User talk:Francis Tyers/Archive5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dearest Balkanians[edit]

It's been real. :) - FrancisTyers 02:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, a Balkanian talking:p
I do not know why, but what u wrote 'bout Roman Jakobson attracted my interest...maybe cause i have read a lot about him. he mostly worked on the Comparative Literature field. and also, he lived several decades ago, so he is allowed to have made mistakes. but his work was rather important, although in linguistics, another Jewish, Noam Chomsky, offered more. If u know anything that Chomsky has ever said about the 'Macedonian' language, i would be glad to know;) --Hectorian 02:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I'm aware Chomsky hasn't written anything on Macedonian. IIRC he isn't particularly interested in the sociolinguistics aspect and generally works only in English. He's more into the "linguistics as a faculty of the mind" deal. One quote I have on my page about the language/dialect issue is "The term "language" as used in ordinary discourse involves obscure sociopolitical and normative factors. It is doubtful that we can give a coherent account of how the term is actually used". Basically saying that the word in popular usage is pretty incoherent, as in there is no particular linguistic classification for "language" as opposed to "dialect" or "idiolect". For Chomskyan linguistics, a nice (and fairly easy and up-to-date) introduction is here. Actually reading Chomsky's work is pretty difficult. He writes very thick prose. :) If you have any other questions, let me know :) - FrancisTyers 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, i know how he writes...i had to read works of his for my university studies. maybe the best definition for what a language is, is what someone said (i guess it was Niccolò Machiavelli): language is a dialect with a government and an army...BTW, interesting link;). i will check it! --Hectorian 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally attributed to Max Weinreich, see Language-dialect aphorism. :) - FrancisTyers 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe,u are right;). i altered it a bit (without knowing), but i guess it fits in this case: FYROM does not have a navy... --Hectorian 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, they don't even have a port. However, as I point out in my essay, although the adage captures a lot of truth, it is by no means perfect :) Wales has a Welsh language but no Army or Navy. The Basque country has a Basque language but no Army or Navy. Those are some Abstand languages, now for the Ausbau... the Czech republic has a Czech language but no Navy. Luxembourg has Luxembourgish but no Navy ;) - FrancisTyers 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know;). i do not accept Max Weinreich's theory. if u want to listen to my POV, the definition of language relays on the mutual intillegibility between the speakers. i, of course, know that this definition fits perfectly to the Greek language (since its closest relatives-Latin or Armenian-do not sound familiar to us), but for other languages from other branches of ling. families things are complicated. but trust me, i have more difficulties in understanding Pontic Greek, than a Bulgarian has in understanding a 'Macedonian'. it is like the Americans saying that they speak 'american' and not 'english';) --Hectorian 02:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nationalism/racial supremacy[edit]

Hello Francis,

I see you are opposed to nationalism -- a good thing. But could you tell me why you support talk like "we're the baddest, most beautiful things on god's green earth"? It seems supremacist to me. I hope that together we can unite to oppose editors who use this sort of language.

Justforasecond 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


defending your country, your history and your existence isnt unbridled nationalism, its normal and your right to do so. i dont claim greek history, i am claiming my own history wich has been stolen by greece and even by bulgaria. isnt it normal to defend myself then?? greetings --Makedonia 11:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah right :-) Telex 11:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nationalist test[edit]

I don't blame todays Turks for the deaths, that is referring to the Turks at the time. I'm blaming todays Turks for denying that it happened, as is the policy of the Turkish government. If you are going against the policy of your government I salute you! :) Perhaps I could make this more explicit, I encourage you to offer alternative suggestions.'re blaming Turks for denying it. You decided that it happened but there are other sources, other views, etc. Everybody can think different based on these sources. I wouldn't blame anybody because they think it happened. If anybody is denying it blindly, then you found the nationalist you're looking for. But how can you distiguish that, I don't know.

With regard to the Welsh economy, I would advise that you look into it if you have the time. There is of course the chance that someone would step in to take the place of England in the subsidising stakes, but that is not the point. Skirts are kilts for women? LOL :)) Unfortunately if you ask most people if they are nationalist they would reply no, because they don't really think about it. This test has the effect of making people think. As I have done (as you can see on the talk page).

That's the point. Do they really don't think of it or do they have reasons to oppose the statements? How can you know they replied without thinking or without any sound reason? Maybe you should try to state just facts. So there would be no doubt if they oppose. But finding the fact about this kind of matters is not so easy. --levent 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User count graph on HospitalityClub page[edit]

Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply. I did not login to Wikipedia for a very long time. I can't see the data you generate the graph from because the page doesn't exist anymore. But no problem. I accept your explanation and last I checked, it seems the graph got somehow improved. My only objection which remains is that it is unclear what on the graph is data points and what is a fit line. So perhaps, if you are sampling the user count every day since 1/1/2003, you should add something like this to the graph description: "Graph of user growth on HC. Since 1/1/2003 the number of users is sampled every day. The data before 1/1/2003 are based on rough statistics provided on the HC page and are inacurate." Something like that. I'm actually quite impressed. I was thinking the graph is some very amateurish work of someone who didn't know how to put points, so he has drawen the whole line, while actually you appear to be sampling with a good frequency which makes it possible to draw such a detailed graph. But you need to explain, because otherwise the reader has no way to know this :) Thank you! --hhanke 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good! It is fixed now. Thank you! I've also added a comment to Talk:HospitalityClub. I wonder if the whole thread with my comment should be removed now? Feel free to do so. I have no more objections and I think the graph is very useful now. --hhanke 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Well, I see the following possibilities:

Your guess is as good as mine... Telex 14:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll go for the last one. :) FunkyFly 15:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why's that? Telex 14:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, if you're interested in the Arvanites, I've written a little article on them over at sqwiki: sq:Arvanitët. Telex 15:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You still haven't told be why you reject the possibility of option no. 4 being the one. Telex 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you know why :) - FrancisTyers 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I honestly have no idea. Telex 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


yes, "sic" - I had read the article, and knew it wasn't a spelling error. That's exactly why I put that "sic" in... :-) BTW, I hear you are studying with Trudgill? Lukas (T.|@) 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought sic was used when there was a spelling mistake that should be acknowledged. However I just read the article and I see its for "unusual" spellings too. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, good, so you wouldn't mind if we put it back in? - I'd seen a reference to your essay somewhere and gave it a cursory look the other day. Certainly looks like a nice piece of work - good to have some linguistics-savvy people around here. And I'm glad to hear you liked Trudgill as a teacher - we are currently planning to get him as a visiting professor at our place some time next year. Lukas (T.|@) 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, no problem :) Btw, I highly recommend Trudgill (in case you hadn't got that before) :) - FrancisTyers 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering...[edit]

... have you ever considered writing from a neutral point of view? I bet I just exposed myself (which option at #Reply is true). Telex 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Francis[edit]

Just a heads up, no conflicts or problems. It appears that anon, aka Btar, is now editing Tourette syndrome as Karmak. Hope all is well with you! Sandy 08:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My bad! :p —Khoikhoi 09:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, no worries. I really gotta get some sleep, sayonara. Oh yeah, someone should add "Japanese nationalist" - the Rape of Nanjing was more than an 'incident', and Japanese soldiers did use women from Korea as confort women during WWII. —Khoikhoi 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I didn't know you spoke Welsh... Telex 16:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, you are crediting the Serb nationalist line to Holy, when it was me [1]. Telex 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cut and paste moves are wrong. Telex 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have any idea why people always calling me a nationalist, when I am a cosmopolitan [2]). User:HolyRomanEmperor a fellow self-described cosmopolitan (on his userpage) gets the same thing [3]. I guess it's something we cosmopolitans will just have to live with :-( Telex 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find thy reply offensive. Unlike thee (which evidently hast thine own agenda) I strive for NPOV, on all Wikipedias my linguistic knowledge enables me to. Telex 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW see this version. Telex 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite - I am and always have been neutral on all issues. I also think this discussion in broken Welsh over at cywiki should end, as we've had this discussion countless times in English over here (and we know we're not going to agree - your agenda won't let you see what truly is neutral). Telex 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do have Welsh friends there ask them how my Welsh is? I cannot tell you if I'm a native speaker or not - I could be, I'm a cosmopolitan. Personally, my favorite version was [4]. Telex 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, while you're at it, get a Welsh translation for my userpage. Telex 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, if you like the version with the many languages - do say so here giving your reasons (I'd like to have Arvanitika, Aromanian, Bulgarian, Turkish etc names at Portal:Greece, but we don't know them - we only know the foreign abstand languages, not the local dialects). Telex 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you're missing the point (see Portal:Greece). I don't think that it's fair to say that Pomak is the same as Bulgarian, nor that Arvanitika is the same as Albanian. For all I know, in Arvanitika, Greece could be "Hellas", not Greqi. The languages you are talking about in R. Macedonia are officially recognised and have a standard form in that country (for official publications). In the case of the officially denied language in Greece, names could vary from dialect to dialect. Telex 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone e-mailed you, though? :-)[edit]

Francis, the situation in R. Macedonia is that Albanian is official only in the Albanian municipalties. That is similar, as Aldux said in the talk about the portal, like South Tyrol in Italy. There, the German language is official, but that is not a reason the German langauge to be used in such similar cases as this. Therefore, I think this is unnecessary. Still, Albanian is official in Albania for the level you refer to. Regards, Bomac 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Albanian is also spoken in the national parliament in Shkupi. Telex 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only by the Albanian politicians. Bomac 18:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's because I'm a cosmopolitan (just like Telex) and I think that all South Slavic languages are mutually intelligible. How's that? :-) Bomac 19:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's mainly 'caus I come from Macedonia. You can see all the South-Slavic languages in that MK if you want. But, not in that N (native), because I really have difiiculties with Bulgarian or Serbian synthax (or sentence construction). Not to mention the words I hardly understand and look weird to me. Bomac 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eastern group of South Slavic languages, not just South. And I presume Pontic Greek would look much weirder to you if you were Greek... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. But my user page esthetical-impact is a bit of ruined... :-) Bomac 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but Montenegrin and Bosnian are not included in SH. And SH does not makes any difference. Bomac 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, yes... Done that too. Bomac 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what are you waiting for, will you re-add ,,only Macedonia" or that word is a HEAVILLY big problem? ;-) Bomac 10:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for assistance[edit]

Could you please check out a dispute I am involved in on the article Montgomery Academy. An anonymous editor has an issue with stating that the school was founded as the result of desegregation. While other editors examined the issue and said the article was balanced and provided references, to be safe I added even more references to support the article (including an article in a respected newspaper quoting the school's current headmaster as saying the school was formed b/c of desegregation). I have repeatedly asked this anonymous editor to provide a reference, any reference, to back up her claims but she says she can't do that. Despite this, she keeps changing the article and arguing on the talk page and has caused another editor to say this must be taken to mediation. Could you check out the issue and state what you see? In my opinion it is not reasonable to ask for mediation when one editor won't even abide by the most basic tenets of Wikipedia (no original research and provide references). Obviously I'm frustrated so any assistance you can provide would be welcome. Thanks.--Alabamaboy 21:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to self, do not edit late at night when sleepy[edit]

Hey dude, sorry for mixing up the intent for the nationalist page. Still a cool page though! Later. Tombseye 02:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Francis[edit]

Hi, I know we have our differences, but I wanted to say I appreciate your general command in articles and resources. I also like your efforts against nationalistic approach. I hope we can work together to improve the articles.

By the way, about that Denmark issue we had, I personally don't support the restriction of mother-tongue broadcasts, in Turkey we have lots of ethnicities and it's a richness. I lived in the Netherlands for 5.5 years and I know how one misses to hear his/her own language. It's something good that it's been corrected nowadays in Turkey.

However it's stated in our media that Roj TV is actually broadcasting materials supporting PKK actions, mentioning killed terrorists as martyrs, inciting violent demonstrations etc, which is a strong debacle now in Turkey. That's why Turkish public in general is not happy with Denmark nor Roj. I hope my position is clear. Cheers --Gokhan 12:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell Francis how it is corrected too. How the TRT (the Turkish BBC- I wish it could be as good as) channel broadcasts only for an hour a week to the more then 20 million Kurds of 70 Million Turkey. How in other channels Kurdish politicians STILL cannot speak Kurdish. Before looking at what ROJ TV is broadcasting check out Flash TV, Mesaj TV and so on... The Turkish God TVs with some political point of views. That is where the problem is. The solution is that everyone should have the freedom to broadcast that's why I don't watch TV and go online. Anyways, thanks for the warm welcome Francis. Ozgur Gerilla 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ozgur, nobody says the problem is totally corrected. However it is being worked on, which is better than nothing. I hope you'll stop supporting that bloody terrorist organization called PKK by the way. More bloodshed won't bring more freedom - that's for sure.
Francis, you're right about Roj, I didn't watch myself, also cannot because I don't speak the language. But someday I would like to learn and understand. Anyway until that day, I'll try to find more sources :) Cheers. --Gokhan 17:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Wp Admin[edit]

Hello! I hope you're well; I'm on a wikibreak of sorts ... ha! But thank you for your praise and request: I appreciate it! I've been similarly encouraged by others to become a Wp Administrator.

However, I respectfully decline to an RfAdmin or to become an Admin at this time. I feel that my current level of activity would not be helped or hindered by becoming an Admin. I may reconsider this at some later date (and one of the advocates I mentioned wants to nominate me later), but I'm not ambitious – or perhaps foolish? ;) – enough to pass that bar just yet.

Please let me know if you've any questions; thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Francis, I would like to thank you for the warm welcome message. The links on the Welcome section are also very useful. Thanks and take care. Ozgur Gerilla 23:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I totally agree with what you said here User talk:Gokhan#PKK. The is a unique problem with the Turkish media, a problem that is restricting different cultures & minds to be broadcast. I think you should watch Roj TV yourself. Ozgur Gerilla 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you checked the Roj TV link? It's an external link where you can watch the channel but it's closed now :) Ozgur Gerilla 00:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hehe, nice image in Portal talk:Greece:)...(and as u said, totally irrelevant to the greeks) the examples that u used, fit in the respective people and countries, and in most of them i agree with. but u (me and all the rest) should have in mind that we cannot judge everything according to something that may or may not look like it. i will answer to what u've said in the same order, one by one (by speaking about the aromanians in greece):

  1. i have never heard of this guy, neither in greece nor on the net. are u 100% sure that he was arrested or 100% sure about the reason that he was arrested? would i be left untouched in the UK (i won't use France as an example) if i would be seen throwing leaflets against your Queen or government or talking about separation of Scotland, N. Ireland, Wales? or about giving the Fawklants to Argentina? maybe the cases are not similar, but stupid laws (that give to a government the "right" to arrest someone) exist everywhere. (I know some stupid english laws as well). and again: maybe that guy was arrested for another reason.
  2. maybe u did not understand what i said before: the aromanians are bilingual. we speak greek and aromanian since childhood. (make a relevancy with your dialect-guess u have one, and that u are not from London-and standard british english. u would never adress to a court using a dialect, but only in standard english. moreover, the aromanian language never had a written form (as it derived from Vulgar Latin, after its usage by greek-speaking people). this is why the vlachs in greece have always been bilingual, this is why they have always considered themselves greeks, and this is why their language consists by 40% greek words.
  3. i know Ozal (he died the day Mitsotakis-the worst bad-luck-giver ever) visited him):). he denied his origins. turkey wants to assimilate the kurds. as i said above (and u did not comment on that) the former greek president told the aromanians to use their language as much as they can!Karolos Papoulias had taken part in the anual meeting of the aromanians on 1995 (i had personally see him-he was minister of foreign affairs that time). is it so hard to believe that the aromanians are just like the cretans or the peloponneseans?
  4. the kurds have many differences with the turks. any attempt to make the aromanians seem as distinct from the rest of the greeks, has no gravity. the only difference is the 2nd mother tangue that we have. that's all, and nothing more...furthermore, the aromanians never demanded anything different from the other greeks. and in no case in history were we against the rest of the greeks. there was never a civil unrest, war, rebelion concerning them.
  5. what u probably do not know, is that the organisations of the aromanians in greece and in the greek dispora, asked from the Council of Europe (supervisor of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages) to stop trying to present the aromanians as a non-greek minority. we do not want a minority status for our 2nd language. to your information, it is not a language like english or greek. as a speaker of it and as a student of greek and latin literature and linguistics, i can tell u that it is a latin idiom, developed for a commerce usage, in a period when latin was the official language of the area (up till 7th cent.), with no written form, no writers or poets (all the aromanians poets have always used greek), no personal or place names, no ecclesiastical definitions, with 40% greek words (without counting prepositions, articles (remember that latin has no articles!), word endings-i cannot remember how they are called:)...)...

hope i helped u understand. if not, the whole internet is waiting for u to figure that out. and if u get confused, maybe visit greece once more to assure yourself:)--Hectorian 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Babysitting required[edit]

Salut, we need babysitting over at Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). The discussion has really gone off topic (renaming the article) due to the fact that Bomac has been bluffing about what Krste Misirkov is alleged to have said (it's not his fault, that's what they are taught in Skopje). Could you help? Telex 18:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Macedonia[edit]

Sure; on p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7), the entry for Macedonia (typically one country per page, sometimes more) indicates the following uptop:

  • Official name1: Republika Makedonija (Republic of Macedonia).
  • Official languages²: Macedonian; Albanian.

The footnote(s) below indicate the following:

  • 1 Member of the United Nations under the name The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ² Albanian was made an official language in June 2002. . . .

which is verbatim the note I added to the infobox, with other content since embellished.

Given recent goings-on, I've included the first note regarding the name too. :) I can scan the page if you wish; please let me know if you've any questions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that; it's helpful. I'm all for massaging relevant notations, but not nixing the note I added, as it's cited; perhaps a link to the information you've provided can be included as well. I'm remiss to get into a pissing match over including information that is easily verifiable. Thoughts? Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. Relatedly, user blocks are regrettable but sometimes necessary. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What are we going to do about Vlatko. Should I report him for violating the 3RR or will you block him now? Telex 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I've reported him. Telex 00:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the revision history of Blagoevgrad Province to see the kind of things he does ;-) Telex 00:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you should ask User:Bet 0 about the Ohrid Agreement - he should know. Telex 00:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ganeshk violates 3RR[edit]

This user has begun a unnecessary revert war in Ajith. He first fiddled with the salary figures for the actor changing them from 35 million to 3.5 million (35 lakhs). Then he removed the nickname and supporting links without a pretense of a discussion. He has already reverted the article twice today. Now he is threatening to block me citing 3RR when I try to undo his vandalisms. Please restrain him Anwar saadat 00:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user has blanked links to songs to copyright-free IPRS licensed websites. This user has violated 3RR - 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert. Please block him and undo his changes to this version. Anwar saadat 11:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't even bother to look, only one of these is a revert. Lukas (T.|@) 11:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Again[edit]

As you should have understood what is written in the ohrid agreemend. It is said that only the macedonian is official and other languages only regulated by law. As no other language is regulated by law as an official, it is only the macedonian. How can u confuse the day and the night, hahahahaha! Vlatko 03:04, 07 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What is this supposed to mean? Telex 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at my observations at User talk:Makedonia. Even if their nationalistic estimates on the ethnic composition of Greek Macedonia are accurate (280,000 - extremely doubtful), in this hypothetical "United Macedonia", the largest ethnic group would be Greeks - so it would be anything but a "Macedonian nation state and homeland", but rather a multiethnic Yugoslavia with the Greeks dominating politics, which would eventually end up fragmentating. Why do they want it then? I very much doubt they'd "expulse" the Greek population like they allege the Greek authorities did to the ethnicity which hadn't yet been invented at the time the alleged incident took place, and get away with it. Milošević tried tricks like that - didn't work. Telex 15:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should I even bother trying moving it back? BTW there's a little note that need answering at talk. Telex 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tell me, in your opinion, what do you think my word'll carry more weight as, an Arvanite or as an Albanian (so I know what to claim to be). You can find a rather accurate contrast in the Greece section of this article. Which group would you trust more? Telex 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See this article which says the following: Aromanians (Vlachs) and Arberor (Arvanites) refuse to join forces with Macedonians (and Turks) to enable Greece, like all other EU countries, to get a national office of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. Now do you believe that Arvanites and Aromanians don't want minority rights - I think I and Hectorian have proved that already though. Telex 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I think you should include all south easern Europeans in the partisan group. Last time there was a vote, Bitola/MatriX spammed all the pages of the former Yugoslavia and Turkey with a link to the poll, eg [5], [6], [7]. Telex 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, include Canada!! (I posted a comment in the lang-talk about the map. Please reply, as it needs some time to be prepared...) NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't know that non-ethnic Greek could have their citizenship withdrawn? It's from your own amnesty international source [8]. Telex 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El kondor pada[edit]

The article was originally deleted because nobody can come up with references claiming its notability. The article, rewritten or not, is still unsourced. nobody has proven the article's notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Francis, could you help me on Bitola, as MatriX has reverted my edits on the ground that they are unsourced [9] when I had cited sources (the only sources). Could you please do something. Telex 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, before making any conclusions, bear in mind that there was an extensive edit war about this article that was resolved by reaching a compromise solution (see the talk page of the article) that was disrupted today by Telex. MatriX 20:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thing, can you please take a look at the Macedonians (ethnic group)? I tried to make some really constructive edits (see the talk page) but now I'm reverted without even discussing it on the talk page (I'm really tired by these Greek users who think they can do everything just because are more in number then us)MatriX 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On Macedonians (ethnic group) you made a massive unilateral edit eliminating weeks of other people's work and replacing it with your POV and expect us to accept it? I tread on eggshells everytime I want to modify that artice. You need consensus (or at least I do when I want to change something - are you an exception?) Telex 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't I cite Von Hahn and Ami Boué and present their opinions on the etymology of the name Bitola (I even gave book and page), and you call it unsourced? Propaganda has it's limits - what sources have you cited? Nothing. Telex 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about now? Telex 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello- What is a rationale? Can someone direct me to it so I can post a link? (Knottykid 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

He reverted again (from a sourced version to an unsourced version) - what do I do? If you don't believe me, click here (you need Gmail access). Telex 22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have nothing against the real facts. I will readd that info now.MatriX 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come on Fran, didn't you have time to check those "sources" yet? (...and then they blame people for instantly reverting them at sight...)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, how are you? I hope we understood the mestake we have made regarding to Macedonia's official language(s). OK, this is mine POV and strong posision: The ohrid agreement was deliverd in 2001 as a document througt wich the state should transform in the next four year.Its implementation is an clone image of what the agreement is. OK to the "official language", througt the implementation of the agreement there were brought several laws as the law of the languages, Only the macedonian finished as official on the entire teritory and in international relations the other minority languages were defined only as municipality languages. I expect an opinion from you soon. Vlatko 12:19, 09 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the constitution mentions Macedonian by name as the primary official language and states that any other language spoken by at least 20% of the total poplation is also official. It does not mention Albanian by name, but Albanian does fulful that requirement, hence is an official language at national level (Britannica confirms it). Telex 10:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it is written so as you say, but it sais if only defined by law, and there is no law i know that defines other language than macedonian to be official.

The ohrid agreement is only an agreement not to be confused with a law brought by the parlament, i Will repeat agin , we must diferentiate the agreement and its implementation, and throught the imlementation the albanian finished not as an official language, only the macedonian. Vlatko 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong, it states that Macedonian is an official language + any other language spoken by at least 20% of the total population. Telex 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right though, the Ohrid Agreement has not been fully carried out. The Ohrid Agreement stipulated that Albanian would be official in its own right and mentioned by name in the constitution, not that Albanian should have to derive its status as an official language (which it currently has) based on pure statistics. Telex 10:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it sais so in the agreement ,I agree with that, BUT can't you see the point I'm makeing.

Please make difference between the Ohrid agreement and its implementation, Throught the implementation changes were made and with the laws brought (regarding the ohrid agreement) none law defines the albanian as an official.Please regard only the official Constitutional documents. The agreement is an state level document but not and official, as changes can be made throught its implementation on mutual consensus between the sides. Albanian is still not 'STILL an official language of RoM.when it becomes as such than i will write the name of macedonia in albanian.Vlatko 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not quite, see the article 7 of the Constitution. It has been implemented into national law - if FYROM is violating its own constitution, that's not our problem. Anyway, doesn't Britannica's word carry any weight? Telex 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, this is article 7:

Article 7 (1) The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language throughout the Republic of Macedonia and in the international relations of the Republic of Macedonia. (2) Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below. (3) Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian shall also be issued in that language, in addition to the Macedonian language, in accordance with the law. (4) Any person living in a unit of local self-government in which at least 20 percent of the population speaks an official language other than Macedonian may use any official language to communicate with the regional office of the central government with responsibility for that municipality; such an office shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian. Any person may use any official language to communicate with a main office of the central government, which shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian. (5) In the organs of the Republic of Macedonia, any official language other than Macedonian may be used in accordance with the law. (6) In the units of local self-government where at least 20 percent of the population speaks a particular language, that language and its alphabet shall be used as an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and the Cyrillic alphabet. With respect to languages spoken by less than 20 percent of the population of a unit of local self-government, the local authorities shall decide on their use in public bodies.

see the bolded words in paragraph (2): easy, none has yet been defined by law. in paragraph (1) it clearly written.READ And MAcedonia it's not going contradictory to it self. DEFINED BY LAW the constitution explains it. Please talk to someone who understands and than take some POV. thanx. TVlatko 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The constitution says that any such language "is also an official language" (it uses those words); the fact that its usage is limited does not change the fact that the constitution designates it an official language. "Official language" does not have to mean equal to Macedonian, you like you seem to be thinking. Telex 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanx beeing so polite, I'm sory but i must write this.

Please do not discus with me about nothin else, cose i see that the entire time you only implicate, i tried to convince you, that you are wrong.But I could not. I regard my self as a realistic and rational individua. You are wrong about the language but haveing strong unbreakable POV makes you oinly a problem maker. I INVENTED NOT THE OHRID AGREEMENT, THE MACEDONIAN CONSTITUTON AND LAWS OF. thanx Vlatko 13:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats definately proof that writing in capital letters makes your argument more effective. - FrancisTyers 11:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanx for yor ironic agree, still hope you understood the writtem above.Vlatko 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So which is the current constitution of the country, where do we find the text? The Ohrid Agreement [10] introduces amendments to the constitution. Have these amendments been adopted? Politis 12:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MA mediation[edit]

Thanks again for mediating on the Montgomery Academy article. As I said, your compromise language works fine for me. I hope I haven't been too "recalcitrant" on all of this--the situation was frustrating to me but I think a better article has come out of the process. Any thoughts on what the next step will be? I'm refraining from responding to the anonymous editor b/c, honestly, I don't know what to say to someone who hates an article but won't work to improve it. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, even if the anonymous editor won't contribute to the article and the mediation stalls, can you go ahead an make the changes with regards to the compromise language? I think this language improves the article and should be made.--Alabamaboy 13:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your note. I didn't see your message until after I saw the anonymous editor's changes but, as you will see, I didn't revert things. She made some good edits and I edited her version in an attempt to create a consensus version. I have left a message on the article' talk page to this effect. However, please note that if I had seen your note before doing this I would have instead raised the changes on the article's talk page. I hope this doesn't cause a problem b/c that wasn't my intention.--Alabamaboy 14:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought we were near consensus on the article but in light of the anonymous editor's recent comments I don't think that will happen. I personally don't want to keep going round and round on this with her. Any suggestion on what should be done next?--Alabamaboy 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit depressed about how the mediation is going. As I've said, I feel that almost all of the anonymous editor's issues, and all of her major issues, have been addressed. If she truly feels that we are back to "step one" then I would prefer to revert the article to its original version and let all of this go to official arbitration. I strongly feel, though, that the one statement I added back to Dystopos's version (a statement which was compromise language first suggested by you) must be kept in. Otherwise I didn't change anything significant over what Dystopos wrote. I think, though, that the anonymous editor won't be satisfied until any direct reference to desegregation is removed. Any thoughts on what to do next?--Alabamaboy 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we can't reach agreement shortly then I want this to go to a RfC b/c I'm tired of going around and around on this. With an RfC there would be some finality. Perhaps we can give this until tomorrow. If there's no agreement by then, then I will set up the RfC (and I'd prefer to be the one to do it, if you don't mind). Best, --Alabamaboy 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After thinking about this, I just don't feel able to deal with this issue much more. I am so disgusted with how this process has gone. I've compromised over and over to address the anonymous editor's concerns, have supported the removal of valid references and information, all to try and address her concerns and I don't see a similar willingness to compromise on her part. Will an RfC really do anything to help all of this? I strongly doubt it. Anyway, let's see what happens over the next day before going any further.--Alabamaboy 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all your help. And I thought mediating the Ku Klux Klan article had been hard--this one takes the cake. Excellent work. --Alabamaboy 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sudanese lit[edit]

I'd suggest checking out Leila Aboulela [11] and [12], the book From the 'peripheries': periscoping the romantic trend in Sudanese fiction by Oladosu Afis A. (if you can find it), Anthology of modern Sudanese poetry edited by Osman Hassan Ahmed (again, if you can find it), and this excellent PDF THE ARABIC WRITINGS OF EASTERN SUDANIC AFRICA AN OVERVIEW (possibly the best overall history of early Sudanese literature available over the web). I hope some of this helps.--Alabamaboy 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trade unions of ****[edit]

Hi Francis. A couple months ago you commented on a proposal to change Category:****ian trade unions to Category:Trade unions in ****. [13]. At the time there was no consensus for a decision, so I re-started the discussion at WikiProject Organized Labour. If you have a moment, your input would be appreciated. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 21:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to WP:SPACE![edit]

Hi FrancisTyers, thanks for joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization! Have fun with it.

No problem :) - FrancisTyers 17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Human rights in Turkey[edit]

Hi, could you give a hand over at Human rights in Turkey. Some guy is revert warring and has probably violated the 3RR a few times, but has a fast changing dynamic IP. Telex 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done Francis (for subprotecting the article)! BTW, I wonder whose that fast changing dynamic IP is... --Hectorian 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah!:) but, lucky Sherlock Holmes, when he had already solved an enigma, he didn't have to face it in the future... --Hectorian 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, Hectorian, Telex, Khoikhoi are the ones who started reverting war. They are disputing the fact that the PKK is a terrorist group. They are against putting things into perspective: That's stating the fact that PKK is a terrorist group. I believe otherwise the article lacks the proper context and misleads the reader. In case you're not familiar with this issue: PKK is a terrorist organization as recognized by the US, UK, European Union, Canada, Australia, Russia, China, actually it's difficult to point a state denying it. By the way, the story about changing dynamic IP is a lie. You can check the history. Best regards. Anonymous users who'll get an account soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:14, 10 May 2006

Thanks for protecting the page, Francis. I'm pretty sure pages are supposed to be fully-protected in content disputes, however. —Khoikhoi 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, I think we can stick with the protection for now. ;) —Khoikhoi 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Francis, I'm writing this to get some help or advice on what to do with some intolerant Turkish ultra-nationalist users I've spotted editing Kurdish related articles and turning each on of them into Turkish propagandas. I would like to give you a few examples, User:Hatusli keeps writting this line "by many considered a terrorist organization." on the main section of the Aptullah Ocalan article. I think that is just labelling and not giving facts; Ocalan by manyis considered a freedom fighter and many others a Terrorist. The thing is the line continues with "Öcalan himself has been labelled a terrorist by several states and international organizations such as the United States, European Union, Turkey, Syria, Canada, Iran and Australia" which is a fact. I don't understand why they need to put the first line which is an opinion. Secondly, in User:Hatuslis talk page there is a strange thing going on. A few Turkish nationalists are working together to change PKK and Kurdish related article to what they think. User:Denix has written this in User:Hatuslis talk page:

Wikipedia ile ilgili mesajınızı/eleştirilerinizi aldım, bunlara katılmakla beraber şunu belirtmek istiyorum, genellikle batılılar ve Amerikalılar tarafından yönetilen bir sitedeyiz, fazla bir şey beklememek lazım (her ne kadar "özgür ve fikirlere açık" bir yer olarak gösterilse de). Bazen yazılan makalelere bakıyorum, örneğin "Ardahan", bu benim memleketim, ama üzülerek görüyorum ki İngilizce Wikipedia'daki makaleye Türkçe telaffuzun yanına bir de Ermeni telaffuzu eklenmiş. Tarihi inkar etmiyorum ancak Ardahan artık Türk'tür ve Türk kalacaktır. "Vandalizm" diye adlandırılan bu tür olaylarla sık sık karşılaşıyorum, bu özellikle Kuzey Amerika'da yaşayan Ermeniler tarafından yapılıyor. Ve ne yazık ki bazıları Admin/Moderatör seviyesinde... --Denix

translates to:

I have received your message regarding Wikipedia. Agreeing to what you've stated I would like to add, that in majority we are a website manipulated bu the west and by Americans, thus one shouldn't expect much (even though it is represented as "open to freedom of speech"). Sometimes I look at articles, for example "Ardahan", this is my home district, and sadly I see that in the English Wikipedia articles next to the Turkish pronounciation the Armenian is added. I don't deny the history but Ardahan is now Turkish and will stay Turkish. I spot "Vandalism" very often, especially done by Armenians from North America. And sadly, some of those users are on Admin/Moderator level.

Also, the user TuzsuzDeliBekir said "..sayfaya Kurdish Terrorist yazılmasını engelliyorlar.." which translates to "In the article they are blocking as write Kurdish terrorist" regarding the Aptullah Olacak article.

Each time I explore a Kurdish related article I see Turkish users gathering to make Kurdish, Armenian related articles to what they think it is. Unfortunately I haven't got that much of time but I would like to contirbute to fix this problem. Could you please tell me on what can I do to complain about these users. Also is it possible to start a: WikiProject Kurds? Do you think it will be a good idea? Ozgur Gerilla 23:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info, the user User:Gokhan has committed a personal attack here. "I think you need to grow up and learn that". I'll try to do my best to start the project as soon as possible but for now I need to revise for my exams :) Thanks again. Ozgur Gerilla 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll let to know if he continues. Good Luck with all your work :) And do what ever you like with my userpage I don't mind. Ozgur Gerilla 00:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I'll peruse the article in a few days, if that's OK. At first blush, it resembles a glorified DAB page and is different (i.e., seems unfocused) from what I had in mind ... but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. :) Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central Asia[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to start some sort of working group to improve the coverage of Central Asia and related topics in Wikipedia. Leave a message on my userpage if you're interested. Aelfthrytha 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied at my usertalk. Aelfthrytha 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please explain what I did wrong converting references on Machine translation article? I noticed you reverted my changes. I followed User:Cyde/Ref converter instructions. Thank you. - Tutmosis 22:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry I did not notice that the refence issue has already been brought up on the talk page. I'm sorry if I caused any problems and I will be more careful next time when converting reference systems. - Tutmosis 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, you see this. Do you think you could put a few words behind it, so as to make the desired result more likely (you know that he can always be reblocked if something goes wrong). --Telex 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check your e-mail. Telex 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Technically I'm on a Wikibreak but a group of us are trying to the William_Shakespeare article included in the Wikipedia Article Improvement Drive. Since you have an interest in literature, perhaps you'd be interested in checking out the page and casting a vote. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Francis. I've found two duplicate articles of the same argument, a small Slavophone minority of Muslim religion present in Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey and possibly RoM. The articles in question are Pomaks and Muslim Bulgarians and must be merged under the title of the first or the second. All research I made tends to show that Pomaks is the name by which they are commonly known; in Google Book Search 1340 hits for Pomaks, and 30 hits for Muslim Bulgarians. I've already asked advice to Telex (User_talk:Telex/Archive1#Pomaks) but wanted to hear also your opinion. Ciao, --Aldux 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright help[edit]

Hey Francis,

Can I bug you again to help me figure out the copyright status of a picture I uploaded of Robert Schoenhof Weil?

I just got a message from Wikipedia saying the picture would be deleted after 7 days if I didn't clarify copyright status. I have no idea how this thing works. Verdad 20:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC) aka[reply]


I thought that maybe you'd be interested in this: [14] -- Karl Meier 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A late reply[edit]

First of all, sorry about my late reply, I've been touring Western Europe the past month. Why I have bg-1 on my user page? Well, that's the bg-level I can contribute in Wikipedia. While I seem to understand Bulgarian quite well, it's hard for me to write in standard Bulgarian. Same goes for Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian - I understand them perfectly, and I can contribute on them with more confidence, yet I have some trouble with cases. As for Macedonia (terminology), could you explain to me what are the points of contest? --FlavrSavr 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About "Why Macedonian is not..."[edit]

It's a great text. Really. I'm really not a linguist to give a real evaluation of it, but I think it summarizes the essence of the title "Why Macedonian is not Bulgarian". Are you familliar with Blaze Koneski's work? --FlavrSavr 23:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm kind of busy this period, so I can't provide a serious input to History of the Macedonian language. Lack of time is a real problem for me this year, as evidenced by my low participation in wiki-activities over here and on where I am a lowsy bureaucrat. I promise I'll show a better performance the following summer. Meanwhile, I'll generally leave it up to FunkyFly to present the Macedonians as nazi-collaborators and mould the Macedonian history at will. --FlavrSavr 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever you say my friend, whatever you say.  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Francis. Would you mind to have a look at Sumgait Massacre? We have the same sort of dispute as at Khojaly page, maybe you can help us reach consensus? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 10:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, could you please clean up the mess created at the intro of Azerbaijani people by all “citation needed” marks? was trying to make WP:POINT. I don’t want to break 3RR rule. Also maybe you can help to bring the intro in order, since you got involved in this article too? Grandmaster 12:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serious aesthetic POV push![edit]

Re this, I think mine was better, since the contemporary region map (even if unofficial) is more important to ancient/roman definitions -so it should be bigger-, plus the contradicting images of Μακεδονία and Македониа were exactly where they should be (politics section). Ofcourse, this is a matter of aesthetics, so feel free to disagree with my aesthetic POV! :-)

PS: That includes this attempt!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving to relevant talk...


Francis! Bother, if I had realised you were on the list I would have come to you directly. Some chap has come forward already. But to be honest I would still like your input, as I felt your proposals on the Armenian issue were quite fair. By the way, problems have flared up again there. This time I think it is some people really causing trouble than having any real grievances - other than that the article says the Armenians were treated badly! John Smith's 17:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be someone called Beland, though he didn't sign on the page. John Smith's 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he may be lurking, even if he isn't trying to edit much. John Smith's 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, for a start: "It goes further to describe how peasents with rakes search for the pilot, who is then evacuated with 37 chopters." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Human rights in PRC mediation[edit]

Hey man, User:John Smith says that you're doing the above mediation, mind if I join you? - FrancisTyers 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I'm not really mediating. I just happened to notice the posting, and decided to get involved in editing the article myself, since I'm interested in the topic and it sounded like more outside opinions were needed. Any help you could give would be quite welcome. -- Beland 01:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you could help...[edit]

Hi there. Looking at this, I'd say that User:PIO and User:Jxy are the same person. Which means that some sock puppetry is involved here and some blocking should be done. But, as I've just had a rather intense discussion on WP:SOCK talk page regarding the policy, I'm distancing myself from dealing with sock puppets for a week or so and would like to ask you to do something with this guy. If you feel like it. If not, I'll ask another admin. Thanks in advance. --Dijxtra 10:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Bestial is not an appropriate adjective about massacres of children in Bleiburg and foibe? May you help me in this research of an adjective? Tag is not a problem, historic false is the problem! Broz and communists were first partisans, are you sure? My sources mention Mihailovic and royalist Serbs as first partisans! I propose my version in my edit but many informations of article are not accurate!--PIO 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I and Jxy are two damned friends who use the same damned computer! Take it easy! Ciao, --PIO 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Principles and Parameters Update[edit]

Hi there... I finally got around to cleaning up the Principles and Parameters page. I think it is much improved. Feel free to let me know your thoughts. Cheers, Tyrell turing 19:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Hi Francis. Sorry for disturbing you, but could you please pay an attention to the actions of anonymous User: once again? He’s engaged in trolling. He created a userbox that calls for incorporation of Azerbaijan into Iran and keeps adding it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Azeri page. Could you please explain to him that such actions are not appropriate at Wikipedia? I tried, but with no success. Grandmaster 12:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus for who. Read my user page. I am a member of that page and I want that user box there. They have a userbox that only one person uses on it!!! Look at the lame excuses he gave me. Look at the discussion between user:Grandmaster and Telex. I am sorry, but I want to deal with another administrator. DSo not take this the wrong way, but you are a little to cushy with these two users. They can not silence dissending voices. And when it comes to a project page it is a whole new ball game. I can even prove that user:Grandmaster is insincer and gaming the system and manipulating the administration. Also please warn user:Grandmaster about his threats.

ALso look at him in regards to the rules.

I am not trolling[edit]

This is outrageous. How much longer are these users going to be allowed to treat other editos and members like this or gang up on them. Look at their outlandish claims. I am sorry but that userbox is good.

Your coursework[edit]

Hi, Francis, I've been reading through your coursework, and I think it's biased. Why (amongst others) do you say in the footnote that the usage of the name Republic of Macedonia is controversial, "fortunately" only in Greece? Also, on a more interesting subject, you are quoting Tomić and he says that the phrase I have read the book in Albanian is

  • u am güvusitä karta.

I can't understand that phrase. As far as I know, in standard Albanian, that phrase is:

  • unë kam lexuar librin.

In Arvanitika, it's almost identical:

  • u kam lexuar librin.

So, what is it supposed to be, does he say? --Telex 13:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you didn't use an example from Greek. The above phrase in Greek is:
  • Εγώ έχω διαβάσει το βιβλίο - Ego echo diabasei to biblio.
As you can see, it is also formed in the same way, and the only deviant from the Balkan sprachbund is that the singular accusative neuter definite article is not postfixed, but is placed before the singular accusative neuter noun. --Telex 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the Greek example the same one I gave? BTW do you linguists know which is the most grammatically complex language, yet? --Telex 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her Greek translation has a typo. She seems to have been trying to say to e(c)ho diabasi to biblio - το έχω διαβάσει το βιβλίο, which is a different (and more complex) way of saying it. Note the Greek letter Χ - χ can be transliterated either h, ch or kh, so don't think that's a difference. --Telex 14:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, if we're going to be using clitics, then the Albanian is
  • (unë) e kam lexuar librin - IPA [(un) e kam le'dzuar li'brin]
And the Greek is:
  • (εγώ) το έχω διαβάσει το βιβλίο - IPA [(e'γo) to 'exo ðia'vasi to viv'lio] (the one Tomić used)
The personal pronouns are not necessarily needed (like in Italian and Spanish) and the above, which correspond word-to-word translate as:
  • I it have read the book.
--Telex 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your revert at the Macedonian language[edit]

How do you mean my contribution doesn't make sense? All I did was grammatical corrections and only one change in the first paragraph. MatriX 14:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Come on, if we consider the meaning of the disputed sentence, you will see that the only difference is that I prefixed the sentence with the word Big (with no hidden intentions at all). Of course that amount of Slavic population that came in this region was big because they stayed here till recent times. Why should I provide you sources for something that is obvious? What I’m angry the most is that you deleted all other grammatical corrections made by me (like conquerors->conquerors, neigboring ->neighbouring etc). Couldn’t you just revert the sentence that was written in bad style as you are claiming? Or you are still seeing everything I’m doing here on WP as nationalistic (leaving in the same time some really offensive things like the derogative language at the Macedonian (terminology) for example)? MatriX 14:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, sorry for being a little bit nervous, but I was really unpleasantly surprised when I opened Macedonian language and saw all my edits reverted (I hate being reverted:)). I know that you are valuable editor of the Macedonian articles. About the arrival of Slavs, I still stay at my opinion that they came here in big amount because they succeeded to populate many areas of the Balkans permanently, to siege many Byzantium towns, castles and villages etc (I don’t have info about the real numbers, maybe nobody knows it). About the use of derogative terms in the terminology article, by my opinion they aren’t appropriate there, but if the majority of the editors find them good (I hadn’t time to check who inserted them at all) then maybe we could leave them. MatriX 15:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The collapse of Yugoslavia and the future prospects of the Macedonian literary language[edit]

Have you checked this one out? [15] (I copied the title and I'm to lazy to lowercase it, in case you're thinking I'm shouting). I must admit, this site does have a lot of partisan articles, but it also has quite a lot relevant documents.  /FunkyFly.talk_   21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, the respected Kronsteiner, nobody understands the Bulgarian language better than him! --FlavrSavr 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting development. There are political figures in Bulgaria advocating the latin alphabet too.  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Francis. There's a vandalism problem in Talk:Ancient Macedonian language. I removed an anon's edit which contained a clear personal attack as per WP:NPA, and now the anon keeps restoring it and removing my own edits for no reason (which falls under simple vandalism). Miskin 23:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, he played it tough in the beginning but he finally decided to follow the rules. He rewrote his edit in a civil manner, though his edit-summary contained another attack, this time directly only to me. Miskin 23:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek language[edit]

Hi, Francis, do you think that when you finish with the "Macedonian" language, you could focus on the Greek language. I've long thought that article's a mess, and needs restructuring. --Telex 14:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just saw this. If you two want to work on this, count me in. I think the whole set of Greek language related articles could do with a revirement. It seems someone had once envisaged a reasonably consistent scheme, which then got mixed up because of confusion over whether the term "Greek" in an article title should by default refer to Modern Greek or Ancient Greek or both. There seem to be lots of inconsistencies now in how the topic is carved up into subarticles. Fut.Perf. 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I can help. Will you let me? Mr.EditConflict

Satisfied? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought you might be interested[edit]

I will RfA today concerning all the things that have been happening in the Armenian Genocide article and its talk page for the last few months and the people involved and I thought you would want to give your input about it as a thrid party. Fad (ix) 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need your feedback about this. [16] I know it is not proper RfA filling text, but with all the things there are to be said, I really don't know what to include there, I included many things that might sound unrelated, but like I said, I don't know what to exclude or include, right now I just want the RfA to pass even though it isen't complete or there are things that should not have been there. Fad (ix) 21:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made some changes. Fad (ix) 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go look at the discussion page on Azari[edit]

I have brought the sources used from other Wiki page(s). It is what you asked for and I added it into the article. WHat do you think? Fair. I don't want them deleting it and making more excuses so please take a look before their is another edit war.

Please go look at my last edits and tell me if they are correct[edit]

Go to both talk: Music of Azarbaijan and the actual article. ALso please look at the edit history for the article. This is what has me worked up. There is proof there that user:Grandmaster is not editing correctly. See what he states in the edit history. It is a short edit history and so is the little article. Please look and get back to me becuase I do not want an edit war where it is him and his friends vs. me.

SOrry I just noticed something[edit]

You know what user:Grandmaster was delete my work saying citations were needed but all the sections claiming Azaris are Turks needed citations for a very long period of time now and he never bothered to give verfications is this not double standards? Take a look at the article. This is outrageous I just realized it.

Re:Dear Macedonians[edit]

Hi, Francis.

I'll see what I can do, I'm rather busy nowadays... :-) Bomac 08:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curiously, why is it "heteronomous" since the Greek word for it is "heteronymous" (ετερόνυμος), like "homonymous" rather than "homonomous", and "polyonymous" rather than "polyonomous"?... Got it, it's heteronomous vs autonomous, the root being nomos (law), rather than onoma (name)... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

done:) MatriX 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category Deletion[edit]

Please visit [17] and weigh in!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can We Have verificaion for the claims that Azaris are ethnically Turkic too, please[edit]

Can the same formula be applied for Turkic claims as was for Iranian ethnicity?! The same formula; peer-reviewed, reliable sources that state that "Azerbaijanis are racially Turkic". Giving the citation, a link, and information to support the assertion. The claims that Azaris are Turkic never were varified and were on the article for ages, while the links to Iranians was verified.

I dunno - Britannica calls them a "Turkic people", and lists the only criterion as speaking a Tukic language. On a different issue altogether, your using "race" to define ethnicity is sufficient to exclude you from Wikipedia. --Telex 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NO well he made claims that are more specific and need verification. They re also long standing. Turkic-speaking people only means Turkic speaking. Look at the article. He made sure anything having to do with Azari's Iranian links was verified now the same has to be done with the long standing citations of the Azari's Turkic background outside language. Turkic speaking does not provide verifications for the ancestry claims made. It was actually very hypocritical to ask for verification for my edits when the older ones were still not verified in relations to the Azaris Turkic ancestry. Britanicca does not verify these claims at all.
Remember what your user pages says; Warning! Inflammatory nationalist rhetoric may be removed at any time without notification. I only want a truthful article not one that is based on political claims and nationlistic falsehoods.


You know, one day, I decided to open an account and edit mkwiki. It was nice at first, I made the article on "Aegean" Macedonia more neutral, for example, I added the fact that it can also be called "Greek Macedonia", I replaced the old FYROM flag (which I have no idea why it was there in the first place - it even had a caption saying "the national flag of the Macedonian people"), with the flag of Greek Macedonia and the Greek Macedonians (and said so in the caption accordingly), and I even referred to the place as a province of Greece and mentioned the irredentist ambitions Macedonian Slav nationalists have against the predominantly Greek populated province. Well, I was reverted by a user who amongst numerous personal attacks in the edit summary, he screamed DEATH TO GREEKS. I feel upset now :-( --Telex 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are simply discovering the open mindedness of our Macedonian colleagues. Ready to fight to the death for the cause as usual. I love those guys...  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, he also called me an idiot. I guess his (User:Makedonec), nationalistic username is hard to reconcile with his statement that he hates nationalism. --Telex 15:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't you try to check en:wiki too? When your house is full of shit, you don't need to claim your neighbour is a sewer! Check this fine version of the dab page Macedonia. (It will remind Francis of the talk we had in Talk:Macedonia (terminology) about the region being the one we have described...) One more nice version  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you please look at this case, it was skipped for some reason. Thanks.  /FunkyFly.talk_   18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry to interrupt, but I think you should see this: Macedonia. (if you like, ofcourse). Regards, Bomac 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I advice you vandalism and personal attack of user Zivan56: you can see here [18]! My rollback after vandalism because my share is certainlly NPOV! This user is against me and i consider him a vandal! Needs block for him!--PIO 18:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your block[edit]

Hi, I expected your respond yesterday. Well I think that as an administrator it is you obligation :), but you know the best. I'll wait..--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vlakto, see WP:SIG - I think you're in violation of it. --Telex 21:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What do you think of this little issue we have here?  /FunkyFly.talk_   01:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do read this [19]. There was a consensus version of this article worked out by Modi, VMORO and me, until Funky step in, and destroyed it without citing any source for his edits, purely on the basis of original research and stubborn POVing (although, at some point he seemed to agree with the compromise version [20] ). This was done in numerous other articles concerning Macedonian history, one of them being Jane Sandanski. Please investigate the matter. Regards. --FlavrSavr 02:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With no sources? Like the BMARC statue does not say it clearly enough who can join? Consensus is not binding my friend administrator in, as facts are discovered things change. All the original research is actually putting labels such as Macedonian purely on the basis that the people were born in Macedonia. On the other hand there is historical evidence - documents of organizations and quotes, in which they refer to themselves as Bulgarian. See Macedonism.  /FunkyFly.talk_   02:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, you might want to add that to your CAPITALIZED collection.  /FunkyFly.talk_   02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find the passage "EVERY STUPID JERK CAN WRITE HIS OWN VERSION" particularly hilarious.  /FunkyFly.talk_   02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My capitalized collection? What the hell are you talking about? Anyway, I have no time to waste with you for now. The BMARC argument was used by VMORO as well, and if you cared to actually read some of the discussions, you might have realized that it wasn't particularly convincing, given the fact that many people who were definitely not Bulgarian were members of IMARO (btw, even the most radical Bulgarian nationalists use IMARO or IMRO, instead of italicized BMARC), such as Pitu Guli (an ethnic Vlach). The only difference is that you practically bullied your own POV into the articles, ignoring every other arguments, to the extent that you have brilliantly concluded that Pitu Guli was a Bulgarian. --FlavrSavr 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was talking to Francis about the capitalized note. He might be Aromanian, true but he is clearly part of a Bulgarian organization, whose statute says only Bulgarians can be members. So, you are claiming the statute did not matter, it was a piece of paper? If it was just a piece of paper then how can you claim it was aiming for the independence of Macedonia in the first place and not something else? Being selective again Mr. admin?  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The BMARC statute probably existed at some point, but it is only the Bulgarian POV that it covered the timespan between 1893 and 1902. There is also a SMARO constitution which is to be found in the British Foreign Office which is dated under 1898 - PRO. - FO 78/4951. Turkey (Bulgaria). From Elliot. 1898; УСТАВ НА ТМОРО. S.I. Moreover, as far as I know, modern neutral observers do not regard him as a Bulgarian, nor the IMARO (at its beginnings) as a Bulgarian organization, see Britannica: IMRO (not BMARC!) secret revolutionary society that operated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to make Macedonia an autonomous state but that later became an agent serving Bulgarian interests in Balkan politics. Notice the but part. However, I'll leave the best parts for some time in the future, I really don't have the time to funk with Stalin now. --FlavrSavr 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the other SMARO you are claiming, do you also have data who participated in that organization, was it the same people that signed the BMARC statute or were they different?  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name IMRO was not adopted before 1920. BMARC however was founded in 1893, its statute was adopted in 1896. Either way, the name of the organization initially contained Bulgarian. Aren't you being a little too selective with Britannica, since you are denying the 1911 census data? IMRO is the final name of the organization, which is common use in English, something Britannica forgets to mention somehow. SMORO (ТМОРО) was not established before 1902. Basically all the revolutionaries you claim as "Macedonian" spent most of their years under BMARC.  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to discuss the points surrounding this on an IRC or email enviorment w/o interference from 3rd parties... would you be interested? --Cat out 18:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I'm on right now. - FrancisTyers 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see you, whats your nick? --Cat out 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still waiting for that IRC convo... :) --Cat out 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could you see my new article United Macedonia and comment. Thanks. --Telex 22:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do have a pro-FYROM agenda, don't you. --Telex 23:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goce Delchev[edit]

Out of adminophobia, I will not dare to revert you, but can you please source your edit that Goce Delchev is an ethnic Macedonian?  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answered on my talk.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, that's not possible. The only sources are Macedonian nationalist websites (and earnest assertions by Macedonian Wikipedians). Check the talk page - Bomac was struggling to find a source (he even fabricated one), and failed. --Telex 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He did not fabricate it, it was from a novel.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yes, you are giving British 0-100 scores, I'm talking about American 0-100 scores and their correspondence with letter grades.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This, this and this (Canadian) should give you an idea.  /FunkyFly.talk_   00:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did that manage to convince you?  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Francis. I’m giving up on the article about Sumgait. The guys simply don’t want to listen and insist on using the Armenian source that has a strong bias. It’s enough to see the advertisement from the website of Zoryan institute, which compiled the book. For example, it says: These events marked the beginning of a premeditated plan to depopulate Azerbaijan of Armenians, and eventually of Russians and Jews. [21] For the record, there’s not single proof of the existence of such a plan and currently hundreds of thousands Russians and Jews live in Azerbaijan. It’s simply a lie. It’s obvious that the book they want to base their article on is a partisan source. So I’m leaving the discussion, because I see no reason in endlessly going around in circles, but I’m going to keep the disputed tag on the article until the article is brought in compliance with NPOV standards. Regards, Grandmaster 14:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, I don't think that you are helping this cases in anyway. If you pay attention, Grandmaster has edited this article twice. [22], and even defended it. When the title in the first place should not even exist. In history there are at least 6 march massacres known, and none have been recorded to have anything to do with Azeris.(I don't even cover the trash about Guba, which he buy) There are various articles in which Grandmaster participate in and which he 'guard' where such articles are tainted with POV and factual issue, I havn't seen you say anything about those. Just an example, pay a cloer look at the article about the History of Azerbaijan, read my notes. Do you see any references to each things they maintain? Grandmaster literaly nearly copypasted an Azeris nationalistic sites etymological crap about Nakhichevan, and has from the beggining used such tained sources and unless I suffer of amnesia I didn't see you saying anything about those. The quote he present from Zoryan website is recognized. Jews and Russians do face discrimination in Azerbaijan, and faced depopulation. But of course he is so centered to finger and fish any 'Armenian crime' either he isen't even aware of those or he believe Azeris to be culturaly superior to the rest of us mortals. Just for clarification, the Zoryan which he find so biased has unboard Taner Akçam the Turkish sociologist who happen to have Azeris Turk encestry. If for him sources like are credible, Zoryan is credible too. And Zoryan is not the publisher, it is the compilator of existing testimonies. How can you agree seriously with Grandmaster when the only thing Zoryan did is to compile existing depositions, and that Grandmaster is doing everything to get such depositions removed. Fad (ix) 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So many accusations, and none of them is true. I don’t even feel the need to respond. Just comment on one thing. The situation with Russians and Jews in Azerbaijan is very well known, check what the US state department says about it. [23] Azerbaijan is the only country besides Israel which has a compact Jewish settlement (in Guba). Azerbaijan maintains very friendly relations with Israel, and many famous Jews of Azerbaijani origin regularly come to Baku. Bella Davidovich, Yuli Gusman and Mstislav Rostropovich are just a few examples. And Russian president Putin stated more than ones that the rights of Russian people in Azerbaijan are protected better than anywhere else in the former USSR, including Baltic countries. So Zoryan lies, and Fadix tries to justify them. By the way, I just wanted to ask does MarshallBagramyan have a right to remove the tag that I added yesterday? Grandmaster 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! Azerbaijan had no such issues, and the US government publications represent the truth as much as the evidences about weapons of mass destruction. But wait a minute if the US government records are accurate, why then would you delete the word enclave for Karabakh even though they consider it as such? Oh yeh, they are only accurate when they satisfy you. True, Zoryan lies, sure it lies. In 1990 when the book was published, I guess Russians were not pointed and fingered accused to be sympitisers of Armenians, neither were the Jews stigamitized and many not accused of sympising with Armenians? I guess Grandmaster discredited the book, good way, just let write a review of a book about what it is on Amazon so that I can discredit it on Wikipedia and request its exclusion. Fad (ix) 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I have to choose between the US state department and Zoryan, I’ll go with the US state department. Interestingly that while Armenian Jewish community numbers only a couple of hundred, Armenia had more serious issues in this regard. For your information, many Azerbaijani Russians and Jews fought in Karabakh war on the Azerbaijani side against Armenian forces. You can read in de Waal’s book about the National Hero of Azerbaijan Albert Agarunov (Mountain Jew), who destroyed first Armenian tanks that entered Shusha and died in the battle for the city. Grandmaster 19:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to decieve you again. Azerbaijans system is considered much more repressive than Armenia's, and all indicators shows that. You should read the correlation between national IQ and stability, education etc. Armenia doesn't have much Jews like it doesn't have much other groups, because per population up until the 20s, over 25% of its population were refugees, and population/m2 density higher than Georgia, Azerbaijan and the rest in the Caucasus, it is by symplistic such analysis that you are attemptong to your own credibility. Also that region has recorded forced migration of minorities like Jews under Persian rules. It takes insanity to even try comparing Armenia human right with Azerbaijan, and just by such reversion it shows that you are simply selling your sausage. Avessians PhD thesis was rejected in Armenia for nationalistic regurgitation while in Azerbaijan equivalent people head the Academia of science. Fad (ix) 01:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ethnic identiry in Greece[edit]

I've done a little and written User:Telex/Ethnic identity in Greece. As you're the expert in such matters, could you please comment. Thanks. --Telex 14:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no choice but to ask from you to mediate or offer your opinion in Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, concerning tag-vandalism, wp:cite and NPOV. Regards. Miskin 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think everybody is in agreement with the current version, which satisfies both scholarly and editor consensus. Thanks for helping reaching a decision. Miskin 12:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the message. What's the right license for free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, free to make derivative works and free to make commercial use of the work by Attribution? CoYep 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we find images tagged with a free license, are we supposed to check that the license is valid? CoYep 15:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, then what do you recommend? IMO the article isn't complete without a picture of Marley. We can't use the album cover, and you say the new one is fishy, so what you think about this one Image:Kinsgton Bob Marley statue.jpg ? Not the best, but maybe it will do until we find a better solution. CoYep 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I tought you might help here Macedonism.--Vlatko 21:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag usage[edit]

I think the tag on the Sumgait article does not comply with the article. The tag states that the article "does not rely on primary sources" which is completely false, it relies on everything but reports by the media. I don't think it should remain so since GM's claims do not extend to articles that are on even shakier ground than Sumgait's, which is confirmed by a plethora of witnesses. See here for example March Massacre; GM edited that article twice yet never attached that tag even though its only source was a parliamentary official from Azerbaijan itself and no proof whatsoever was provided to substantiate his claims.--MarshallBagramyan 17:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read my comments on the talk page and count how many times Fadix and I have asked him to address his concerns. I just edited the article two more times just so that it reads more neutrally like the Holocaust article without castigating and painting the Azeris' and their deeds (no matter how brutal they were) as monsters. Yes, the material is extremely graphic as reported by the Western media but there is no grounds to remove such material if some people take umbrage to it. I've extended the bridge for communication several times and have politely asked him on where his grievances are and, if he raised any, answered back because they were not well substantiated. I have relied 99.9% of that article on primary sources, a compilation of 45 witness testimonies of the event, printed depositions of the Soviet Supreme Court and individual interviews, and I just don't understand why the tag says that "it doesn't rely on primary sources" when it certainly does. The source isn't published by the KKK or something, its by the Zoryan Institue which up until now, and unbeknownst to me for that matter, has never had issues in credibility.
Take a look at it now and let me just hear your impression and if you think the article is biased, or portrays all Azeris as baby-eating monsters, or displays inconsistency to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, then I'll be the first one to edit it.
With regards, --MarshallBagramyan 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to misrepresent the situation. I explained several times the problems the article had and you preferred to ignore them. Some statements that were included in the article are simply ridiculous. Such as this: Konstantin Pkhadze, a Georgian living in Sumgait, cited that the described methods, such as mutilation of the breasts, would normally be prescribed to Muslims (Armenians are predominantly Christian, whereas most Azeris are Shia Muslim). Why do we need an opinion of this person about what is normally prescribed to Muslims? It is well known that this practice was popular with Armenian guerillas in the early 20 th century. Those witness accounts you refer to contain so many dubious statements that it’s highly doubtful those people indeed said so. Truckloads with narcotics is another example. There are many problems with the article, but you just want to have it your way. Again, you’ve been suggested to use neutral sources, but you chose not to. Grandmaster 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Says who Grandmaster? Its just Thomas De Waal who you are repeatedly quoting from and pathetic and shameless attempts to appease both the Armenians and Azeris in his book. This was a popular tactic used by Turks against Armenians during the Genocide and the Hamidian massacres. De Waal never cites his source especially when considering what a revered figure Andranik was for his famous compassion to both Kurds and Turks. It isn't well known, its about as fabricated as one hears it.
Pkhadze's opinion is necessary in it because its proof that many witnesses saw through the farce of the so-called refugees from Kapan and was aghast and skeptical to think that Armenians would ever do something like that. This was published by the New York Times on December 12 1915 during the Armenian Genocide:
"In Harput and Mesre the [Armenian] people have had to endure terrible tortures, such as their eyebrows being pulled off, their breasts cut off, their nails pulled out, their feet cut off, or they hammer nails into them, just as they do with horses. The [Turkish] soldiers then cry: "Now let your Christ help you"!"
"WOMAN DESCRIBES ARMENIAN KILLINGS: German Missionary Says Turks Proclaimed Extermination as Their Aim" December 12, 1915 New York Times.
"They have had their eyebrows plucked out, their breasts cut off, their nails torn off; their torturers hew off their feet, or else hammer nails into them just as they do in shoeing horses. this is all done at night time, and in order that the screams and agony may not be heard soldiers are stationed round the prison, beating drums and blowing whistles."
This came from THE NEW REPUBLIC: Massacre by Decree. THE NEW REPUBLIC MAGAZINE January 27, 1917
Now are you going to tell me its something I'm making up? Why is it so "highly doubtful"? Give me one good reason why its highly doubtful. It was listed as Soviet Supreme Court Deposition and an interview with those who published the book. If you're going to repeat the exact same thing "that some Armenian published it so its credibility is compromised" then I can easily remove everything the Khojaly article has because I highly doubt the Azeris' stories either since they simply could have lying through their teeth to HRW and Memorial.
But then again, that doesn't make sense does it if I do that?
The statement about the narcotics and the alcohol remains nothing but a witness testimony and I even list it as so. I can easily remove a hundred things on the Khoajly article because it is much more one-sided and violates the NPOV policy than Sumgait ever does.
Francis, I'm terribly sorry about turning your page into a shouting tirade and harangue match but GM's obstinancy is not substantiated. You can delete this message if you like. With regards.--MarshallBagramyan 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I meant was not that the entire articles's info was coming from the book that Grandmaster was uncomfortable in using, but that their statements come from witnesses. I have used three different sources on that article and I'm going to eventually abstain from using Shamuratian's book when their claims become less controversial; whether they be from the New York Times or the Washington Post. Secondary sources are being used and will be used more extensively but I think its important to shed light on the events that were obviously, intentionally hidden by the media. Many Soviet reporters at that time complained of the media's quietness during and after the massacre because most people were finding out about by word of mouth. Don't worry, I'll be sure to include at least half a dozen sources from reputable newspapers alone. Regards--MarshallBagramyan 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Francis,

Could you please semi-protect Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)? Some anon keeps adding strong POV into the article, thanks. —Khoikhoi 21:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The anon, who comes back almost every single day, simply refuses to give up. I believe protecting it would make them discuss things, but it's your choice. ;) —Khoikhoi 22:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are the man. Merci! —Khoikhoi 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I saw the outcome but can't really make heads or tails of it because I don't understand the languages. I could read Cyrillic version somewhat - there are many letters not used in Cyrillic-writing languages I am familiar with (Serbian, Macedonian, Russian) so its kinda hard...

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Goce Delchev. --FlavrSavr 17:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, read this guideline.  /FunkyFly.talk_   17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a naming guideline about entities in general. If there's a problem concerning whether Goce Delchev's name was Goce Delchev, we might use that policy, (the common name taken into account, as well). See Wikipedia:No original research. --FlavrSavr 17:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Self-identifying principle - he never called himself Macedonian. Putting it in the article is prescribing nationality. Period. If you had read the example more carefully, you'd have noticed it deals with ethnic groups too.  /FunkyFly.talk_   17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose you was there and talked with him. Really, you are saying like you've been and talked with him. Bomac 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do I sense some desperation here? Or did you just run out of other arguments.  /FunkyFly.talk_   17:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly not. According to many of his quotes (not to mention deeds), he is Macedonian. Bomac 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the only problem is those quotes are not his, but are from authors of novels. By the way, you have not confirmed one such quote for over a month now.  /FunkyFly.talk_   17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, we're messing up Francis' talk page, I'll continue the conversation on the relevant talk page at some point in the future. --FlavrSavr 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

page protection[edit]

You protected Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) can you do the same with my user page? Please do so. Thank you. --Preacher, or Princelet 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(The above is Bonaparte) ;) —Khoikhoi 18:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even CheckUser didn't say it's Bonaparte. So fuck off Khoikhoi, go away! See here --Preacher, or Princelet 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you are one of the founding parties of this conspiracy of an article against balkan people in general (:-)) kindly "throw it an eye-lash" (ask room-mate what that means...) I added notes, subscript arrows, and text in the geography section.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I strongly suggest you think it over about your other empathy: the new ref-notes (:-)), since the old refs have a silly autonumbering system that increases the number even if you just copy one of the previous refs in the following text (eg look at ref region and all the rest from then on).  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I found a workaround for the bug. See relevant talk. If I get it right, you just want to write all refs in the end? You can do it, with a minor (possibly solvable) drawback...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did try it out (only in show preview mode -sure it works in saved article). I just like it better if the refs fo along with the text, because (a) you don't browse back and forth while editing (b) you edit ONE section to fix both (c) you don't need to remember "what was that darn ref name?" unless you're readding the same ref (d) amateur users are more likely to figure out what to change (e) autonumbering and layout is super (f) you avoid the drawback of repeating the ref numbers ontop of the ref section. There is only one problem: new refs don't work in templates (see history of Template:Geographical Macedonia)...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I am one of those guys that read the preview. Also, I am one of those guys that read footnotes before they read the rest of the text (unless it's bibliography, which would fall in your short-notes category)... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we do not disagree anywhere. Your comment about bibliography/notes separation is very good. Did you ask for it? (although it doesn't apply to the terminology article...)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article[edit]

Hi, Francis. I started a new article: Slavic language (Greece), to deal with the language, the self-described Slavophone Greeks speak. I used articles such as Vlach language (Serbia) and Moldovan language as my inspiration - (names for) languages which are not recognized by mainstream linguistics, but seem to be perceived as such by the people who speak them and the state in which they are spoken (after all, the 1951 census recorded speakers of Slavic, not Macedonian or Bulgarian). I'm writing this here, because I know everyone's got this page on their watchlist. I just started Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board, so I'm thinking we could get everyone to add that to their watchlists, and transfer the role of your talk page to there ;-) --Telex 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greater Gkopje[edit]

Hi, a made tis articlegreater skopje, but I make mestakes with writting :-), could you make corections, thax. Vlatko 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When are we Going to See Proof that Azaris are Genetically Turkic[edit]

Please keep an eye on Azari and the talk:Azari. I have started the following in the discussion.

It has been ages since these citations have not been verified. Verification is needed. If not delete the material. the amount of time granted has been generious. The Azaris Iranian background has been verified through various scientific and academic sources, but the Turkic claim has not. The only think that has been verified is the Turkic langauge.

Non-partisan source[edit]

Hi Francis. Here’s another non-partisan source about Sumgait. Please have a look when you have time:

The Nagorny Karabakh conflict: origins, dynamics and misperceptions

Grandmaster 12:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulagarian or Macedonian[edit]

Hi, I'm anxious to know your atitude about the statements in the articles about the controversal ancectry of the revolutionares like Jane Sandanski, Goce Delchev, Pitu Guli... There they are stated only as Bulgarian (reagrded as such in Bulgaria), and after that it stays that they are regarded in RoM as Macedonians. Where is hear the consensual wikipedia? I sugest you to tell to User:FunkyFly to reconsider his actions and I expect you to change the statements to Macedonian or Bulgarian<<< (We should create an article about) in order to keep wikipedia's neutrality policy. Thanx and please answer me on my user page. --Vlatko 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the article is a wonderfull idea, how is going to develop, we will see. But you answerd me no about the statements in in the articles I gived you examples. Please tell me your atitude as an administrator. And are you willing in breaking wikipadia's neutrality policy? -- On mine user page is stated what I just think, as you can see it says that i'm realist. Vlatko 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But how can that be so relevant, providing internet sources, I can provide you, but that is not the piont I want to make. Macedonia and Bulgaria learn different history and are different. Macedonian Historicans consider them Macedonian, Bulgarian consider them Bulgarian. Ok, here is mine question, are you on the level of any of them to make such researches or to make disputive articles neutral by demand of obvious nationalistic conformism, all of such statements offend all macedonians, and not only that they are considereed antimacedonistic. Every view here is relevant, So please you as an administrator make the changes I suggest, cose if a made them than the "copy/paste" users will "revert", but if you do so they wont.--Vlatko 17:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha, so you the choose to be neutral, I will provide sources, bu also I will ask and other administrators. Thanx very much.--Vlatko 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the iridentistic maps I have on mine page... I put them as a reaction of TodorBozinov's page.--Vlatko 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why argue about ethnicities of historical figures? I dont know, why dont we all become rastafarian and start smoking weed, things will surely look different then, if you catch my drift.   /FunkyFly.talk_   17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There's too much censorship around here [24]. This is not the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, where dissenting voices to the official version of history disappear, is it? Please reassure me. --Telex 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here is User:telex, who is pragmatic enough makeing statements that he consideres to be the best for him.[25]. Please telex provide us or to Francis a valiable source so that we can delete all of the others POV's and make wikipedia the heaven.--Vlatko 19:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I agree, but if you want neutrality and pragmatism than support me in the change of the statements form Bulgarian to Macedonian or Bulgarian, there we can find some Pragmatism only if we agree mutualy.--Vlatko 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no evidence that the people in question determined themselves as Macedonians. In the same way, there is no evidence that Donny Osmond's grandfather determined himself as a Mormon, despite the fact that he's probably been baptized by proxy and viewed as a Mormon by Mormons. --Telex 17:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW Francis, can you do something about permabanned Bonaparte (talk · contribs · block log)'s open proxy anon sockpuppets over at Vlach language (Serbia) and Vlachs. Thanks. --Telex 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanx, I will report you on mine further actions. And mine presence on wikipedia is not to play, if I asked my self what I believe I would have support the atitude of statements only to be macedonic. But I'm not doing so. Thanx anyway.--Vlatko 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trolling by Vlatko [26] - appropriating my name. --Telex 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK - have you seen my new article and my recent edits. I really am I cosmopolitan, aren't I? --Telex 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I saw them, but I pretended I didn't. I have already stated my position: Goce Delchev was a big gun in the BMARC (B for Bulgarian), and he explains his identity in his own words. There is no evidence that he viewed himself as a Macedonian other than the fact that he appears in their national anthem. About the other thing - I don't really give a **** as to what they do at mkwiki. The smaller Wikipedias are usually very easy to POV, there's no remedy (Makedonec has already left mkwiki after the admins conducted a crackdown on nationlistic POV yesterday, so that's an improvement). --Telex 18:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get it. --Telex 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, what do you think of this? --Telex 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, don't forget to take a look at the developments over at User:Vlachul - I have a feeling that that userpage will end up being extremely nationalistic. --Telex 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed that you are trying to implement the WP:USER policy on some Macedonian editors' user pages. If you need any help, (for example, if someone compares you with Goebbels), please contact me, I'll be glad to assist. It's really time to remove these strange mutating borders and bad colour management from Wikipedia. There are many ways, other than Wikipedia, to express their own political attitudes. Еби ја границата! :P --FlavrSavr 08:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Have you received the e-mail I've sent you? --FlavrSavr 08:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont understand it guys, a user page is a private page, a page about someone's own mind and interests, we dont force you to look our pages!, so this tekst of flavrsavr above is based on nothing, only because you dont agree with my/our political views, and because you dont want a united country? there are also many users who have this, not only "macedonians", so please drop your actions or be more specific. --Makedonia 09:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Rano e uste za ebanje na granici!Reply[reply]

You all know I agree to this. We've tolerated such content for years. Let's give them one week to do it themselves. FlavrSavr, I've retracted my hasty comments on you, I have apologized, and I have proposed something that I think you'll find interesting. See my talk, and the rest of the talk you quoted. Also see WP:ANI#Irredentist and inflammatory user pages (again). Sincerely, I am not trying to protect anybody, I am only trying to prevent over-reaction by the blanked users. Thanks.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the lighter side, someone please redirect Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board to User talk:FrancisTyers.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:( - FrancisTyers 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Francis, could you give your opinion on how best to label languages over at User talk:NikoSilver#Map. Thanks. --Telex 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user page[edit]

is this version gooD? i think you are wrong on this, but ok, i will show my good will and dont want any problems.its good you arent warning just macedonians, but others too, however, there are many many users with the same sort of thing, or you do it with all, or you dont do it AT all. --Makedonia 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is my userpage compiant with the policy? --Telex 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't I entitled to have my legitimate opinion on the languages spoken in Greece (and other countries)? --Telex 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok i will, i think this version is good, if it must i am ready to make more changes, can the box stay wich i am stating my support for a united macedonia? i mean there are many boxes for united albania or supporting independency of palestina etc. --Makedonia 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've told you a million times, what do you want a United Macedonia for if the Macedonians would become an ethnic minority in their own country. --Telex 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]