User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives
– July 2006 – October 2006 – November 2006 – January 2007

Thank you very much for your feedback regarding my work so far. However I am quite confused regarding your decision to nominate my wordlist for transfer to Wikitonary. Why is it that the Portuguese wordlist should be moved while the French, English and Spanish lists remain as articles? Would it be helpful for me to mark these lists, or in the case of the Spanish one, the list portion, for transfer to Wikitonary? Wachowich 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you pleae move

17:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good job, thanks. I'm considering how best to do it. In theory, I ought to do a history merge, but that would result in a terrible jumble, with versions of both articles alternating in the new unified history. Maybe I'll do a - horribile dictu - cut'n paste move? What do you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the messy move/merge. And thanks for the explanation about phonemic diphthongs in Talk:Turkish language. --Macrakis 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you warn Dodona for personal attacks? Miskin 09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It was just a confused political rant. Not worth sweating over. But why did you reinstate the whole silly rest of the thread? I deleted the whole thing for a reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That was an accident. Ranting or not I found his last edit really offensive. Miskin 10:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, can you take a quick look here. I am having some serious problems with civility on Tajik's part. I tried being nice, being formal, being humorous, but he still comes back with all types of personal attacks and degrading comments, both about me, about Turks and about I don't know what. I reported him for 3RR yesterday, but nothing happened. But the main problem is with civility. Thanks Baristarim 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your catch on this article. I wasn't sure which to go with, I just knew that it neeed to start heading toward the door. Pastordavid 12:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your edit summary - looks like you went to the trouble of filing that for nothing. --

13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Perhaps I wouldn't myself have gone for such a long block, but I guess you're right... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This might be a long shot, but do you know (or know anyone who does) anything about

Steel

13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get why he's looking for trouble so much. The worst part is in the 3d rv he says "per NikoSilver", while I clearly said in talk "not reverting"... I really wish he could help me help him. NikoSilver 13:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seems he can't stop himself. Just like our other right-wing friend I blocked again yesterday... Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

About Hrisi Avgi, I only know what's in the article, and that Mitsos is a self-declared sympathiser or member. I think he has described himself as a "Nazi" somewhere here on WP too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The other main editor to Hrisi Avgi gave up Wikipedia for the new year, and I'm concerned that it's become highly PoV since due to Mitsos. Greek politics (or whatever this is, not read the article myself) is not my strongpoint, and I'm trying to find someone knowledgeable in the area to take a look at it. --

Steel

14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I know enough about it to know it doesn't merit an article this long. KP Botany 18:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen the "Nazi" thing, although he identified as a "

14:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know... - BTW, the nazi comment was here: [1] Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did answer the questions though! Thanks for the info. I have to have 100 post?

I have been her awhile, I just don't make many edits. If I must remove my RFA, could you do it for me? Dphantom15 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi FTS. There is not exact date on which modern Greek literature begins. Conveniently we consider "Digenis Akritas" as the first script of the modern Greek literature, the first script that is different from medieval (Byzantine) Greek. Emmanuel Legrand, Mario Vitti, and others argue in their works about when modern Greek literature begins: 9th, 10th, 11th, 1204, 1453 or 1669. The truth is that none can come to a conclusion, since the differences between modern and Byzantine Greek are very few. The θα in the future tense came in usage after the Hellenistic-Roman times, about the same time when οσπίτιον->σπίτι replaced οικία and νεαρόν->νερόν ύδωρ replaced ύδωρ; this, on its own is not enough to say that the song is older. The Swiss Samuel Baud-Bovy, in his La chanson grecque (pages 163-174) places the song in the 9th century; so does Linos Politis, in his History of modern Greek literature (5. Το Δημοτικό τραγούδι, Κυρίως άσματα, σελ. 103). Also, Fauriel, the man who made the Demotika songs known in the West, referred to their ancient roots, and the early composition of this specific one. Goethe, in a letter to his son, Augustus, on July 5 1815, referred to the demotika songs' early origins (I will write it in German, since I have it:)...): Ein Freud der Neugriechen war bei mir, der Lieder dieses Volkes mit sich fürt, das Köstlichste in dem Sinne der lyrisch-dramatisch-epischen Poesie, was wir kennen (K. Dieterich, "Goethe und die neugriechische Volksdichtung", Hellas-Jahrbuch, 1929, pp 61-81, and, for the Greek translation that I've read Σ.Β. Κουγέας, Νέα Εστία 11, 1932, σελ. 621 και εξής). Also, "Digenis Akritas" seems to have arisen from the demotika songs (Linos Politis "L' epopee byzantine de Digenis Akritas. Problemes de la tradition du texte et des rapports avec les chansons akritiques" in "Atti del Convegno Internationale sul tema: La poesia epica e la sua formazione", Rome, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1970, pp 551-581. Also, the works of A. Pertusi); some academics say that it is in fact a composition of smaller demotika songs (the fact that in some places in Greece, only parts of this epic poem have survived during the ages, e.g. Η μονομαχία του Διγενή με τον Χάρο στα Μαρμαρένια Αλώνια, gives more credit to the demotika songs as an early modern Greek poetry-also have in mind that the link is unbroken, both towards ancient and modern times). Δεν έχω καταλάβει τί ακριβώς μου ζητάς για τις μελωδίες, την ηλικία και τη μετάδοση. Θα ψάξω να βρω παραπάνω στοιχεία για τη μετάδοση σε άλλους λαούς. Προς το παρόν, βρήκα αναλογία με την "Μπαλλάντα της Λεονώρας" στους δυτικούς ευρωπαϊκούς λαούς. You are right about the version that I have used in the article; it is the most widely known version, and the one I first read in my region. Unnecessary to refer to other versions, since there are too many. Apropos, the differences among them are, in fact, of no importance. The version I linked to is not the one I used for the translation (if u've noticed, line 39 of the translation, is missing from the link). Much regards Hectorian 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I kinda thought that u would be able to find one of the books i quoted above, but i did not know u had Politis':). Yes, the outline of the story is dated back to the 9th century. The same applies for Digenis Akritas; on page 27 of the book u already have, it talks about 6 versions of the poem (if i am not wrong, a 7th one has been discovered some years ago), some of which do not include some parts. "The Dead Brother's Song" had been used, sang and modified all this time until recently. The version i've used for the translation has been the most widely known, probably the one that has brought to our times most of the original text. It is like the Bridge of Arta song, which is still found in a variety of versions. About the θα in the future tense, i am not quite sure... maybe what i remember is that the two forms coexisted for some time (as it happens in all linguistic changes during the ages)-i will have to look it up.

The melody is the standard melody of the demotika songs. I am not sure if i am able to use the English terminology, but i bet u have heard demotika songs. (on page 20 of the book u have, there are full details about the iambic decapentasyllabic) (if Politis was not dead already, i could be accused that i am promoting him far too much LOL).

An article about the

Politic verse

(ξέρουμε γιατί το δεύτερο ονομάστηκε έτσι) would be indeed very interesting, and i was a bit disappointed that such an article does not exist already. it is on my "to do" list from now on...

I had no idea about the Lenore ballad until recently. but what i know about it is in the academic sphere. i would be grateful if u could give me a link with a translation of it in English, sometime, so as to see the relevance between both poems:). Ciao Hectorian 21:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This scene is very similar indeed! It also reminded me somehow of the Sleepy Hollow... I'll see if i can find a translation of Lenore ballad in English or Greek; there must be! Cheers Hectorian 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!:). I'm gonna read it right away! Hectorian 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Very dramatic and sad that is...! Bürger did a really good job! Thanks again:) Hectorian 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's strange, I just did a test print and it was quite large and legible. What kind of printer settings or browser are you printing off of? Also, what may be the interest in printing my page if I may ask :)?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops sorry for the misunderstanding, no that little tidbit is not on purpose and I'm not too certain what is triggering that. Any suggestions? My html does have embarrassing amateurish eeps I must admit...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Think I fixed it, check my talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, FPS :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Nice to be here! Do I have to change something in the page? I read something about changing the time. Do I have to? And if yes, what time exactly?!! At the top? The time of Aldux' signature? Thanks!--Yannismarou 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK! I figured it out!--Yannismarou 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I really hope this reasoning is not an one-off case. (I'm refering to this vs that) NikoSilver 22:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, see what you mean... But I voted on this one, so I won't get involved in closing it. Of course, the "precedent", if it were one, would mean "no consensus", hence "keep"... That what you want? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your precedent applies to the method, not to the result (of course). The method suggests that

WP:INDY votes in either side in PGG, I'm sure your method would produce a different result from no consensus. For more information, check also this precedent. :-) NikoSilver

10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Maniots article was to be merged then would all the infomation be added onto the Mani Peninsula article? Kyriakos 11:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

PLease have a look at what I said at the Maniots article talk page. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My one true weakness. Tombseye 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The checkuser actually wasn't done on wiki, but I can forward you the email if you want. I don't mind at all about the redirect either. Cheers, Khoikhoi 11:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't thought of Greier as well when I welcomed who I thought was a Hungarian user. ;-) Khoikhoi 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

According to

Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, it's 4 days. Khoikhoi

19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just verification.

I'm just trying to get information. I have never seen a process open to move the article;

19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the AfD was very much also discussing the option of a move or merge, and as I pointed out in my remarks on the article talk page I see that move justified by the weight of the various opinions expressed there. As for the content, I take it from the AfD discussion that there was in fact willingness expressed by several editors to work on the article and improve it in a suitable fashion. If it should turn out that casualties of other groups within the Ottoman empire are not documented well enough to write much about, or if the figures found in the literature don't make sufficiently clear what groups are included, that can all be pointed out in the article too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The page has a very long debate history. Most of the people do not really have enough background, and they act on current national and religious beliefs. One's claims towards uniting conflicting fronts without their specific involvement is not enough for justification of deleting or renaming a historically valid concept. I have not seen (not solidified) the effort to gather all the sides under one article. Besides, the military casualties are Muslim millet, especially after the 1st battle battle of Sarikimas, I have never seen an citation claiming that Armenians, Jews or Greeks were in the hot conflicts which the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I covers hundreds of battles. All the Christians, Greeks Armenians and Assyrians perceive their casualties as "genocide" so they are not civilian casualties of Ottomans, which they form a special (specific) pages. That leaves us with Muslim millet. I 'm astonished that you might even mention the numbers do not belong to muslim millet, as depending on the source from a million to two and a half million people would not have any classification. A) "discussing the option of a move" is not enough to justify. B)"act willingness expressed" can be proven with the development on such a cooperation and the "merge" procedures are very clear. "Merge" can be performed after the "so called" cooperation develops and generates that page. C) "figures found" you need to prove this POV with the citations. Also, I would be delighted to have my hands on that citation. I'm looking for your justifications as soon as possible. Thanks. OttomanReference 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied

19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the cut-and-paste move, I am sorry that I had to do it that way. So what are we going to do? I am thinking that both articles can stay, and we move the info about the Ottoman Muslim casualties to its link and break the redirect. Baristarim 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I also replied in the talk page, and suggested a solution.. What do you think? Baristarim 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page back to its original state. However I apparently made a typo and now there is a period at the end of the title and the redirects are a bit messy I think. Can you help me move it back to "Ottoman Muslim Casualties" proper? FP, most of the keep voters knew what they were voting for: a seperate article. Listen, I am trying to hear out some of the arguments, but I am afraid that the same logic can be applied to the polls in PGG, and you know that nearly all third-party editors that showed up there have expressed reservations with that title. I am more than sceptical when someone who had been acting just the opposite in another article changes the tune in another article. This issue was discussed to death, and anyone can create a new article at the redirect, however this page should remain where it is, and keep its history. Baristarim 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the mistaken move; the rest is left to you. As I said, my decision yesterday was not a binding administrative act, so it's all up to you, if you guys must move war, be my guest. About the "logic" behind it all, I'm not aware that I have "changed my tune", nor do I see how what I said would carry over to the PGG case in the way you seem to think. I'm afraid both you and Niko substantially misunderstood what I was saying on both occasions. We seem to be all misunderstanding each other all the time these days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry, I know that same logic cannot apply to PGG, but my point was just an exaggerated analogy. By the way, on a more technical note, I seem to have problem with moving pages from time to time. Why is that? And what can I do about it? I had to ask some admins if they could do the move on such occasions, but they were mostly uncontroversial therefore it was easier. In this case I suppose that I first didn't see a problem since my latest move included a typo. Cheers! Baristarim 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Moves can't be done by non-admin if there's already a page at the target location, unless that page is itself only a redirect with no changes in its history. I yesterday deleted all the confused move history of that redirect page, so it should be "clean" now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. However, Dirak just move the page to "World War 1" just to be able get around the redirects that made the page move impossible. 1 is never used. And the page histories got messed up again. I really find this very inappropriate, the AfD was closed as Keep and any potential moves/new articles should have been discussed in the talk page. I will be careful about 3RR and move warring, however I am deeply troubled with what's going on... Thanks for sparing your time to deal with this mess btw. Cheers! Baristarim 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And the view of the majority was a universal title. //Dirak 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't.. People knew exactly what they were voting for: a seperate article. Nobody is stopping anyone from creating a new article with a more comprehensive title. This article should stay with its history, and a new article created if need be. Baristarim 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I had to call in Nishkid to help us pick the right Wrong Version and protect it, could you two please at least help to tidy up the mess of all the broken redirects and stuff? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the wrong page was protected. This is what should have been protected [2]. It should be restored to the last good/stable title (i.e. the one by you) and protected. //Dirak 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, I will do it to the protected version. But, unfortunately, again, the histories of the redirects are messed up which would render any future moves impossible. "1" is not the correct version to begin with.. I have never been opposed to the creation of another article, however this move messes up the article's history since it has always been about the original title. There should be a new article with a new history if need be. FP, this has been a really disturbing. The move was done very haphazardly and in very sneaky fashion. The AfD closed as keep, and most people knew what they were voting for. This should have been discussed in the talk page. Baristarim 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The protect was correct: the AfD was closed as keep, and any further moves require concensus. This is fine, and anyone not happy with the title should raise them in the talk page. And without using "1"s to get around the redirects - which is disrespectful against the wikiprocess. Baristarim 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn, violating the 3RR which you did is also disrespectful against the wikiprocess. //Dirak 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fixed the redirects.. I really hate finding myself in such situations, and worse having to oblige others to waste their time on such issues - therefore I am truly sorry FP about the inconvenience this has caused. Hopefully it has not taken too much of your time from doing things more worthwhile. cheers Baristarim 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

? He protected it here [3]. He protected "Ottoman 1" after the protection at "Ottoman Muslim". In any case, I will break the redirect at "Ottoman Muslim" and start a new article later this week if this charade is not resolved. "1" was, IMO, a method of overriding impossible page moves. This is really lame FP.. And we are letting this happen? That article should be moved back to keep its history consistent, and a new article created at "Ottoman" with content transfer from "Ottoman Muslim". Why is this charade happening? Baristarim 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Struck out my comments. The page is protected and I don't want to disturb anyone with this any more for the moment. Sorry about the mess FP, we do deserve to be blocked :( Baristarim 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't anybody dare start new pages here. The page stays where the page history is, for as long as it is protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok Baristarim 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear FPaS, Thanks for your contribution in template and sample use in Çanakkale. We have allready another variable there, "image" which has exactly same value as "sortkey". I am planning to delete "image" variable and use "sortkey" variable instead it, to keep as simple as possible. If I use, "sortkey" variable, for example in; "Image:{{{:sortkey}}} Turkey provinces Locator.jpg" will there be any problem with this variable.?

• Where can I find all details of programming in wiki?

Regards

20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, if you can guarantee the "image" variable always has the same value as the one needed for sortkey, we can of course unify it. The template techniques are a bit tricky to learn; I found a few things at m:Parser functions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think yes, has same value. But there may be some exeptions in article names which include more than one turkish character. I will check all provinces, just now. I replaced "image" variables with "sortkey" in template. Also I deleted image parameter in Çanakkale Province. It worked. No problem. I will check parser functions. Lets see my old programming experiments would be helper to me or not?

Thanks a lot. Regards.

21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. Ok I will check situation for different cases before any change.

^TC

21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You may right in hierarchical point of wiev.

• I followed generally old categarization, in old versions of the articles mostly there was Turkey category.
• In any case, to cleanup the articles will be much easy in the future, only changing one parameter or deleting only one sentence in template.no need to deal articles one by one.

  You are right in your last comment;"image" & "provname" are substitude of each others(one in Eng.letters other Tr.) in only Province names, not in articles other than Provinces. Ok. Lets keep "image" & "sortkey" variables seperately.

Regards.

22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you offer still stands, I'm willing to try and run the gauntlet... yandman 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk about it later today - right now I'm rather busy, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe I should get back to earning my salary too. yandman 09:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Fut.Perf., Our intention at Phantis was indeed to create a free wiki, under GFDL, for yourselves - and anyone else - to freely use, copy, etc. At one point, it was brought to our attention that it was wrong for us to copy information from you without proper acknowledgement. We then created the "Credit Wikipedia" template which you may have noticed on several of our articles. Should you think that a better way exists, all suggestions are welcome. Hope this has been of help, if not, please contact Lazarus - the man who pays the bills in Phantis - for further discussion. I will let him know you contacted me. Many thanks for doing so and I hope we may continue to aid one another in our ultimate goal which is to spread knowledge freely on the web - --Irlandos 11:33, January 22, 2007 (EST)

See my latest additions to Talk:Names of Istanbul. --Macrakis 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

hello already i read your mensage and I see that you do not like my name of user not itself because I bother you my USERNAME of user that name it choised I because i like, i don't understand that ask me about my user and i don't know do that!!!--Hjncfkdnmhbjk 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for having sounded like a process-wank. The entry just stuck out, and my brain was on auto-reply-mode. Personally I'd just have prodded that template, it really doesn't need a full blown TfD :) CharonX/talk 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 4 everything; I'm looking for the

01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Ottoman casualties"

Hmmm...this is a tough one. The current title is indeed ridiculous. The main problem that I see, is that the article is almost a POV fork of the

09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was actually watching that AfD. Anyways, I feel somewhat uncomfortable about moving the page at this point; I feel that in a way, it would be taking sides. I guess the grammar is bad for the current title, but think about how many Wikipedia articles out there are just crap (take a look at

Seidokan right now. So in conclusion, I suppose you'll have you find someone else to move it for you. Sorry. :-( Khoikhoi

09:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think the new title will be fine, since it is a valid title and a topic that needs to be covered. However my point was that it would have been much better if another article was created and the content moved from "Muslim". Now it is the other article that has its history. Oh well.. On the other hand, I still have to register for the record that how this move happened was very disturbing. There should have been more consultation in the talk page, particularly since it was pointed out in the AfD that anybody could create the "Ottoman" article. Soon enough I am sure that there will be a new article at "Muslim" - but I know for a fact that many people are still going to vote delete or merge, no matter what BS they said in the AfD. There are people who cannot take the fact that there can be a seperate article - which is pretty racist IMO. FP.. Nearly every third-party editor in the PGG RfCs (including the first one (way back when) have voiced miscontent with the title (including many other third-party editors who are simply too afraid to step into the talk page). And every single new title is being rejected by the same editors on the same exact grounds. Not to mention the "revenge" at TRNC title-tag. What is your take on the situation? Baristarim 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What I still don't understand about your two-article plans is, how are the two articles to be dovetailed with each other? Which sections of the current articles will be linked to which main articles? To my mind, given the structural division into military and civilian casualties, and the very different roles that the religious divisions play in each of them, it would all be much more easily treated in a single article. That's a simple matter of structural organisation. I don't see why so many people seem to believe that would mean a downplaying of the Muslim part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Baris said: Nearly every third-party editor in the PGG RfCs (including the first one^{[citation needed]} way back when) have voiced miscontent with the title^{[citation needed]} (including many other third-party editors who are simply too afraid to step into the talk page).^{[citation needed]} And every single new title is being rejected by the same editors on the same exact grounds.^{[citation needed]} Not to mention the "revenge"^{[citation needed]}

Baris, I need citations for these please, I reposted them below because you removed the fact tags (despite my non-flooding comment). NikoSilver 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding all this very annoying. The reasons why Baristarim & co. are so insistent on having "Muslim" in the title is so blatantly obvious that even Winnie the Pooh can work out what they are, and they are not in the BS the opposition to that view are being fed. The ulterior motives (which ultimately come down to Turkish-pushing) are crystal clear and were confirmed yet again with OttomanReference's dab page. Baris, do everyone a favor and stop accusing people of revenge (and other ad hominems), başarmıyacak... //Dirak 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want to be getting yellow flags for the rest of the evening, okay? Go fight somewhere else. Σιλάνς ανόητοι, αλλέ εις τας κουζίνας σας. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Θα μιλάμε και θα παραμιλάμε! Ουστ από 'δω! ;-) //Dirak 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yellow flag! NikoSilver 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I confirm that Meta user m:User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, making this edit [4], is me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

... in good faith adding the article to AFD, having the decision be a resounding keep but move, then have this done and then have a new MFD promptly created? By all rights, I should have just speedy kept the AFD. If you would like, I can alert everyone. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, I just saw you extended Mitsos's block for evasion. I noticed an IP had been editing the page, but was hesitant to take action myself in case someone accuses me of picking on him. I've reverted the IP's edits per

13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I hadn't even noticed we can make protections with an expiry date! Is that a new feature? - But anyway, I'm frankly not quite sure if the level of disruption on the article really justifies protection. As long as it's only two or three edits once a week? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a new feature. Introduced yesterday (or the day before, I forget). Anyway, I'll leave the decision on protection up to you. If you don't think it's necessary then feel free to lift it. --

Steel

13:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just in case you haven't seen it before: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mitsos Spylab 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Accept my apologize !

Sasanjan 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Hi, just wanted to talk to you about my user page. I don't really think that having a billingual list of cities in northern Greece is a big deal. But what really concerns me is the amount of offending content on other userpages and Wikipedians don't seem to mind at all, and they are wasting their time removing content from my page when really there are real discrimatory content on other pages. For example, User:Makedonas has on his userpage content that states my language doesn't exist and that its a dialect of another language, he is dening my nation saying that its "Tito's invention" and he also has political songs (no song is more political than an anthem), and he has an article of the city Kozani, and nowhere does it say that it that its not a Wikipedia Article but a user page. My userpage is not dening anyones language, race, or religion, his user page also says "Macedonia, 3000 years Greek history", if put on my user page "Macedonia, 3000 years of Macedonian history" it will probably get reverted. How about User:Asteraki ? Look at all the articles on his page, yet for some reason you are more concerned about a billingual list on my page. Macedonia 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fully behind the initiative once taken by Francis of purging all of this stuff on a mutual basis. I seem to remember he once went ahead with that, but these things keep seeping in left and right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello FP. A few days ago you blocked me due to what you saw a revert war between me and User: NisarKand on the Afghanistan article. What was actually happening was that Nisarkand was making a false claim and then using a FAKE (pretend) source to back it. By that I mean that he says one thing in the article but his source says something else. And that is why I had to revert. It was Nisarkand that was making a SERIOUS VIOLATION of Wiki's rules, providing false sources. I think that I should not have been given that ban and that Nisarkand should have punished accordingly to his violation. I will list a few times he has done this.

• When you blocked us for revert-waring, he did the following. He was uploaded this [7] map which is from a nationalistic source (Nisarkand is nationalistic, not neutral, just to let you know). This nationalistic map claims that that entire territory was called "Afghanistan". When in fact it was not certainly not. I explained it to him saying, "This image is wrongly named. That is not a map of Afghanistan because Ahmad Shah Durrani called himself "King of Khorasan", not Afghanistan. All that territory was never called Afghanistan." Only parts of that territory was called Afghanistan. Then realizing that I was right about him using a nationalistic map, he quickly cites a source. He provides this source ^[1] and he says, "Source by Fridrich Engels added to explain this was the boundaries of Afghanistan in the 18th century. Please do not remove sourced information." I then decided to read through his source because I was shocked that any source would claim such a thing. I read through it and NO WHERE did I find that the source says what Nisarkand was claiming! The only thing close to his claim from the source is the following, "His kingdom extended from Khorassan to Delhi" That is NOT even close to his claim and in no way supports what he says, the false claim that this territory was called "Afghanistan"! And then I reverted that serious violation [8] and got banned for it. So here is my evidence that Nisarkand provided a FALSE source for a FALSE claim. Please check the history log to verify what I said here, I also explained myself on each edit so it should be clear.

• Also, on another article (Kandahar) he did the following and I explained it on the discussion page of that article so I'll just copy paste: User: NisarKand wrote that "As a result of several battles, more than 30,000 Persian soldiers were killed by the Afghans, along with their leaders Khusraw Khan and Rustam Khan." and cited this source [9]]. I went to that source and read the entire article. No where did it say what User: NisarKand claimed. In one sentence it mentions "though the Persian General Ṣafí-qulí Khán with 30,000 troops succeeded in defeating an Uzbek army of 12,000 he was immediately afterwards defeated by the Abdáli Afgháns". That means that the Persian forces FIRST faught an army of 12,000 Uzbeks, then fought the Adbali Afghans meaning we do not know how many Persian soldiers survived to fight the Adbali Afghans, nevermind the number that was killed. Nisarkand made a false claim and used a fake source to support it, that is a clear VIOLATION of Wiki's rules. So I have deleted that sentence. He also put this on the Afghanistan article and after I caught it on the Kandahar article, User: Tajik also saw it on the Afghanistan article and removed it from there as well [10].

Now these are 2 major instances of Nisarkand providing fake sources for false claims. I have caught a few others but those were more minor. Additionally, User: Tajik has also caught this several times and he may also report a few examples of this violation.

Also the other day he uploaded a picture and gave it a total made up filename and description. I told other Admins about that and they deleted the picture so I can't show it to you now, but that was another one of his dishonest violations.

This, making stuff up and providing fake sources, is a very serious offense, so please try to do something about User: NisarKand. I think this is a very serious violation of the rules and I wouldn't be surprised if he was banned for it.

Thanks. --Behnam 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is still true that you need to stick to 3RR, because NisarKand's edits were not obvious vandalism. You need to discuss these things on talk pages and get other editors involved to form a consensus. One hint: The discussion on Talk:Afghanistan has been so chaotic you will find it hard to get outside neutral editors to even read it. If you want to make your points heard and understood, be precise. Be brief. Don't let yourself be drawn into long threads. Don't mix your criticism with personal accusations, like you did here, and like everybody seems to be doing on that talk page. Nobody wants to read those, me included. One new section heading, one paragraph, just one sentence describing why you think a certain source shouldn't be used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I accept my short ban. But FP, the above is not any personal criticism or accusation. I was just trying to provide 2 cases of NisarKand using "pretend" (fake) sources.I know they are long, but I was trying to prove it beyond doubt. If 2 of them are too much, can you please just read 1 of them? I really don't see how NisarKand can be let free with this. Please just read the 1st case. This is too serious of a violation to ignore. Behnam 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but aren't you going to do anything about this? Behnam 07:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I protect all the articles that Mywayyy is currently using as a playground? Khoikhoi 05:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added

Alexandroupoli to User:VoABot II/admin watchlist.js. Let's see what happens... :-) Khoikhoi

06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to "Great Fire of Smyrna"

What is Wikipedia doing about those other articles on Smyrna 1922 (Destruction of Smyrna, Burning of Smyrna etc) that automatically revert to the ridiculous "Great Fire of Smyrna". Is this a turkish website or can alternative postings be accessed? THIS ISSUE MUST BE RESOLVED.--Tedblack 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

οκ λοιπον, θα σεβαστω την αποψη σου μιας και το εχεις ψαξει περισσοτερο. ΑΧαχχααχ μα γιατι σε οποιον μιλαω για το μαρκοπουλο μου λεει για τα μουστοκουλουρα του Δαρεμα? Περαν την πλακα, οντως δεν υπαρχουν καλυτερα! Θα ηταν χαρα μου να σου στειλω κανα κιλο. Ελλαδα μενεις? ;)--KaragouniS 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ok φιλε, νασαι καλα τοτε :P --KaragouniS 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry που δεν απαντησα νωριτερα αλλα για καποιον λογο δεν ειχα δει το μυνημα σου. Οχι, δυστυχως δεν ξερω σχεδον καθολου αρβανιτικα εξαιτιας του οτι πλεον εχει ερθει πολυς ξενος κοσμος στο μαρκοπουλο (και γενικοτερα στα μεσογεια) και μιλαμε μονο με την κοινη ελληνικη. Μαλλον αυτη η γλωσσα χανεται σιγα σιγα...--KaragouniS 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Future. The map is still the same map of. However, it was reprinted in 2001. The source of it is the communist government of 1985, and thus, the map has no license. Tājik 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you know anyone in Wikipedia who knows how to create good maps?! That would be great! Tājik 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We have two maps, and one of them clearly says 1985 Communist Government (well not clearly, its a little blurry, but you can read it still). Here take a look [11]. The other one [12] that says "MAM Computer Graphics 2001", I don't think that means it was re-printed in 2001, I think that is the name of the graphics program they used to make it and the "©" is probably for that program, not the actual image. Behnam 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have an itch regarding this

But if I

scratch, you'll tell me that

There is a glitch in

this

, capish?

Go 'head and fix, or I make flat!

Δεν είμαι πια καλτσέμπορας! 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Em let's change it re then! Παραιτούμαι! 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that you may have unfairly blocked ColtsXLI as he had only made one vandalizing edit and that was one that appears to have a possibility of being purely accidental.I only ask that in the future you first display a warning before jumping on the block train. Please do not treat it as a witch hunt everyone makes mistakes.Cylonhunter 02:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have editted the Maniots article so that it is not only the history of Mani but also the enthnology and culture. Could you please take a look at it and tell me what you hink and wether or not it should be merged with the Mani Peninsula article. Thanks. :) Kyriakos 08:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK!--Yannismarou 08:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was Netsnipe who officially declined the request, btw. I don't really believe his story here, but I think we can't do much but to watch him. – Chacor 15:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Check his recent edits. Undid a good bot reversion, removed the bot's warning from his talk. – Chacor 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The January 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter (the first issue after the merger of the History of Greece Wikiproject with the Wikiproject Greece) 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 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad little user! Steal Bishzilla's Supports![13] Bad moon rising! Bishzilla | grrrr! 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

First, I didn't notice at all that I have violated 3RR rule before some day and that I have been reported. I agree, I shouldn't involve in edit warring, but sometimes it is hard to resist when someone is constantly reverting your edits. About

12:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... yeah, well, that's just it: what I can see is that at least three editors agreed against you on the Kicevo page (LieutenantBoom, Khoikhoi and FunkyFly). That's one against three. Persisting to revert in such a situation is "editing against consensus" in my book. If you are faced with opposition like that, then reverting on and on is simply not the way to proceed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reverting on and on is surely not a way, however, "one against three, four,..." is very common situation, especially when the edit is made by some Macedonian editor. You can notice there aren't much Macedonian editors around in the last time, even if someone tries to edit something, he would face "one against three" situation in the most of the cases.MatriX 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As for the plainlinks, here's what my sig looks like on my computer:

I'm not sure why you don't see anything... Khoikhoi 07:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Future, an attempt has just begun to resolve the

16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you'd be willing to let me know what you think of the concern I brought up on Jan. 10? As a classicist with no expertise whatsoever in phonology, I have long accepted the account in Allen, which I was taught. This account may be wrong, but what I really find unsettling is that it seems to have been falsely attributed to Allen in our Wikipedia articles. I'll be grateful for any response you may care to offer, either here or at the article's talk page. Wareh 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the explanation at the talk page. I confess, I don't find the apparent system of phonemic "compromise" as clear or rational as it might be, but given the attendant uncertainties with ancient Greek, I suppose it doesn't make sense to complain. (Though it still seems the article is in error in saying the charts lay out Allen's ideas. His Gott example is unmistakable, and in that context I feel sure he means "pet" to signify /ɛ/.) As a non-phonologist, I wish for the experts' best guesses, as clearly transcribed phonetically as possible. I don't have any books with me now, but my gut tells me that representing ο and ου as /o/ and /oː/ (as opposed to the quality nearer /ɔ/) may misrepresent later experts' consensus as much as it misrepresents Allen's views. In your talk page comment, you seem quite emphatic about the quality of ου—is the scholarly consensus really that clear, and is this another example of "common practice in phonology" being happy to represent what may very well have been just like Gott as /o/? Wareh 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain about <ου> = [o:], yes. Since it merged with <ου> = /ou/, and then was raised to /u:/ quite early on, and was always distinct from <ω> = /ɔː/, it simply must have been closer than ω. The literature I have is quite unanimous on this point. As for "phonemic compromise" or misrepresenting Allen, it's just a question what phonemic notation is all about. Saying that "Greek omicron was /o/" means that omicron stood for a sound that was distinct from all others, and that was located somewhere in the back/mid region. Not less and not more. There simply is no claim about its more precise phonetic nature implied in that statement, so there's also no way it could possibly contradict Allen if he is in fact making such phonetic claims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble of a further explanation. I'm obviously not conversant with the conventions of phonology! (Good point about ου vs. ω as always distinct, a point that was less on my mind because, as you say, it seems to have had the value /u:/ from so early on.) Wareh 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey future - the map looks great, could be used for both - however, the only suggestion you need is called an "overview". This is the little 'square' in the corner that shows a bigger area (like an entire map of Turkey) to show the user the area that your map covers... much like they do in National Geographic, or like I did with the Districts of Turkey maps. Thank you for the neutral input. Rarelibra 13:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Aegean overview is quite applicable, I think. Especially because that is where the islands are - and after all, the islands do have a Greek history. I would leave them as they are! Rarelibra 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FP can you re-upload that map without the annoying (and off-centered) white border? It doesn't align with the rest of the pics in the infoboxes (and anywhere else). I'd do it myself, but I'd have to export the result in anything except svg (which is not supported by neither of my apps). NikoSilver 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That one!

:-) NikoSilver 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Future - the only other thing I would do is highlight the actual island as a different color in the main map - so that it stands out as the primary focus of the 'foreground' in the map. Just a thought. Rarelibra 14:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The improvements make the map greater each time - although it seems the outline on the overview map may be a bit heavy. Great choice on the color - it really brings the eyes to focus on the islands immediately - the intent of the map, correct! I never really disagreed with Pmanderson entirely on the whole map scandal - it was just that the bigger map really had no business (other than a good overview map!) - so the smaller map was better in showing the location and focus of both islands. You have created something even better! Rarelibra 14:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT - Ick! That phrase is like a swear word. I haven't found an easy way around it, and in many cases, I bypass the frustrations and attempts to counter its affects by doing things the 'old way' - digitizing manually. I know this doesn't help if you don't have a software with snap and autotrace... what are you using to capture the data into svg? At this point, I hit a brick wall because my experience with SVG is 'zero'. :( Rarelibra 14:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me see what I can find in the order of software that may make map creation a bit easier for you... you can join the ranks of the cartographers! :) I am actually going to try Inkscape to see if it will translate maps I create from .jpg to .svg easier. Rarelibra 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Great maps! Can you also learn me to make maps?! What programs do I need? Is it easy to learn? Can I easily uploap them then to Wikipedia?! I'm now reading the Aegean dispute article, and I intend to write a detailed review in its talk page.--Yannismarou 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome maps, awesome work in the article about the

00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For Patras, how about comprmising with the Cypriot pronounciation of Batra or is it m'batra? That should keep us all democratically unhappy... kidding :-). Nice maps, takes ages to download. Politis 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re this rationale, I think that the

Imia/Kardak incident is what actually fuelled the Aegean dispute, and it definitely should be an integral part of that article. I wasn't thinking of a merge, but I think we need an extended summary. What do you say? NikoSilver

12:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we could extend the summary of that part if you like, but the mainarticle - summary article structure ought to be preserved. And of course, there was a lot of Aegean dispute even before Imia - the Imia issue is only the most recent addition to the whole bundle, and probably not really the most serious part (despite popular perception to the contrary, I guess.)

By the way, I did the cropping you requested. I'm slowly finding my way through that software. Made the colors more consistent between the maps too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, can you keep an eye on the Turkey page for a while because of User:TedBlack? I don't know if you have been observing it but he is sneakily adding a lot of information to that article in a way to disrupt it blatantly. After the etymology addition was reverted, he added that the inflation was 27percent citing an unaccessible figure even thought the accessible inflation figure says it is 9 something. Thanks Baristarim 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. After looking into things a bit more, I've unblocked and responded at User talk:Nwwaew. Luna Santin 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are these users still under your informal revert parole? It looks like they've definitely violated it here: [14], and like E104421 has violated it here [15], and he's also racked up 3 more reverts today at a related article [16].

23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head- I edit from school, which uses the IP's 208.108.145.3/4/11/12. My home IP (24.50.211.226) is static, and only used at my home. But hey, if my temporary block gets rid of a lot of vandal sockpuppets and sleepers, then its worth it! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I'm hoping this doesn't happen again if the vandals come back and I request a CheckUser on them. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This'll be the one and only RfA thanks message I'll send out, because I don't think there's much point in them. Thanks for the offer and the eloquent nomination: hopefully my future administrative abuses won't reflect too poorly on yourself... :-) Cheers! yandman 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The customary English spelling is Lemnos; as long as you are tweaking the map of Tenedos... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrrgh, silly me. You're right of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help on that page. I think I can sleep much better knowing that wikipedia no longer thinks appositives are literary devices. Whew. :) - grubber 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. But please let me know first before doing so. Maybe I put the wrong license or maybe I can justify the fair use better. But before deleting them, give me some time so I can check. Give me about 6 hours. Behnam 13:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, a few of my Fair Use ones got a review, so watch out for those ones please. Behnam 13:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thats great. Thanks. Behnam 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well apparently he doesn't intend to stop harassing the article. Even with my answers removed he keeps on replying anyway. I don't think he's ever gonna stop unless someone puts him into place. The only thing that frustrates me is that I can't reply as I would really want to. He clearly violates NPA with his personal attacks and racial comments, I don't think my replying is the real source the problem, nor that my silence will be its most efficient resolve. Miskin 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Future,

I know i've already asked you, but since you were to a degree involved in the PGG article, could you give us your view on the arbitration attempt we are trying to get going. I'd appreciate if you could add your name either in favour or opposition to such a measure here. Thanks, --A.Garnet 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any policy or guideline on english wikipedia regarding to disapproval of group accounts? Hessam 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

He just broke the 1RR on Golden Horde and Huns. Is there any thing you can do about it? Khoikhoi 09:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you have left no such message for Baristarim. His provocative statements that I am masking my true ID obviously do not carry the same weight. You have not heard the last of me. --Tedblack 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another sock puppet [[17]]. He is not editing here on Wikipedia. He is now on WikiCommons and up to no good there. He's doing alot of vandalizing there. Take a look at his recent contributions [18]. If he is banned from here shouldn't he also be banned from Commons, Wiktionary, and others? Please take a look at that. His recent edits are all vandalism and he won't quit pushing for his POV even there. And if you can just please remove all his edits and undo all his edits. I know I should have contacted that other Admin, but you are most familiar with the situation so I decided to contact you. Thanks Behnam 07:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one PRTkand. Same thing, he's on Commons vandalizing there and and pushing his POVs and displaying his hatred for certain people there. Behnam 07:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but we from enwiki have no authority over commons, so that's a problem they'll have to solve over there. He's not automatically banned there just because he is here. If he creates damage through vandalising the category taggings or uploading things under wrong licenses, it'll be best to notify some local admin on commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to contact them and tell them about his "history" here on enWiki? Behnam 07:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic idenitifcation is not independent of descent buddy, and thats a pretty ridiculous stement. THe vast majority of group requir e common descent as one of the main parts of an ethnos (people). Ethnos means "people", not merely nationality, culture or language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.92.176 (talk • contribs)

FP, maybe you should shed a little light into this dark situation. I wouldn't like being the only Greek speaker to verify this, so just read my last comment and say if you agree. Thanks. NikoSilver 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please watch the article List of Turkic states and empires. Some IP/newly registered user is vandalizing the article by deleting sources etc, and by replacing them with a POV copy from the Turkish wikipedia, with wrong English and stylistic mistakes. Tājik 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

irani, afhgani peoples arent care for turkic people. turkic history is written by turk. ok? i am official association personal in turkey. i will phone with england office of wikipedia. ok... tajik is saying lie... he often changes it.--Offical 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this, I never really liked those kind of moves because you can't follow conversations from already existing diffs. Of course the policy doesn't really condemn either form of archiving and if it prevents Dodona reverting, then brilliant. Can you think of a good notice to place at the top of the page advising against general discussion on the talkpage.--

13:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've noticed, socks are reverting at

16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugghh. I don't think it's E104421, would it? Looks more like that Offical guy again, he's reverting blindly to his last version. Seems to have a highly volatile IP pool, so he'll be difficult to block. Am I still "involved in the dispute"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt sprotecting the article would be inappropriate. I'm out of reverts, so if you're happy with his version staying when he decides to revert again...--

Domitius

17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a dead end in

17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I had a photocopy of the whole issue.--Michkalas 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I found something more. In 2001, the Minority Groups Research Center (KEMO) published the volume Language and "Otherness in Greece"(publisher Alexandreia), with the transcripts of four closed seminars KEMO organized in 1998, with EU funds, on minority languages in Greece. There is included a seminar/ chapter on “The Slavic dialects of [Greek] Macedonia” coordinated/edited by Alexandra Ioannidou. Peter Hill, asked to identify the linguistic differences between the western and eastern dialects of the eastern group of South Slavic languages, uses the yat isogloss as criterion and in the area of Greek Macedonia locates the isogloss west of Drama (p. 207-208). This is the same region identified by Schmieger in the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. According to these references, the Wikipedia map on yat is not exact, at least showing the isogloss in Greek Macedonia. So, according to Hill too, apart from the Drama region, a small part of Greek Macedonia (see map) in the eastern part of the region, while the majority of slavic speaking population, apart from Pomaks, lives in western Greek Macedonia (Florina etc.), the Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia are western dialects of the eastern group of South Slavic languages. The standardised dialect of the eastern group of South Slavic languages is standard Macedonian, isn't it so?

Also, an indirect source, an abstract from Christian Voss's paper "Verschriftungsversuche des Ägäis-Makedonischen im 20. Jahrhundert (Attempt to write down the Aegean Macedonian dialects in the 20th century"). I mention this just for the name he uses to identify the dialects.

If their is a suggestion for some specific papers on the Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia from Voss or Ioannidou, maybe I can find it in our University library. From Scholar Google I couldn't find anything more.--Michkalas 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a

03:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I saw that. In fact, it seems that u were not happy with most of the additions I made... However, u did not have to remove this, since I quote the specific articles, it is sourced by the Hellenic Ministry of foreign affairs, and I had editted it in a NPOV way (Greece claims that...). also, this was with regard to res inter alios acta further down. In the

09:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. About...:

• this, my edit just removed redundancy. The older version already said "limited demilitarisation"; you added in what way it was limited, I preserved that and unified it into a single sentence. The only thing I left out is the claim that Greece has in fact established no fortifications - which would at least have been {fact}able. Similar for the second half there: the old version already said "legitimate self-defence"; you added an explanation of how it was that, I tightened both statements into a single one.
• this: I really fail to see your point. There is no issue about that particular convention being "res inter alios acta" for anyone, nobody has claimed that it is and nobody has claimed that it is not. For all I can see. And it's quite unclear to me wheter a "res inter alios acta" status, if anybody were to claim it, would have any consequences on those islands.
• About the convention, the point is simply that the main convention itself is undisputedly valid and binding. Mentioning Kekova in the context where we discuss the appendix is misleading because it has nothing to do with the appendix. The sentence was also misleading because it could serve to insinuate a logical inconsistency in the Turkish position, which would be OR and, incidentally, wrong. Besides, even if none of these conventions even existed, Kekova would still be undisputedly Turkish, because it's within the 3-mile limit of the Treaty of Lausanne and there is no larger Greek island anywhere near it. If you want to explain the Greek thesis regarding the appendix, feel free to do so - but that thesis certainly doesn't mention Kekova. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that now the sentence is misleading, cause it says "limited demilitarisation" and implies that Greece has nor respected this. However, "limited demilitarisation" refers to naval bases and fortifications. I do not think I am obliged to add a source about something that does not exist. On the contrary, sources that Greece has indeed established naval bases or fortifications should be added, if it is possible to be found.
• Res inter alios acta does have consequences for these islands, since Greece has signed the Montreux Convention. In the same way that Turkey has has no legal right, since it has not signed the Treaty of peace with Italy, as mentioned further down-we should not isolate the treaties, according to our POV. Res inter alios acta applies to all international treaties.
• There is no mention that both Italy and Greece consider the appendix also valid. (Maybe it is irrelevant, but can u point to me another treaty, the appendix of which is not considered valid by a state? if not, this is a unique case in world's diplomacy, and also has to be mentioned with regard to the Turkish government, if not for anything else, for simple encyclopedic reasons). Also, funny that u mention 3-miles limit of the Lausanne Treaty, since Imia are further than 3 nautical miles from the Turkish coast... something, "surprisingly, also not mentioned in the article, hidden under the suspicious sentence the arguments exchanged concerned the interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923-there cannot be different interpretation for the 3-miles; three miles are only three miles, and cannot be disputed. the dependency by another island can be disputed, and also this should be mentioned there (with the note that in any case, Imia is still 3 miles off the Turkish coast). Hectorian 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• As I said earlier on the article talk page, if you insist I'll have to look for a source, but I was under the impression not even Greece itself denies it has more military there than stipulated by Lausanne. You're mistaken if you say the "limited demilitarisation" only refers to fortifications and naval bases, it also refers to a limit on the numbers of military personell (restricted to those called up from the local population through normal conscription). If Greece hadn't in fact broken the statute, there'd be no need for making all those arguments why the statute is no longer binding, would there? And heck, two of my own relatives are currently serving on Samos, and they are neither locals, nor were trained locally, nor are normal conscripts, and they're not camouflaged with police uniforms either like they used to be in the 60s. Hah, now the KYPatzides are going to come after me for divulging military secrets... :-)
• Res inter alios acta: I'm not claiming it's wrong, I'm claiming it's irrelevant. Which side has claimed that which obligations on which party from which treaty are invalid because of res inter alios acta, in the case of the north Aegean islands? If there's no such claim, then why bother rejecting it?
• About the treaty and protocol, the question is whether the protocol does indeed constitute an "appendix". This is exactly what Turkey disputes. I personally find the Turkish position on that point very weak too, but that's beside the point. As for not stating the Greek position there, well feel free to add it. But you'll still find Kekova plays no role in it, nor does the three mile limit.
• About the three-mile thing, the issue about Imia is explained in great detail on the Imia page, which is referenced from the Aegean dispute page. I still think we don't need to expand the summary there too much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Greece denies that has broken any part of the Treaty of Lausanne. With regards to naval bases and fortifications, indeed has not broken it. Concerning who serves on these islands, it can be seen by another angle: the problem is who serves or how many are those who serve in these islands? I also have friends, normal conscripts and not only, who have served in these islands (also in Samos). But i also know people from the islands who have served their military service elsewhere in Greece. LOL, this is something that Turkey will never argue about, though... I do not know if we can or should explain the matter further in the article, but it would be enlightening. BTW, I may serve there as well;-)
• I think it is relevant, since Turkey claims today that Greece did not have the right to militarize Samothrace and Lemnos (despite having also signed the Montreux Convention), but at the same time disputes the militarization of the Dodecanese (Despite Turkey not having signed the Peace Treaty with Italy). All the Aegean Islands of the article should be treated in the same way, cause we give more credit to one side's POV.
• The three mile limit has place there, since Imia case is also discussed. The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention the 3-mile limit only for the North Aegean, but for the whole Aegean. And again, if this case has no other similar in the world, it has to be mentioned.
• I little expand, 1 more sentence, wouldn't be too much. Afterall, we shall clear up things and not mislead the readers. Hectorian 11:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I concede the point about Greek claims of having kept the Lausanne stipulations ([19]) - although that document is obviously dodgy, we can certainly use it as an official statement. About the "res inter alios acta", I still don't see the logic. The Turkish claim is not that Montreux is not relevant for Sam./Lem. because Greece wasn't a party to it; the Turkish claim is it's not relevant for Sam./Lem. because the text doesn't say anything about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The current version of the text still says that Greek islands were placed under a status of demilitarization and that Greece has proceeded to "discard" these obligations. This is not precise. I have made some minor changes which better reflect the actual situation, as far as I am concerned. Letus 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look HERE you will see that

16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

POV-check request

Hi. I'd like a neutral opinion on an important matter which is getting out of hand. I'm of the opinion that the article

17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably won't find the energy of entering that debate in depth, but I must say I find the side-by-side existence of those two articles strange. Aren't they both referring to pretty much the same group of people? At the moment the one seems to be speaking mostly of what they did while in Crete, and the other about what they did after leaving Crete. But that means they could still easily be merged. Under whichever title; I wouldn't personally bother too much about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is supposed to be like you described, except that certain editors tend to edit the head of Cretan Turks in a way to describe Cretan Muslims, by making it its POV-fork. The current version is like that, and they don't intend to change it back despite its lack of sources. In other words, one version of the head makes Cretan Turks the Cretan Muslims of Turkey, and the second version (by Cretanforever) makes Cretan Turks = Cretan Muslims. I would only like from a non-partisan to acknowledge my theory on this - imagine that it's the only topic where me and Macrakis are on the same side. But if don't have time it's ok, it's not that urgent, besides it's a matter of time until the POV-fork is revealed. The most ironic thing is that they won't even let me a "disputed" tag. Miskin 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The most annoying thing however is User:Khoikhoi's unjust behaviour. He reverted my edits 3 times supposedly because I needed a consensus before making edits (which were in fact a restoration of a 'stable' version) [20], though he had never asked for consensus from the edits which turned the original version into a POV-fork [21]. Furthermore, notice how sarcastic and provokative are his edit summaries when he reverts my versions. And notice how uncooperative he's been with me on several occasions [22]. And it's all about the specific article because I once said the phrase "end of story". I don't expect from you to be neutral about something that concerns another "fellow admin" but I'm letting you know anyway. On the specific article, Khoikhoi has been in several occasions reverting a clearly justified version (which always happens to be on my edit) supposedly enforcing people to reach a consensus. This attitude however enforces people who are trying to pass a POV, to continue supporting that POV (eventhough they are aware of it), precisely because their edit-war gets support from non-partisans - in this case an admin. And I'm willing to take the matter further. Miskin 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the more I look into it, the more I get the impression Khoi did indeed get the wrong end of the stick this time. I made an edit to the article as you may have seen, just as a stopgap measure, but I guess the older version supported by you and Macrakis was really better. I'm not going to revert to it just yet, but will probably support doing so. And indeed, if you and Macrakis agree, there must be something to it... :-) Won't comment on your earlier history with Khoi. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Hi Yamla, in the interest of not-BITEing, I'm inclined to unblock 129.31.65.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) whose request you declined. From his edits before the issue with the cite template, I'm quite certain there was no intent to vandalise but a good-faith effort at improving the article. This was just a newbie failure to understand the cite template and a failure to get the message when warned."

I'm quite happy for you to do so. --Yamla 20:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree, obviously :o) But 2:1 and a wave of the AGF... ah, you both win. Seriously, it's fine - all my actions are reversible: I rarely ever mind. Thanks for letting me know! 〈

REDVEЯS

〉 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re. my crazy RfC

Honestly, I too knew that the RfC was frivilous, but I thought it was a good opportunity to spell out why the user should be look into. I was actually surprised that the user had actually not been banned by now, so I wanted to write out exactly what the problem was. Kelvinc 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the comparsion of Miskin and Barış' edit proves anything, because he edited the page through AWB. Miskin's edits were clear whitewashing of the exodus of the Cretan Turks. Do you think they chose to leave Crete? I am surprised that you are taking Miskin's side on this, just look at his insults on the talk page to understand why I don't want to talk to him. Khoikhoi 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason it had been "stable" was because anyone trying to change it would be reverted by Miskin. I completely understand why Cretanforever doesn't want to discuss, he doesn't want to put up with all the nasty remarks about his people on the talk page. I still don't even agree to the title of the Cretan Muslims article. It should be moved to Islam in Crete to make it not be a POV-fork. Khoikhoi 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you refuse to respond in your talk page, then I'll reply here. The edit history of the page proves you wrong, plus, I would have every right to revert such clear, badly-written, unreferenced POV-pushing. "Nasty remarks about his people on the talk page", just listen to yourself, you're demonising me because you don't want to admit to your mistakes. As for the title of the article(s), I _do_ agree to merge them into a single Islam in Crete article. I agree now and I agreed back then [23] when you first proposed it. The reason we let it go was due to the fact that POV-forks would possibly arise. Unfortunately and under your blessings a separate article was created, and now you see the ironic results of your vendetta against me. Have a look at the article's last version by Cretanforever. It appears we've been waiting for Cretaforever to say something for a long time now [24]. Notice also how once upon a time you used to be civil to me, that is during a time where I still possessed the prospect of being of use to you. You probably haven't noticed, but I've been try to stay away from all Greco-Turkish disputes, they make me feel extremely stereotyped, hence I only participate when only a huge POV-push is at stake. Nonetheless I'm willing to end the vendetta now and put this all behind. If you're interested respond to my talk page. Miskin 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this article again. I think that during the rather prolonged discussion there I have cited some sources supporting the claim that the heading and the content of the article was POV. The content is now less so (tough it needs to be more consistent with the citations). Trudgill's quote shows that referring to the Slavonic languages in Greece as simply "Slavika" or, as in the heading of the article, "Slavic language (Greece)" is POV. "Greek non-linguists, when they acknowledge the existence of these dialects at all, frequently refer to them by the label Slavika, which has the implication of denying that they have any connection with the languages of the neighboring countries. " We need thus a new heading. I believe either "Macedonian language in Greece" (explaining in the article their exact classification and geographic distribution) or "Slavic languages in Greece" (in that case Pomakika should have an equal part in the article) are good headings. The choice for "Macedonian language in Greece" is also endorsed by the fact that the rest of the article, that is the Abecedar, Metaxas and Rainbow, refers to Macedonian. The part on "Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia" can maybe included in the article on Minorities in Greece. I am writing these to you and not at the article talk page, because you can maybe propose something which can be acceptable by everybody, while my proposal could be faced with suspicion. I can not promise that, because I called you, I will not necessarily disagree :), but I do not want to have another quarrel over this with Dometius and Kekrops and I would prefer to see a consensus on the changes needed. Thanks for your time, --Michkalas 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

He is using this ip address [25] --Behnam 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you explain what does "invalid fair-use claim" mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=107367802&oldid=107367147 Best. Farhoudk 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as a commons admin, could you perhaps have a look at the contributions of commons:User:Ibrahimjon there? He's uploaded a number of images, for instance Image:Abuali Sino Avicenna.jpg, credited to a painter called "Immodinova C." and at the same time claimed to be released as "own work" - but his own real name as per his userpage doesn't match, he calls himself Ibrahimjon Rustamov there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it would have been better to contact me on commons. :)

I have asked him if they are his. I want to act after a defense.

--Cat out 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the image (and put a photograph to the article). Sorry about it, this is an afterglow of the {{PD-USSR}} license. Alex Bakharev 22:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

...then it is the responsibility of the law-maker to shut those windows. Just see

22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you check that thread because I feel I'm being mocked? NikoSilver 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Check especially the part where pschemp says "we don't allow country names because there is no single person who has the authority to edit as a country" (having blocked e.g. User:Iran, User:France and all others) and then he says that Macedonia is not a country. (?! that would be nice :-)). NikoSilver 21:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply to my appeal of the blocking of my user name (Silent Sphinctre). I won't be bothering you any further about this, but I do find it a bit hypocritical that a place called Wikipedia bans mention of an anatomical feature which is primarily concerned with inoffensive functions (see Sphincter). Honest, the first time I saw the name Wikipedia, my filthy little mind made a connection to the indecent meanings of wick right away. As I said, I won't be bothering you further about this, and you have given me an explanation, so no reply is necessary. Anyway, I won't be logging in again under that name and wouldn't see it.

A good read, I'll read through it again later, a few thoughts of my own.

• Distinction between copyright's doctrine of fair use and wikipedia's, you note this about the replaceable standard but things such as not being able to use outside of mainspace have been there for a long time, clearly under the doctrine there is no such limitation provide the other "standards" are met.

• Replaceable, one I've heard is that it's a past event so irreplaceable. It is of course true that we cannot go back in time and take another one, that however doesn't mean it's not replaceable with a free image, unless it really is the only photo ever taken of that event. There is a question of what is reasonable in determining or trying to source a free equivelant for such iamges, but a minimum of searchs of the various image sites and contacting likely sources seems fair. (Though I've seen the latter idea dismissed by people before as not required by the letter of our policy, though it seems implicit to me to be deemed irreplacable asking the likely sources for a free image would be part of it)

• Replaceable as is implicit in the rest of your detail is in some senses a nonsense. If the fair use rationale is correct and it is being used for critical commentary of the image (rather than the subject), then it almost certainly is irreplaceable (since the commentrary on the image itself wouldn't apply to any other image...)

• Copyright law the world over isn't uniform, fair use requirements may differ from country to country. If we only assume US interests are going to use the material, then it maybe a moot point. That seems a large assumption however, and I guess against the intent of the project. (This I believe is covered by Article 10 of the Berne Convention, which covers text quite nicely but for other material says "It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization...". I haven't dug that deeply on this.

• Those wishing to reproduce Wikipedia clearly need to be aware of fair use and the implications of making sure they have a good rationale. This may mean that they (a) assume the one on wikipedia to be valid and apply to them (b) check them all (though in considering a commercial advantage won't necessarily publish the result of such) (c) Just remove all fair use images as a risk

• If you consider (c) of the last point and the point before, claiming that an image is of utmost importantance to an article actually suggests you should be hunting as hard as you can for a free image.

pgk 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[26] Khoikhoi 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Iconic status of the image "Ashura afternoon" is a reality in various countries in the middle east which may be unknown for other people around the world. The same things may happen for image of Picasso's Guernica, to be unknown for the people in the middle east. Is there any exact definition for the term "iconic" to help us better underestand which image could be used and which one should not be used in a specific article? Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Karbala#Fair_use_image_of_Farshchiyan_http:.2F.2Ffarshchianart.com

Also See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=107573235&oldid=107528877

Best. Farhoudk 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Fut.Per. I'm very sorry about the latest trouble i brought about the parole. Dmcdevit is quite right in his decision about the revert parole. Sorry, i misled you, cause i really forgot the Golden Horde is in the list. Apologizing. Best wishes. E104421 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, i'm not army expert. Futhermore, as a socialist, i'm always against army related staff. Once upon a time, i realized that the figures was too exaggerated and i reverted to a more reliable version. After all, i was accused of being anti-Turkish and being Greek sympatisant (i don't why? maybe they somehow learned that my grandmother is of Greek origin :)). In addition, my name was mentioned in the web site[27] as the one disputing the Turkish Armed Forces. Anyways, i'll try to put the figures back. As for Shuppiluliuma, actually i find him really obstinate, but he was a good contributor. I had problems with him, but i managed to persuade him. I may try again. Cheers. E104421 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Fut.Per. I checked these pages, i could not see major differences and the images were already removed from the navy page. I removed the statements which seem to be unreliable. Are there any others you would like for me to compare? Regards. E104421 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with Shup(etc). I tried to reason with him, but for whatever reason he decided to go off the deep end. Hopefully he will catch his breath for a while and come back to make more meaningful contributions.

On another note, I need your assistance, if possible. User:Pmanderson is attempting to slander me due to personal disagreements he and I have had. The diff is HERE, I don't think it is allowed for him to slander me in a professional discussion on a talk page due to disagreements that he and I have had (and we were both blocked for 24 hrs punishment for 3RR). He is upset that I disagree on his philosophy on a certain topic and is trying to get back at me due to my involvement in the discussion. Rarelibra 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it seemed pretty clear to me based on the fact that he reverted to AP's versions on all those 10 pages, and was extremely persistent in it. Also, if he isn't his sockpuppet, based on the comments on his talk page, I guess we could call him a meatpuppet, and according to the policy:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

However, I guess we could assume good faith and unblock him, on the condition that he not revert the articles anymore, and try to get consensus for his edits. How does that sound? Khoikhoi 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave a note on his talk page first before I unblock. Khoikhoi 06:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• From here [28] or here [29]. It is cut off the background and mirrored so that he looks to the right.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• And from here. Same story.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks:) I'll try to contribute positively to wikipedia Ceha 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tigran's court image had the wrong tag. It was not a fair use image. It originally had the pd soviet tag, when that became defunct it was erroniously replaced with the fair use tag instead of the applicable pd russia tag.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in Jimbo's comment, certainly seems to suggest the intent of the recent announcement is to tighten our policies. --pgk 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey FPS, can you please point me to the diff where Mursili tells you that he's not Greier but his brother or something like that? He just doesn't intend to stop making socks and refuses it to the last moment. I'm after some more of his socks and I need some evidence on his persistence in order to blow his cover. Miskin 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any proof of the RFC he once started against me? Miskin 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The "brother" was User talk:Petre Bolea, another sock. It's still there on the page. Mursili's RFC was deleted, but it's still be visible to admins at Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Miskin. What socks are active now? Just when I thought I'd had enough of trolls for the evening...

By the way, can I ask you to make it a habit to start a new section when you post new threads to people's talk pages? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He's been creating socks one after the other, check here [30] here [31] and here [32]. As usually he doesn't admit any of it and blames it on me. I've been enforcing the

23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and sorry about the section thing, it's just that some people (like Nikosilver) prefer it the other way around. Miskin 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a banned user; who is constantly trying to revert the article to a version that has copy right issues. user is User:Shuppiluliuma he has been using different IP numbers to change the version with the copyrighted images. The review is [review]. The last edited revision is. Thanks 4Ur help. --OttomanReference 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you do something about the socks at Skopje (s-protection maybe). Dirak 15:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dont think the sock is Macedonia's. It's rather User:Brest's. He's done this kind of stuff before.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

These articles seem to have reached an impasse. Most of the editors are pushing one POV or the other, and refuse to engage in constructive dialogue. Most of the editors are being uncivil and confrontational. Well-sourced content has been removed. Yet another POV fork has been created (

18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Uuughh. Sounds ugly. I think I understand what you mean. Can't think of how to break this up right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some mechanism needs to be found, otherwise we will never have good-quality articles on this and similar topics. The extremists always seem to have enough time and allies to push their causes; the uncivil scare away the mild-mannered and sensible.

Sanctions on individuals for POV-pushing and incivility? Compulsory arbitration?

--Macrakis 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is something i realised long ago on the

Pontian Greek Genocide article. It is why i proposed to an editor that a mechanism was needed whereby these disputes can be resolved by non-involved editors without the intereference of the usual suspects. From this User:Wandalstouring initated a sort of informal arbitration process and invited a group of third party editors to observe and cast a decision on the title of that article. We never received the agreement for it to go ahead from those most heavily involved in support for the title, so it has not gone ahead, but imo this kind of mechanism can and should be used to enforce decisions across a whole range of disputed articles. --A.Garnet

21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A. Garnet the Pontian Greek Genocide is a dissimilar example - at least it does meet consensus in Greek sources. Cretanforever's caprices in Cretan Turks and the likes are a clear violation of WP:POLICY. Miskin 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am blocked by the spam filter from reverting a simple anon vandalism at Ottoman Empire. I left a note at meta, but I just can't seem to nail down which web-site is concerned and how it ended up in the spam list. What can be done? By the way, I am sorry for not replying to you earlier about your post about user Offical.. I was away for a couple of days.. I will try to keep an eye on the situation. Cheers! Baristarim 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the other articles.. Unfortunately the same old, sorry about that... Baristarim 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was the problem with Ottoman Empire? What edit were you trying to revert? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There was simply an anon who did some sandbox in that article, but when I tried to revert it the spam filter blocked my save. It was weird, but I think someone else just took care of it after my note at meta. Thanks anyways! Baristarim 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries for the block thing, it got sorted out in the end :) Btw, I saw your post at WPTR talk about the pictures.. I will try to have a look at it, but there has been a problem for a while now about the wowturkey images. I had done some research a while back and found some links from the website, but it was even more confusing. As far as I know they are released into public use as long as it is accompanied by acknowledgement, but the problem is wowturkey.com is a collection of photos therefore some pictures might have different copyright status. It was giving us a real headache some time ago. But I will see what I can dig up this time. Baristarim 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to contact the individual photographers and ask them to release the images under GFDL. That seems really the only way to do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this to be reverted? Can you give it a look please? NikoSilver 10:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that just our friend Karakaltsopoulos? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your efforts about the Babek picture. Unfortunately, it seems those CAIS people failed to tell you that they themselves based their page on Wikipedia, both the text (which is obviously based on the earlier text we had here) and probably the image (their copy seems to be a scaled-down version of ours, which in turn was taken earlier from the azeripainting site.) And of course, they've provided no explanation how they came to own the painter's copyright. Do they own the original painting? - Sorry, but I can't see how they can then license that thing back to us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I will send them an email to require about the origin and the source of the image. Usually it takes three working days to get a reply from them, in which I will inform you in due course. Regards Parthian Shot - Talk 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the point is really, it doesn't matter terribly much where they got the electronic file from (though it's probably from us). What matters is that they are unlikely to have the actual painting in their possession, or that they have bought all the rights to it from the Azeri painter. The basic copyright is still his, or his heirs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what Azari artist are you referring to; - However, the best and appropriate course of action is to make enquiries (as I did a few moments ago) and see what would be the result. Parthian Shot - Talk 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, of course I mean the guy you refered to here [33], and who is credited as the painter on the original image upload page, Image:Babek.jpg: "by Azeri painter Sadıq Şərifzadə. 1944. From Azerbaijan Painting. Which is also the source we got the electronic file from, in April 2006. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The problem is solved! I have uploaded a new version of the image, in order to prevent any confession, until I get a result form CAIS. Parthian Shot - Talk

Sigh. Unless the CAIS people painted that picture themselves, we'll have the exact same problem with this one as with the other. There's no plausible indication they own the copyright for this one either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, it is logical method is to wait until CAIS get back to me! “Rome was not built over night” – patient my friend, patient! ←Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, we can wait a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear fut.Perf. I have received communication from CAIS regarding the images. Shall I forward it to you, or copy and paste the email here? ←Parthian Shot (Talk) 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As you wish; if they have no problem with it there should be no problem with pasting it here either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As you wish; if they have no problem with it there should be no problem with pasting it here either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. It seems I cannot post it here since at the bottom of their email states: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.! Thus I have to forward it to you via an email. What email address should I send it to? Regards ←Parthian Shot (Talk) 16:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A copy of their email is being posted to you. ←Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Yep, that e-mail should make it clear that the new version is okay, since they plausibly claim to own the copyright and they have clearly released it under GFDL. Thanks for your efforts and your patience in dealing with this! Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure – anytime. Regards ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 15:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fut.Perf. Is there any possibility to delete the image [34] that I originally uploaded on 15th February at 07:29 [35] to prevent any future confusion? Regards ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 15:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for deleting the file. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sign!

23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you check the

02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Horry pic

I noticed you deleted the Robert Horry pic. Being as it was listed under a creative commons license I'm wondering why. Although I also have doubts as to whether it was taken by the fan, the angle it was taken from it looks like it was coming from the stands and I/like you have no proof it actually wasn't. Assuming you don't have evidence it was a copyvio can you tell my you deleted it? Here's the source again by the way:[36]

15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it was actually you who registered that question on the flickr page too, right? True, I was just going by the impression that it looked simply too professional for a guy who otherwise takes photos like this or this, and whose basketball photos otherwise look like this. The same photostream from the same flickr user also contains this, which is clearly a copyrighted published image. Notice also that all images that are genuinely self-made by the guy have a little red datestamp on the margin. These two haven't. So, he was there on the day when this guy scored his historic winning points; he was using a different camera from all his other photoshoots; he made only that one photo with it; he had the 1 in a million luck of capturing an historic moment in a way that would make a professional sports photographer proud? Gimme a break. So, better to err on the side of caution, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. No problemo.

Quadzilla99

18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'm going to have to keep it semiprotected when I'm not online. yandman 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure you know there's been a fuss around this. I really don't understand how unexplained reverts may be tolerated there. Espaecially with the audacity of asking for explanations that have been provided in all sorts of places including your talk above, and with the further audacity of invoking a consensus to which they haven't taken part. I look forward to your help in sorting this out. NikoSilver 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi FPaS, I am sorry if I caused trouble. I removed all links to this image, but I honestly don't understand why you think it's a problem. I mean the picture isn't a candiate for the pultizer price, or contains something creative. We will profit nothing if we post it here. It is also used by other sites [37], including the website you posted. This website [38] is not the original owner, You can see the "author" field there empty, i.e. they themselve don't know the author ;) Anyway, the image isn't that important. Jidan 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I, i have noticed that you have deleted sports trainer article, was the only reason for the deletion because it was created by a banned user? If so is it ok for me to re-create it?

(James West (Force Pavilion) 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

It is, unless you are that banned user yourself. Which you obviously are ([39]). So better not start playing silly buggers with us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well You seemed not to know the situation here..Fan events and talk shows drags hundreds of fans and with the modern cameras they poses coupled with image soft wares any one can create perfect professional looking photos..I can accept your argument about the first photo, even though that one is certainly　not copyrighted..unless you prove that later photos are copyrighted,I don't think your threatens going to stop me from adding them,rightfully, I would say.thanks --Iwazaki 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First, you found the source because I GAVE IT AS A SOURCE ! AND I OBVIOUSLY KNEW IT HAD THE PHOTO..But what makes you think they have the copyright over it ?? did you asked the people on that site ?? My friend did and they said NO !Please don't even think the only cameramen can take professional photos..We live in the 21 st century where thanks to the technology everyone is a professional cameraman.And you would be surprised to see that photos taken by so called amateurs are much better than the professionals in many occasions.I reiterate, last two photos were taken by a friend,a fan..If you insisting on a written statement, I can easily get a one from him ..BUT he is an engineer not a PRO cameraman..And its ridiculous to dismiss his authority over the photo by claiming it looks too professional !!--Iwazaki 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I perfectly know what am I talking about..--Iwazaki 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Some events in the story I have to tell take place before the time in which the story takes place, which is already in the past. It’s these past-perfect events that leave some people guessing, I guess.--ЦпғогgеттаЫе 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the copyright status. Now, if something is incorrect, you can fix it too. thnx for the advice..Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, I've deleted the hangon tag because I thing it's not neccesary now. Is it correct??. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in the last two days I apologized for removing the tag. I misread the text where it said the tag could be removed if a valid FU rationale was posted. I missed the part about being an admin. In any case, I would like to see some sort of global discussion about these images. --evrik ^(talk) 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• can you go back and restore image:AR10Finland.jpg until this all gets sorted out? --evrik ^(talk) 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, well had you not removed the image (without discussion) from the page, it would not have been subsequently deleted two hours later. That's not really fair or balanced. --evrik ^(talk) 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• My point on the FU: The text of the article can be edited to reflect the needs of the FU criteria. The text of the sunglass image reads Teams waiting outside the Hanoi Hilton, and it's next to the description of the leg through Vietnam. I'm going to give the sunglass image another look. --evrik ^(talk) 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for taking the time to write that out. It was truly funny. Although I still disagree with you. --evrik ^(talk) 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Was just wondering why you removed the "Permission" magazine cover from the Pauley Perrette page. Thanks....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the image description page and the policy on

Wikipedia:Fair use. It's a copyvio to use it on that page. Fut.Perf. ☼

23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I am well aware of fair use (from TV logos)...was just curious. I went back into the history and clicked on the picture and found that it was only allowed for "Permission" magazine's page. Big oops on my part for not catching that. Is the remaining picture OK under fair-use, or should I track down another pic? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops on my part - hadn't noticed that other one. Now that I look at it, probably not. :-( It doesn't even have a proper source; its fair use rationale is very bad, and it even seems to be for a different page. Thanks for asking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I kinda figured it would be. What if I copied this picture from her CBS/NCIS bio page here http://www.cbs.com/primetime/ncis/bios/pauley_perrette_bio.shtml ? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not too good, I'm afraid. It's not even released "with permission" as a promotional pic, and current policy with us seems to be that portraits of living people always count as "replaceable" by a hypothetical free photograph that someone might take some day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So, the way I have it now won't work? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, if you ask me, sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn....my other idea was this photo which was used as the only photo on her personal website (now defunct). http://www.imdb.com/gallery/hh/0005306/HH/0005306/iid_919207.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Perrette,%20Pauley - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell me how wikipedia is better off without Sports trainer article, and why you think that this article should not be on wikipedia? Thank You. (Kylie 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

I am going to re-create the Sports trainer article, i have improved it, and am not a banned user, so there is no reason why it should be deleted again. Thank You (Kylie 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Right, but who owns the images? I have searched and searched and you can find most of them on google just because there the owners doesn't mean anything, I have a website also I can upload images and claim its my website but no info on who owns the images. Artaxiad 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying I can find all his images watch this, [40] from [41] so should I tag it or will you? he doesn't take the images he hasn't been active for a while if I find a violation than I'll tag it. Artaxiad 14:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did some research first ;-) Artaxiad 14:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Baku might of asked them for permission etc, so it is possible though, but we don't know for sure its not clarified. Artaxiad 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone tries very hard to clean wikipedia of images, uploaded by Azerbaijani users. These images were uploaded by their respective owners, and are used with permission. I don't think that they should be deleted. This will deprive many articles of good illustrations and will not benefit wikipedia. Grandmaster 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Azeri-Armenian motivation behind this purge (not that I hadn't noticed, mind you) is something I can't really take into account in dealing with this. If these are copyvios, I have no choice but to react accordingly, no matter who reported it why. I've tried to contact Baku86 for clarification; I don't want to rush into deleting these either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uhh yeah we can't leave them because they look nice, if its against the rules it goes. Artaxiad 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I have nothing against Azeris so please do not think that, its those who accuse me who have problems with us. Artaxiad 07:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I, Evilclown, award you this barnstar for the block you made on Macedonia. I think the move was great, seeing it was not a standard block at all. Evilclown93 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't even block him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this is a personal attack?--

18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I think I shouldn't keep getting involved with this alone too much. Let others deal with it when it becomes necessary.

I'm a bit on the fence about the other two guys. Their pages are seriously poor taste, that's for sure. Makedonas should remove at least that thing from the bottom. Could you perhaps deal with that? Last time, Niko handled it I think. I personally dislike Asteraki's big banners on top of his page too. Problem with those is, apart from big ostensive flag-waving they are virtually devoid of any actual tangible content, so it's not quite so easy to pin down exactly what rule he is violating with those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Asteraki's page, only with Makedonas's (that "problem with FYROM" section). How about the fact that Macedonia is calling them "propagandists"?--

Domitius

18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, no offense, but... I don't think I'd want to leave it to Greek users to decide how much pro-Greek propaganda is acceptable or offensive. Propagandists they are, that much is for certain. I've deleted Vergina's now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with fancy banners talking about yourself (I AM MACEDONIAN etc). As for Vergina's, I think his is a problem, but he has a copy at the German wiki, so let him get on with it there. I've just seen to Makedonas's.--

Domitius

18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with the opinion of some Greeks about Macedonia. The other side can write whatever free!!!: (user:Macedonian, user:Makedonia, user:Realek, user:Vlatkoto)......Nice politic in a free encyclopedia! Bravo!!!--makedonas 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Macedonian and Vlatkoto deleted (old inactive accounts), Makedonia asked to comply just like you, Realek seems not that objectionable. But spare yourself the idignation. If you bothered to actually read what people are telling you, you'd have noticed that this all started with us objecting to User:Macedonia's page. And of course he's now hurling exactly the same complaints against me as you are, only vice versa. Which means I must be doing something right after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that page ([42]) smacks of yet another feeble attempt to legitimize

Domitius

00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose he too is

reverted once. NikoSilver

00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mein Gott, I really hope such a rule never materializes, or else, considering what a lazy sysop I am, I'll be the very first to be desysopped ;-) Or maybe this is exactly the very machiavellic intention of Niko, you want to desysop me! ;-) For this I'll block you for ... uhmm ... well (desperately searching a flimsy pretext among the rules) ... ah, found it:

WP:MNF is The Truth! Ciao everybody,--Aldux

15:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

images at Abahlali baseMjondolo

I saw you deleted the images at Abahlali baseMjondolo. Did you find their source? There was an editor who claimed that some of them were theirs. I'm just asking to see if you knew for sure that they weren't. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I must say I didn't look too deeply into it. It was just that they were all very inadequately tagged, the sources weren't clear, and the uploaders had evidently made no effort to understand the meanings of "fair use" or "free use" or to clean up when they had been notified of the problem. If the images are theirs they can always re-upload them with a proper declaration, or ask for an undeletion. Sorry for the trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I guess. I've been trying to work with the editors (editor?) to get them to clean things up for a week or two. I'm not sure, though, if I'm having any positive effect. Hopefully they will start tagging things correctly soon (I've tried to explain it...).  ::sigh:: there's another image there now, and its already csd. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we should move that here? What ya reckon? Glen 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sure, didn't see he had that page. I don't edit other people's user pages that often, and when I do it's mostly for different reasons ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I notified the bot owner User_talk:ST47  Andreas  ^(T) 15:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's probably not much use. There are dozens such bots, and I've seen at least five or six including that link on various Wikipedias. But I've gone through all the languages listed there and removed the interwikis, so I hope we won't have it snowballing back at us again from some corner. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering, why you decided to delete the image Das.jpg? According to the log, you deleted because it was orphaned, and it wasn`t. It the scanned logo from the

16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I don't really care which of the two versions you use there. In either case, whichever page you choose will need a better fair use rationale. Have you got a consensus with the other editors about the image now? Because I wouldn't want to see revert wars on that and to have to keep deleting one day the one image and next day the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven`t been able to reach a consensus because I dont have the image in order to show the differences betwee my image and the current image, and I would add a link to a logo in internet but there isnt one close enought to be used, too high quality for fair use or directly in the DAS page. In any case I think mine would fit better a fair use tag since it`s scanned from my files and it is more accurate, but i scanned it in medium resolution. And I dont wanna upload it again because we would be back over and over to the same problem.--ometzit<col> 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)--ometzit<col> 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might want to look at

16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kris Aquino's KDOND image

Greetings! Is it possible under fair use for me to upload one image of Kris at Deal or No Deal for the KDOND article, and another image of her at GKNB for the GKNB article? Thank you. John earlm 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. So if i upload a picture of Kris, and i consider the fact that Kris is the host of KDOND, is that notable and compelling enough? Thanks. My apologies as well, I uploaded those photos and wrote fair use despite the fact that I'm not yet that familiar with how things at wikipedia should be dealt with. :-) John earlm 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked Limetolime (talk · contribs) per his request; he stated that he had read the image related policies per your request. Your block message indicated this as a pre-req, so I assumed it would not be an issue. Please feel free to reset the block if I made an incorrect assumption. Kuru ^talk 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you've previously

:

Alexius they are not supported by any scholarly research. The Turkish bastards are supported by the NPOV policy which means that any Turkish act that portrays them in a bad light is not neutral and the sources are therefore biased. Please notice that the article on the Armenian genocide has to be blocked from editing (its history shows that even this widely acknowledged event was disputed by the Turkish editors). Lets hope this fascist nation stays out of Europe. --Tedblack 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [43]

Please do something about it. Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Khoikhoi 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now he is using this IP [44]. Please RV all his edits and ban this IP. Thanks. Behnam 02:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow...I honestly thought that it wouldn't be able to be changed--I figured it was autoblocked automatically due to the number of times the IP had vandalized. But thank you so much for changing it to softblock! I can finally change that typo on my userpage! As well as go back to stopping vandals the minute I notice they've vandalized instead of waiting until I get home or hoping someone else notices. So thank you very, very much!! Irish♣Pearl 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put my view of things on the talk page of Genesis. I am not sure it will help, but maybe...

The February 2007 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 18:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- I found a couple of playboy cover images you tagged as replacable fair use. I undid that in a couple of instances because I felt that the playboy cover adds much more to the article than a mere illustration of the person's appearance: it illustrates an important achievement of theirs. But then I found a couple more and I guess there might be a large pattern here I wasn't aware of. I do think my FU rationales have merit but since you were the one who had a problem with them, I wanted to ask what you think. (Part of the trouble is that the playmate infobox doesn't allow for a caption. When I readded the images, I put a caption explaining the importance of the image in the article). Mangojuice^talk 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the quantity of use thing that started to trouble me. I mean, theoretically, EVERY magazine cover illustrates a milestone to the person on the cover (except, I suppose, for A-list celebrities who appear on covers all the time). It definitely would be legit if the articles actually contained some commentary about the cover itself beyond just having a caption... but on the other hand, we shouldn't be putting that commentary in so we can use the cover, we should be putting the cover in to illustrate commentary we already want. Mangojuice^talk 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you can get rid of the United Macedonia bit here? Thanks.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, let's not overdo it, that one looks harmless. A single userbox simply stating a political orientation? That's generally accepted. Or we'd have to change thousands of other userpages too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a welcome together with a request similar to yours - guess we can't do anything but wait to see if he continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This image Image:SI cover Feb 1999 Kathy Ireland.jpg violates fair use counterexample #7 which states "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply." does not meet the criteria for fair use. [[45]]. Please re-read fair use criteria.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, this is ironic. :-) I've been policing bad fair-use images myself a lot lately. This one struck me as at least a little bit better than 95% of the rest, because the WP article was at least referring to the magazine issue in question, making it indeed "a topic within the article". But I won't dig in my heels if somebody else wants to delete it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when the image was added, the article contained no mention to the magazine issue. It would still contain no mention to the magazine issue more than one year later, when I spotted the violation and removed the image. Right after that, the image uploader, User:Johntex (now an admin), reinserted the image together with some text referencing the magazine: "(...)Her modeling career took off as a result of being featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated...". No source for this claim was provided.

Three months later I tagged the sentence with {{

fact

}} ("citation needed"), and up to today, no reliable source was provided to support the sentence that was used to avoid the image's removal .

To make a long history short... Yes, this is an "image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover", and when disputed, some unsourced information was added to make it seems that the "magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article". --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, just get it to IfD, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, would you now reconsider your fair use review of this image?

I may try ifd soon, would you support it's deletion? I haven't done so already simply because the uploader is not an easy user to deal with. Last time I reviewed his upload log and tagged some of his uploads for deletion (for a variety of reasons, like invalid fair use or no source) he used his admin powers to block me, accusing me of "Wikistalking". For the record, the block was reverted by an admin that found it invalid and... 6 out of the 7 tagged images were deleted after all, because they were really problematic beyond repair (for 1 of them, he managed to add proper source info). Also for the record, that was my first block ever.

He also took the opportunity to accused me of "trickery, wiki-staling, and

WP:POINT" in the image's talk pages at the time [46] [47] [48]

.

The point is, User:Johntex is someone to avoid. He's stressing. --Abu badali ^(talk) 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'll probably want to avoid getting into a longstanding conflict between you two here. Count me as sort of neutral on this particular case. I can see your point, but I find the fair use rationale in this case at least worth considering. Guess we have a lot worse fair use abuse cases to get rid of. Mind you, I'm generally highly sympathetic to your struggle against "unfair use" - I've been doing my own share in the Good Fight lately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take an objection against block of Rex Germanus I can't see what wrong he did. You are mentioning moves in the article Konrad von Wallenrode, but I can't see what wrong he did. You also mentioned Antman's discussion with him, but I must note that Antman's edits and behavior are disruptive. On one side he calls for english usage on Wikipedia (as he showed many times) but in fact he refuses attempts in other article - interesting huh ? He is in broil with more editors and his userpage contained personal attacks and attack userbox (about Rex Germanus and other editors). Thus his conversation with Rex Germanus should not be included as a reason for his block. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Comment: check Antman's moves without consensus [49], does he deserve block for the same as Rex Germanus? apparently not. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My moves were in consensus, as they were reverting Rex Germanus'

WP:Point 'vandalism'. Antman -- chat

20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Rex Germanus

I condone and congratulate the block of Rex Germanus. I posted a comment onto his talk under the Block section, but he removed it. I do not believe his ban is too long. I have tried to reason with him in the past to no avail. He claims that I try to change articles to German equivalents; I am merely trying to change them to a name that is in ENGLISH already, with English taking precedence over foreign nomenclature. I have never tried to change

20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just felt as though I should leave a comment as to why I felt that he should not be unblocked. Should I be less hostile in the future? Antman -- chat 17:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's think hard. "Should I be less hostile?" Well, perhaps, if you ask me --- how about, yes? "Selbsterkenntnis ist der erste Weg zu Besserung" ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Und was ist der zweite Weg? Antman -- chat 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kommt drauf an. z.B.: sich für ein paar Tage blocken lassen und dann in der Stille in sich gehen? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Future Perfect; what appears to be amiss...?  David Kernow (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, cancel that, nothing wrong, I misread the edit diffs.

Phew... I'm reassured, though, that if there had been a problem, your message would've saved some extra work!  Best wishes, David (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it is a formal request for unblock review with pure objections on the talk page of completely independent administrator not involved in the conflict, Antman is involved in the conflict and his opinion in this request is completely irrelevant and disruptive, he did not provide any evidence he just screams it is a good block. Obviously for him, because he now took an advantage and in fact won the conflict. I still did not view correct reasons for his block, it is not about who wants or who doesn't, it is about the evidence and I did not see any. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Block must not serve as a weapon against other editors when you disagree what they are saying, which as I think just happened. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with von because I am supporter of the original names - it is an important part of the information and other names should be redirects. Don't put me into one bag with Antman please! The problem with Antman is little bit more complex than it might seem. He himself calls Imperial German patriot and I support Danzig! Danzig! Danzig! Danzig! Danzig! which can be clearly seen on his user page. Then he proposed rename Karlovy Vary to Carlsbad, why not, but Duja prepared good Google research where he proofed Karlovy Vary has much higher usage. Another part of evidence was Interwiki, which was rejected by Antman with who cares. Antman came with the evidence that Carlsbad has higher usage and also that he knows polish student claiming he is form Danzig instead of Gdansk (remember very hot dispution about Danzig/Gdansk). I noted that he claims himself as imperial german patriot and that he supports Danzig against consensus (which is disruptive) and I claimed him untrustworthy because of this. Consensus is near to close with votes to Karlovy Vary but Antman in advance claims he will not respect consensus (see this [50]) (even this one and even Gdansk/Danzig) so I warned him that it is unwikipedian. See this [51] he claims this and then he moves of to von back. He has troubles with more users that founds his edits as disruptive, revisionist POV-pushers etc. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for full view, Antman reported me here [52], for example he considers my statement "nationalist are never reasonable" as a personal attack on him ... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been following me onto other talk pages for other articles, and simply making mild attacks against me on them that are irrelevant, such as in Talk:Rhine. Antman -- chat 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow you, are you paranoid or what ? Leave me in peace. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning to both of you. If you don't stop following each other around on other people's talkpages, including this one, you both risk getting blocked. This has to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it not bad form to remove entire reports from

16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, true, but it's easy enough to recover - just look at her contribution history. If removing the material removes the incentives for her to create new socks... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Some where else" could be a problem. They could move it very up. Hence keep them both in depiction as they are right now. please. --- ALM 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording has changed. Now images can go anywhere in the text. :(. I wish to vote in support and cannot concentrate on work becaue of all this. -- ALM 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd really advise against digging in your heels over this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We know at least one of them wishes to have picture in overview section. I am 90% sure that one showing Muhammad preaching will be moved in overview section. He has tried to move in overview section today but was not able to work with the code properly. --- ALM 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If he will move images in the overview section or near top and you will revert him or try to make him stop? Then I can support. --- ALM 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what I will achieve here if tomorrow Image:Maome.jpg will be in the overview section, just after veiled image. Then what is achieved? If you can help that we will not be in that situation then I really wish to support. I am mentally tense because of all this and not able to concentrate on work properly. Hence I do wish to end it but there is no compromise if he will move Image:Maome.jpg in overview section tomorrow. Can you little bit tweak the wording saying not top half then I can support. --- ALM 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/images#Original_Compromise_found I have supported it. That was orginally written by you and I support it. --- ALM 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, future. I've reverted the images back to the status quo for the time being. Nothing there should stop you from trying to generate a consensus for the veiled-at-top version, but as of this exact moment, it was clearly wrong of me to make that change, so i've reverted it back. ALM and company don't like it, Prob and company don't like it, and honestly I don't like it even though it was my suggestion! lol. I appreciate your attempt to make peace, but until that peace has been made, let's just stick with the policy at it currently stands. --Alecmconroy 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Just for the record, I object against the implication that "policy" dictates either the one or the other here. It doesn't. The frustrating thing about this all is that so many people just fail to take in the arguments of the other side. Lots of people engaging in bargaining, but few willing to really try and understand what the point of it all is. This is extremely frustrating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah, it just occurred to me that I may have been half-way breaking 3RR, ironically in reverting back to one of your versions that I don't like either... Well, do with it whatever you want. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the broken noinclude was good of you-- if you find someboxdy willing to try to 3RR you for that, you've found a very combative person, and I certain am not him. :). As far as trying to understand the other side-- I do apologize that I sometimes lump all the people who oppose the images together. It's apparent that people like futurebird and gren have more subtle and nuansced positions that aren't a simple case of trying to enforce religious dogma on wikipedia. But when you look at it, they're an extreme minority, and get lost in the shuffle. There's a huge difference between the majority that are just here to prostelytize and the more restrained and thoughtful others who have more-nuanced arguments. When someone is clearly trying to delete all the images from the article for his own person religious reasons, that I do consider to be an out and out violation of NPOV and Not Censored-- but I wouldn't be so quick to lump everyone who's expressed concerns about images into that group. --Alecmconroy 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess I'll reply at ANI, though someone appears to have overwritten your post. Could you formally close the still-open, unblock request box on User talk:Rex Germanus? Sandstein 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to compliment you on the very diplomatic and fair way you handled the recent blocking of Rex. That was a pretty complicated and muddled issue. I think you showed the best spirit of adminship by not hiding behind the rules but in seeing the other's point of view/interests/rights, even when it did not coincide with your own. Arnoutf 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please make it so that it preserves the history of

21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets of User:DiamondVoice

Hi Fut. Perf., you blocked two sockpuppets of User:DiamondVoice, User:TabloidPsyco and User:BLUNDERWOMAN. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DiamondVoice, where one more suspected sock is listed? It's User:REMOVALS, who's made some edits like DiamondVoice's. Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't quickly find where DV is making similar edits. Got a diff? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the SSP report, the similarity is that they both added material to Sinitta related to Carl Cox--REMOVALS does it here [53] and DiamondVoice does it here [54]. As you probably remember DiamondVoice was blocked for legal threats on the AfD for Carl M. Cox. I don't have any direct knowledge of the situation, I'm just trying to see if I can close out older cases on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, which doesn't get much admin attention--there are some cases here more than a month old. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, DV is only adding a link to some material added earlier by an IP. And that paragraph isn't textually identical either. Not particularly strong evidence right now, I'd say. Wait if that new account does anything really disruptive, would be my advice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into that. Is there any chance you could look at some of the other cases on SSP? For some of them, it seems like there's strong evidence of sockpuppet use. For example, in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) the users have self-identified as socks. Some other relatively clear cases are Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bradles 01 (3rd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Winkers6767 (more self-identification), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rsbj66, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Terryfilene22. Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aerospace1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Khoikhoi 07:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be, fits his profile of interests. But he's not doing his naming warfare there. I'll leave him alone as long as he edits constructively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look (again) at my comment at User talk:Macedonia#Image tagging for Image:Macedonianlanguage2.jpg. NikoSilver 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Beaten for 1 minute! Boy you're fast! NikoSilver 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you missunderstood my point. I was about to give out with this and let wikipedia use a horrible image for the Das logo but finally someone make my point clear, i suck to explain things xD. so if you could please look at the review and comment about it. Ohh and another thing: please consider archiving again your talk page, since leaving this message is taking for ever--ometzit<col> 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

With this IP address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.132.248. Behnam 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You're cordially invited to join the discussion on this page. By the way, how are you? I was very busy with my projects and could not edit for long time. With warmest regards. E104421 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention one of the most "anti-constructive" behaviours I've seen in a while - and I've seen many. This behaviour is even worse than the "old me", if you know what I mean. The editor intially came up with some, violently put, yet valid points, which made me conduct some further research and present a consensus. Then monsieur wasn't happy with the sourced information as it didn't agree to his personal opinion, thus he fared me well with what I consider a clear personal attack [55]. I may have not been affected if the PA if it weren't for the rest. I had shown my best and most co-operative self, by being open to all suggestions, providing referenced information etc, and what I got was a C class P.A. Then I insisted on knowing the cause of Mister's displeasing [56], but received a semi-sarcastic tag in the main article as a response [57]. But it doesn't end there. I swallowed everything and made another sincere effort to co-operate with the user, by leaving a message in his talk page. Little did I know, for he had been obsessing himself over the subject at such a degree, that he blanked out my message for no given reason [58]. He did the same with my second message [59], except that there, he responded with more hostility and sarcasm [60]. I removed those edits which I regarded offensive, but Mister judged for a moment that they were important enough to stay and reverted me in my own talk page [61]. He quickly remedied this action, probably after he realised that he was heading straight for a block. However, he chose that those edits were too good to be lost, and moved them altogether to his Talk page [62]. The conversation terminates after one more session of hostility, insults and bad sense of humour. I have never bothered with someone over a non-content-dispute issue before. However, this case is almost surreal, and the actor is a proper bully. It makes me feel that a disturbed individual goes around freely in the wp community. Such an obsessive behaviour, accompanied by unwillingness to co-operate, borderline personal attacks, uncivilty and sarcasm, is something that I find intolerable. What makes it even worse, is that he received a civil and cooperative behaviour from the very beginning, and that despite his prior insolent behaviour - not only did he not apologise - but rejected my further efforts reconciliation. Miskin 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. You helped me before with a non-notable trucker-related article, so I come to you again for a bit of help - I hope you don't mind. :-)

I don't think that Iloveblog.com is a very notable site, so I slapped a {db-web} tag onto the page like you suggested last time, but a user keeps deleting the tag. User:Foress created the page and removed the original tag, and what is probably that same user, User:60.50.23.74, recently did the same. Do you have any advice as to what I should do? Or maybe is there something that you can do, being an admin and all...

Anyway, I'll leave it in your capable hands for now. Thanks for reading. -GilbertoSilvaFan 13:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with that... seems the user is a bit persistent! All the best, GilbertoSilvaFan 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I read on

17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence about this. Calico/Shuppiluliuma etc (all the same user) plausibly says the photographers are his friends. If he says they did give him permission, I think we can safely take his word for it until one of them actually comes and objects. If he was lying, they know where to find him. The guy himself seems unwilling to cooperate with us though. The other day he went so far as to create a series of obvious sock accounts under the names of the photographers and re-uploaded images as "own works". But I kept silent and tolerated it. To tell you the truth, I'm tired of dealing with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I quess I will delete the images coming from wowturkey. We don't even know for sure he is the webmaster. Except for his own word, and considering the sockpuppets etc etc. I can understand btw you are tired of dealing with that. Garion96 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know much about Frisia and the Frisians? Khoikhoi 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering what part of Frisia is in Denmark, if any Frisians live there, and whether or not these Frisians speak Danish, Frisian, or both. Khoikhoi 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks anyways. Khoikhoi 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that this was a good idea considering that the last political rant was posted at the same time you delivered the warning (you both probably pressed "save" at the same time). Ehh, never mind, we can look forward to some quiet now :) --

11:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User Future Perfect at Sunrise (comment) wrote:

Hi, the transliteration we are using here at Wikipedia isn't "Greeklish", it's an internationally accepted standard, proposed by ELOT and adopted for official use at the UN and elsewhere (see [1]). Well, you even seem to be aware of that... It also isn't "simply wrong" but makes very sound sense linguistically. Anyway, it's not up to us as wikipedia editors to invent our own new transliteration schemes; we'd better stick with those that exist. I'd strongly advise you against pushing such a huge change against long-standing consensus here.

the internationally used ,for centuries or millenia, transliteration of greek to european latin-derived alphabets is not elot based. elot transliteration doesn't make very sound sense linguistically.
it's not up to us as wikipedia editors to invent our own new transliteration schemes. very true.but I didn't invent any personal scheme.If you check out any foreign (non neohellenic) academic source (universitities,texts,etc) on how greek to english (or any other western european language) transliterations take and have taken place,I believe that you will see a long standing tradition opposed to neohellenic ignorance.as I have mentioned

, greeklish in general or elot greeklish in particular is wrong from any perspective.
see you
Thanatos666 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)