearly stated what the problem was, and I can see no effort on your part to respond to this constructively . As for the Miura Goro article, if you read the book, added the content for the first time on 30 April, but then on 1 May, when the citation was challenged, no longer had access to it to check the page number, you could just have said so. I cannot see that you ever did this very simple thing: to say, "sorry, I forgot to note down the page number when I read the book. Please take my word for it for the time being; I'll check next time I can access the book." Instead of this very simple gesture of understanding, you launched into that whole barrage of lawyering and edit-warring. The problem I see with your editing is an overall combative, aggressive attitude, and your reaction to my warning just goes to confirm that same impression. – BTW, it is also very poor style to delete my messages from your page while at the same time continuing to post here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought deleting comments from one's own talk page is notice of comment having been read. There's no need to be testy about it. You're welcome to move our discussion to my talk page if you want. That's fine with me.

And I do find your arguments to be frankly ridiculous. Either you're arguing POV bias or I'm mistaken about wiki rules and policies. Please let me know if that's the case and I'm wrong on my understanding of wiki policy on blanking text and citations that lack page numbers.

As for the Korea under Japanese rule article, the reverting was initiated by Phoenix. If editors go around blanking text that needs further citation and references lacking page numbers wikipedia would be easily halved. We can have an honest disagreement about accuracy of the citation but that should be discussed in the talk page not initiated with a revert. Please don't misunderstanding me. I'm not denying having played my part in the reverting. I am refuting your claim that my reverts were atrocious while the reverts of the other editor was less egregious. The problem is that you're an admin advocating POV and applying the warning inconsistently and selectively based on your POV.

As for the Goro article, there are ways of asking for page number, which isn't even appropriate for all offline citations, such as using inline tags or asking for it in the talk page.

Again, let me know if I'm misunderstanding wiki policy here and we're allowed to just blank text and references without attempting to ask for info in talk page or use inline fact tags and such. There are dozens of articles that come to my mind that are rife with uncited text and citations that don't include page numbers. I've been adding fact tags and banners and asking for information in talk page to repair references and text but my task would be much simpler if I'm allowed to just go through the articles and start blanking paragraphs and incomplete citations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Taekwondo, where he has a long history of this sort of behavior (also under User:Melonbarmonster). JJL (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see also Talk:Karate#Phoenix7777. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2 resumed outrageous edits at Miura Gorō, Japanese Sea Lion and false accusation. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Phoenix7777 reported by User:Melonbarmonster2 (Result: ) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

del request

Hi. Could you delete User:Jack Merridew (doppelganger) and back Jeff G off? This is not a 'sock' account. Thanks. Jack Merridew 00:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 22:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

malarz pl BOT

It wasn't my bot. I sometimes use MalarzBOT (talk · contribs). Malarz pl (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your contributions and for having taught me more than a couple of things in how to be precise and how to properly reference. Thank you for being around. Danke schoen! Sulmues 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

K(o)urilas

Although, I do not agree with the -s in the end, neither in the name, nor in the surname (as it was not the case...), there is a bit too Greek for Kurila the whole thing :P. I have never seen something written about him refering to Kourilas, except of Greek authors. In every English, German, etc. books he is refered as Eulogios Kurila, Eulogios Kurilas, Eulogio Kurila, Eulogio Kurilas, etc. etc., nowhere the Greek ou is in his name for the latin u... Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking based on logic (which I know that is not common in Wiki), Korytsa cannot be an "official" name of the bishopric in a Church where the only official language is Albanian. As you can see here it is Korca. The problem of being Korytsa (as well as being Eulogios) is that, the history article on that site, is a copy of a book, written by a Greek teologician (George A. Christopoulos). But, who cares about logic...Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am waiting about Kourila vs Kurila question. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually like debating the use or non-use of geographical synonyms with people whose single-purpose presence in this project is obsessively fixated on maximising one side of an ethnic issue and minimizing the other. As for "u" vs. "ou", "ou" is prescribed by ISO 843, which is the basis of our Wikipedian naming conventions. "ou" is also found in all bibliographic catalogues where his works as a book author are listed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was exactely my question: In which English catalogoue? In this one? Where? As for the ISO 843, this is not about the Greek or the Albanian name, it is about the name that he is known in English (Orthodox Albanian clergy have different ISO :P).

You may call me a single purpuse editor, but I have made some contribution on this project, and that is, not only in a certain direction. My objection on Korytsa for sure is an "obsessively fixated on maximising" one, but that is because, there are too many double standards and most of all that your argument is not valid: Korca is the name of the bishopric, as you can see throughout orthodoxalbania.org, except that single part, which is written by a Greek (well-respected) theologician. By the way he also says the Archibishop of Tirana Dyrrachion and all Albania, is this the same argument for Durres Archibishopric? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you admit being obsessively fixated on stuff, here's a piece of advice: stop being obsessively fixated on stuff. It's not good, and doesn't make you more convincing. When you have stopped, we can talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No word for my argument? Only about my honesty? (I feel honoured, but not too much).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Theodoros Kolokotronis

A while back, I made some cpedits to the not-so-great prose of that article . Today, Stupidus Maximus, evidently from watching all my contribs with a microscope, blanket reverted me without any explanation, apparently just for sheer spite. What is to be done with this fellow? He is starting to become REAL disruptive. Time for AE? Athenean (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing from military person to Military Person doesn't really clasify as disruption. You seem to be having a prose dispute so Athenean I think you should discuss with him and not report him constantly.--— ZjarriRrethues —  22:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you mind your own business, that way I won't have to report you for following me around? Athenean (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)