This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 22 January 2009 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 15.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:44, 22 January 2009 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 15.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|---|
Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here
User:Dodona
Could you please consider reapplying for release of my ban account User:Dodona , I think I have taken the lesson ..
- No. This edit clearly shows that you haven't. Your are still behaving in exactly the same way as you were earlier. You will remain banned. Please just forget this project, it is not for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- My edit does not in any way shows any break of wiki rules …!!
The time is over when someone could be ban for his ideas and this is against Freedom of thought and it will make Internet censorship and freedom of thought, if I was more “quite” contributor I would be of no problem for you…
I know that you are faire to some degree..so let us make a case in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is listed under Article 18:
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
- If this edit of mine in Talk:Greece ] indicate enough reasons that I should be continuously ban and this is the opinion of admin board , I will just walkout …
Who the hell do you think you are Fut. Perf that can decide who is suitable for this project. Better deflate your head and ease on the rank pulling, you're not as good as you think.87.203.99.194 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Certainly is not as good as he thinks and is just misusing his power and his authority
Fut.Perf could you reconsider again, i am not vandale or ordinary user ,propably we do not need to pass again through Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and you could just unban me and that is it, no one in wiki deserve so long prohibit period Dodona
Never was any wide consensus to ban me! Dodona
New edit in Macedon
now this is new edit of mine, based on this source,what is wrong with it : “Probably less is known of Albania than of any other country in Europe, though Albania is the home of the oldest people of the Balkan Peninsula . In spite of many centuries under foreign rule, they have kept a national feeling and also a language and customs quite different from the people in the neighboring countries. They call their country Shqypnie, or Shqiperia, meaning the Land of the Eagles…So early was their beginning that history and even legend does not tell when they arrived…The Albanian language, which has survived so many centuries, has ever been a puzzle to philologists. Unlike the Greek or Slav of the neighboring countries, it is thought to have come from the primitive Illyrian, the language of Macedonia in the time of Alexander the Great. All attempts of the Serb, Greek and Turk have failed to destroy the Albanians’ love for it. Once, in southern Albania , where some of the people are Albanian Orthodox Christians, the priests taught that it was useless to pray in Albanian for God could not understand it. The Turks forbade giving instruction or printing books in the language…”Source From ‘Peaks of Shala’, by R. Lane (1923): Dodona
- Sorry, but if you can't see for yourself what's wrong with this, it only confirms my opinion that it's no use even trying to explain it to you again. This is still the same old type of editing you were banned for. If you can't see this, I really don't know what to say. I'm afraid I'm firmly convinced you are not suited for this project. I and several others have spent months and months explaining to you how to edit productively. I've seen no improvement. Please, Dodona, I'm tired of you. Sorry to be so blunt, but please have the courtesy to accept that I have run out of patience and simply don't wont to be bothered by you again. I'm most certainly not going to take any initiative to have your ban lifted. If you must, you can appeal to the arbitration committee (by e-mail), but don't expect too much from them. For the time being, you still are banned and will remain so. Please don't try editing as you've done during the last few days. Renewed block evasion will destroy even the last chance of return. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Despite of your opinions this is just a source giving another view ,it is just a secondary source , come on I am sorry to have disappointed you but if this project is not for me then it is not for anyone else ..you are not better and you know it..So since you banned me for just for giving a source no vandalism or any other violation then you just could relieve the ban …and let us make a new start …I feel then despite anything we could have understanding and I remind that you were teacher of mine for some period, I never forget when any one does sth good to me but this can last for ever,please take the effort and release me .. Dodona
- i will stop the edits to other places now until we desolve this matter ...Dodona
- Glad to hear you'll stop editing, but other than that, there's nothing more to resolve. You've got your answer. It is "no". Do you understand? "No". I don't wish to talk to you further. Talk to the Arbitration Committee if you think your ban is unjust. Until then, please be so kind and not post on this page either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- You really don't take "no" for an answer, do you? We don't do mediation with banned users. Banned users get to appeal, yes, and the channel for that is the Arbitration Committee. Now, for the third and hopefully last time, please leave me alone. We can meet for a coffee next time I'm down in the Balkans if you like, but don't contact me on Misplaced Pages. Have a nice life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not care!!
In case that you feel no shame for keeping me ban without any apparent worth reason , I will not care for you …
If you intention is to insult me and call me what ever only because I give a source more and you in fact should appreciated …why not ?! I do not care and I will continue my role ..! If you use me as reasons to suppress certain ideas and argument, I will remind you the time you could hide a truth is only temporary …You people as conclusion are a waste of time, especially for Albanians..! user:dodona
- Dodona, I don't think Future cares what you have to say at this point. As far as I know, he will never ever lift the ban on your account as long as you prove to him with your outbursts that you'll never change your editing habits. Deucalionite (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Aetos, Florina et al.
After watching the constant edit warfare over place names in northern Greece, I located a reliable source that includes much verifiable historical information on the small places of Macedonia. The source takes no stand on linguistic issues but is a collation and presentation of primary source information. It seemed to me an excellent resource for providing citations for otherwise citationless articles. Nevertheless, several editors have objected to my handling of this source. Would you be willing to mediate this dispute or at least add an opinion? The relevant discussion may be found at Talk:Aetos,_Florina and in edit summaries at Meliti (village) and Variko. Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Icsunonove
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise
I saw you tried to mediate between Icsunonove and some other editors... well, he hasn't learned from that Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 and he is getting more insulting by the minute: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#user:Icsunonove. As you have dealt with him before, could you chip in with your opinion about what to do? thanks, --noclador (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry Noclador, your behavior has made me decide to no longer edit on Misplaced Pages. You accusing me of Italianization and fascism, is the straw the breaks the camel's back. I am Italian and German ethnically, and I've always tried to push for the neutral point of view. I've been at the forefront of always including as many of the multilingual names as possible. If Future Perfect at Sunrise looks at how you were blindly reverting one edit after another on the page of that bridge, calling it "vandalism", I think he'll see why people would get upset. I'm outta here.. you have fun Noclador bringing BZ politics into the encyclopedia. Icsunonove (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Have a beer!
Whitewashing, attempts at hiding info
Attempts to hide sourced information in the following articles by Slavomacedonian users
Reverts without discussing at talk.
--Xenovatis (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, Future. Does this guy have issues or what? I don't know what he's trying to prove with the images, but they sure as hell don't belong on that article. One of the images claims the "pro-Nazi" demonstrations taking place in Sofia are of ethnic Macedonians, even. I also think he uses the word "whitewash" way too much, but that's just me. Köbra | Könverse 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- It takes place in Sofia by the "Mazedoiner Befreiungskundgebund", some might consider this an important detail which for some reason kobra neglected to mention. The OHrana must be mentioned in this article since its collaboration unites joined the NOF en masse once the axis withdrew and SNOF continued its policy of attempting to secede. This is amply demonstrated by the several citations and accompanying quotes I suuplied, from books by university presses. The article has multiple issues, including un-encyclopedic language and pov presentation, which is not surprising since it uses mainly partisan, foreign language, sources when there are abundant WP:RS in English. This last point will not go away no matter how muchuser:Köbra and his tag-team reverting buddy user:local_hero would like it to. --Xenovatis (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Macedonian symbols
Hello Future, I wanted to discuss a few issues on my mind regarding the Macedonian symbols. At the ethnic Macedonian template, added a symbol used by the Macedonians such as the Macedonian lion or the ancient Macedonian sun is not allowed, using the argument that it is only unofficially used and there is no source proclaiming the amount of its use. At the same time, at the article Macedonia (Greece) there is a flag entitled "Macedonian flag" , even though at the article of Flag of Macedonia (Greece), it states itself that the flag is official with no source, yet at the article of List of Greek Flags it clearly SOURCES that the flag is UNOFFICIAL!
Not only do you have false POV-pushing being allowed at the article Flag of Macedonia (Greece) with no sources, but a double standard is created in which Greeks get to post and make articles for their unofficial symbols, yet Macedonians cannot. Please explain why this is occurring... Mactruth (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Template talk:Slavic diachronic
I know I'm being insolent and I wish I couldn't bother you that much, but we're having a dispute over at Template talk:Slavic diachronic about that controversial graphic in the Slavic languages article. The evolution of the Macedonian language is what's caused the dispute essentially, and we'd use a linguist's opinion on that matter, really. Thanks in advance. Todor→Bozhinov 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh, ugly. I remember I saw that page some time ago, shook my head and turned my back on it. Sorry I won't be of much help, but I find the whole basic idea of that template rather problematic, so much so that I'm afraid whatever perceived inconsistencies are currently the focus of debate may well be irredeemable within the framework of assumptions implicit in the overall design. The template implies that there is such a thing as a well-defined historical cutoff point in language history when something becomes a "separate language". Worse, it seems to be inflating two very different notions, that of the historical-linguistic family tree of common descent, and that of the (entirely modern) sociolinguistic notion of "separate-language" status. Bad. Language history (certainly in Europe) simply doesn't work like that. The template is trying to do too many things at once, and both its current wording and, I presume, the objections of those who rail against it are stuck with the perspective of that prime old vice of the Wikipedian approach to history: an utterly naive stance of reification of modern social constructs. This naive reification is the way teenage nerds who get their history knowledge from second-rate nationalistic discourse think about history. It never works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking about the same thing. The template is bound to fail the way it is. Perhaps the best move would be to remove it outright, preferably delete it entirely and just forget about it. It's meant to be illustrative and explanative, but instead it's confusing and impossible to get right.
- If you decide to retire it from use or delete it, you have my support. And thanks again. Todor→Bozhinov 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Unmerge Macedonia and Macedonians
Fut. what are you doing? Considering that it is you who merged the Macedonians (Greek) article to the regional one I find it bad form that you claim it is "the same" article. I'm guessing then that you have no issue now of a proper Macedonians (Greek) article since we cannot have two links to the same article? You can't have it both ways you know.--Avg (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. We had a looooong discussion of this just a few weeks ago. What's the point in reviving this now? I have nothing else to say about it at this point: A separate article can be written if there is content for one (which there never was). Writing one just as a pretext for having more links to it is the height of stupidity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just expecting then that you will not revert when I start adding content to the article. I actually have two books by my side about Greek Macedonians, which I just got from Amazon.--Avg (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I reserve judgment on whether that will indeed be the exercise in futility I was describing or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you
Could you look over User:Dc76's edits at Moldovenism: diff including also minor bot edits? Despite the fact that the AfD established that this term is used only by a minority and only to refer to a certain attitude in post-Soviet Moldova, Dc76 has transformed the article in yet another personal essay about how Moldovans are a diabolic creation of the Soviets to deprive the Romanians of their historical fate. This is not the only non-NPOV work he has done here (which goes as far as creating articles about ad-hoc relief superunits, nonexistent in geographical literature, just to prove a point, as he did at Moldavian Plateau), so somebody acquainted with this subject, but neutral, should look into it.Xasha (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)