User talk:Francis Tyers/Archive9

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


Warning! Inflammatory nationalist rhetoric may be removed at any time without notification.

... the third party's weapon is not a self loading rifle but his ability without force or threats to persuade both sides to avoid violence and settle their differences by peaceful means ... - The Peacekeeper's Handbook

To be unpopular with both sides at the same time is probably the best pointer to the fact that one is performing one's duties correctly and with impartiality. - The Peacekeeper's Handbook

I archive my talk page when it gets longer than is preferable. You should too!

Stop! Engage brain! Are you looking for the Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board?

Fair use rationale for Image:Chikatilo-mugshot.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chikatilo-mugshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have tagged Image:Tajik_rouble_reverse_detail.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bleh999 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have tagged Image:Dom_durakov_video_title.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bleh999 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:RAWA_monogram.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:RAWA_monogram.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bleh999 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have tagged Image:Unpo.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bleh999 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have tagged Image:ARB_logo.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bleh999 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Croatisation, by (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Croatisation fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Non notable POV article created and edited by one person who were found to be sockpuppets - User:Velebit, User:NovaNova, User:GiorgioOrsini among others.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Croatisation, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of machine translation software, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of machine translation software satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of machine translation software and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of machine translation software during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mr.Z-man 16:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Armenianisation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. John Vandenberg 12:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Azerification, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. John Vandenberg 12:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GDFL license[edit]

Hi, I really can't understand why do you put possibly unfree images tag on the images which have been published clearly under GDFL. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is "disputing" the copyright status of these images, and under what reason?

Almost all images from the Iran-Iraq war era belong to paramilitary Baseeji organizations and/or Iranian govt agencies. And they are not protected under US copyright laws, as stipulated in the United States Copyright office Circuilar 38. I can provide email addresses for you to verify that the images are currently circulated by IRNA, IRIB, and other govt agencies.--Zereshk 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I recall, I got my copy from a publication by ستاد تبلیغات جنگ تحمیلی (Setad-i Tablighat-i Jang-i Tahmili) which does not exist anymore.
All the pictures of Iran-Iraq war which you have disputed, are now Public Domain. Nobody owns them.
As proof, you can find the same exact pictures appearing (and claimed by) multiple websites:
Those are the facts. The rest is your decision.--Zereshk 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. The 30 year law you speak of only applies to inside Iran. It is not recognized by the United States Copyright board. The United States officially considers images published by Iranian government as not protected by any copyright laws.

But it really doesnt matter. These images can be repalced. There are better sources we can get images from.--Zereshk 03:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Machine translation quality metric merge[edit]

Hi Francis,

Go ahead and merge but I am attached my issues/examples (1)-(4), so please retain those examples in some form. Also I would like to retain the categories that I applied at the bottom.

Thanks, Erxnmedia 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Francis,

I see you've given me a link, but I don't know how to merge into your page, because your page has some emphatically stated opinions that I don't agree with. For me the round-trip test and preservation of semantics in round-trip say a lot about the translation mechanism. It is a very simple test, I think of it as being in the spirit of when Richard Feynmann took a piece of space shuttle putty and dunked it in a glass of cold water to see if it would get stiff or not. Another adage is "in graphics you can see your bugs". Well, in round-trip test, you can see if the underlying mechanism is syntactic or semantic, and you can see if it translates everything or just portions of the text, you can see if it can report multiple interpretations or a single interpretation, you can see if it is working against an interlingua, and so on. So it's not that dumb.

Thanks, Erxnmedia 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Francis,

I think we are using the word "quality" in different senses. You are using the word quality to mean whether a translation engine that fully translates a sentence from language A to language B produces the most probable interpretation with the most generally accepted phrasing. I am using the word quality to refer to "feature-full-ness" and "usability", as a frequent end-user (layperson user) of web page translators like Systran/Babelfish and Google Translator. So to me, "quality" means "has the features I want as a user", which include (a) semantic preservation of the most probable interpretation (which implies an interlingua), (b) presentation of multiple interpretations where they exist (like when a search engine gives you multiple possible fits for a query), (c) a big dictionary/few untranslated words and (d) adaptiveness to dynamic language features like the invention of words using radical means like "verlan" (or in English, "pig latin") or less radical means like adding "-arde" to nouns to create other kinds of nouns (falouche and faloucharde).

So maybe I should just pick another word for "quality" like "featurefulness for the lay user" and that will resolve the difference.

In any event I think that RTT is particularly good for showing up poor translation techniques for several reasons, e.g. (a) a particular translation technique might depend on a relationship between 2 languages rather than an understanding of the semantics of a particular language in the presence of a general semantic model -- RTT is required to detect this dependence and (b) even if I don't know language B I can strongly hazard a guess that the translation system is crappy to some extent if I go from A to B to A and I get garbage. You claim I can do that by just going from A to B but I can't do that if I don't know B. I frequently want to read documents in Arabic or Chinese but I don't pretend to know either language. I can rely on a translation system that only goes from Arabic to English without knowing it's quality, but as a lay user, I would have much greater confidence in it's quality if I knew it could go back and forth reliably. Similarly, you wouldn't in reality much trust a human translator who came to you claiming to be able to translated Chinese to English reliably without knowing a lick of English. To see exactly what I mean by this, rent the movie "Everything is illuminated" and spend a few minutes enjoying the English of the Ukrainian character Alex whose job is to function as a translator.

Thanks, Erxnmedia 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My contributions[edit]

Francis, I'm running into an issue with a couple of IP trolls, one in Washington, one in Germany. Since they edit the same pages and say the same things, they are perhaps friends...I don't know. But the Germany IP, User:, is starting to take all of my portraits and rename them. They have done so with Michael Apted, Patricia Neal, Woody Harrelson, Brett Ratner, et. al. In their Commons descriptions, they mention that they are "removing the self-promotion of the editor." They also aren't giving the required attribution that is stipulated in the licensing. I spent 60-80 hours at Tribeca photographing, uploading and editing these photographs, that to have my work undone by someone with some kind of anti-me agenda is very frustrating and I could use some help. I have also been frustrated with Wikipedia in general lately, and some of the things I have witnessed happening on here, and have contemplated leaving. This kind of effort when I have spent so much time, money and patience to make improvements and provide some of the most difficult images to obtain will seal the deal. I won't even finish the projects I have started. I'm simply getting too burned out. I'm asking for some help. --David Shankbone 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. David Shankbone is my Wikipedia name for my Wikipedia work. I use it in the file names for several reasons: 1. I like to track how they are downloaded and uses in magazines, blogs, smalltown newspapers, etc. 2. It keeps them flagged as open use (something User:KP Botany has said she appreciates); 3. because I spend a lot of time and go through a lot of hard work to obtain these. I've had quite a few discussions with User:Jkelly about the issue, and she completely agrees that there is no issue with this; I checked with her before I began the project in earnest last year. There are a couple of IP trolls who have taken issue with my reverting their vandalism. But it's getting to a point where they are actually undoing a lot of the work I have put in on this site. --David Shankbone 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Chemical weapon1.jpg[edit]

can I remove the tag, according to its discussion?--Pejman47 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no I mean the other tag. please read its discussion on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. --Pejman47 15:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status[edit]

From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I really like the map of the area idea. I've never made my own map, so it will be fun to attempt to do so. --David Shankbone 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to edit summary...[edit]

...(I mean this one) in the form of a question: Do we have a source citing past acceptability for "nigger"? Not that it makes any difference, since I don't necessarily oppose your edit [on the grounds of "arguably too detailed"], but just out of curiosity...NikoSilver 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naaah, just out of curiosity as I said. Glad this is apparently sourced. What about the rest of the slurs? Is the "past acceptability" issue as common to the point of becoming trivial and therefore warrant not being mentioned? Are most of the slurs acceptable in the past or should we add that clarification in both? (I really don't care, but I thought you do). NikoSilver 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently started this article. Thought it may be of interest to you. - AimLook 06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greco Turkish War[edit]

Hi, can you please check the neutrality of recent edits made by user AlexiusComnenus in the article Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Thanks..-- 09:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits today[edit]

Your edits today espeically on Albanians related articles are not NPOV. --Noah30 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing is POV and I don't listen to their music but you created the article because you wanted to create article about their song which I must say have poor quality and was only popular among teenagers. I don't think it is necessery to have on WP English article about a song sung by a gruop from Kosovo. --Noah30 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You want to remove from Wikipedia phobia articles about Balkan nations. What about putting a afd template to Serbophobia?? --Noah30 06:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how much you know about Kosovo/Serbia relations, but I can guarantee that there is a lot of phobia against Albanians in Serbia. Why shouldn't we have a article about this? Good weekend! --Noah30 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - A Little Coaxing (1890).jpg

Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road;
Every life must have its burden, every heart its load.
Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup?
As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup.

Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet;
Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet.
Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face;
Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place.

Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves.
Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years,
Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears!

Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Have a beautiful day, dear Francis! :)

23:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sweetie, it makes me very happy to know that the tiny gift came at a good time, and that at least it made you smile. But it worries me that you might be having feeling sad for some reason... is there anything wrong, dear? You know that, if I can help you in any way, I'm just a click or two away. Email me if you prefer, sometimes just talking about our worries helps, and I'll be happy to listen to you. After all... I have this weakness when it comes to handsome Wikipedians ;) Love you, Phaedriel - 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading to commons[edit]

I must've uploaded at least 500 images of my own onto WP. Is there a way to transfer or redirect existing images to the Wikimedia Commons? I just cant find the time or energy to re-upload everything Ive uploaded in the past.--Zereshk 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see that you want Anti-Romanian discrimination article deleted and also anti serbian, anti croatian and other articles? Do you have something against Romanians? I see that regarding similar articles (Anti-Hungarian sentiment) you don't mind and it is OK for you to have them existing. Why anti-ro is not good enough, but anti-hu is an acceptable article? Please stop with this. --R O A M A T A A | msg  10:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And anti-americanism is OK also, anti-turkism is ok to exist and all in Category:Anti-national sentiment are ok also? Just the nations in Balkans (only a part of them) are the problem? --R O A M A T A A | msg  10:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. --R O A M A T A A | msg  15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

East Anglia Aberystwyth[edit]

They are universities for dummies. Do you think you should be editing here? 12:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is also Anti-Pakistani sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiments. It is no fair to erase articles regarding the balkanic cultures, but to accept the same type of articles regarding other cultures. --R O A M A T A A | msg  13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My inflammatory nationalist rhetoric[edit]

Hey, Mr Johnny Depp, I think you should be more cautious in the things that you are getting involved in. I see no reason why you suggested the Anti-Romanian article for deletion. It is sourced and informative. We compromised with other people on how the content should look like and tried to make it quite neutral. I say quite neutral because in similar articles, such a 'meet-me-in-the-middle' attitude is not something that people practice very often. I've seen you involve yourself in several topics about Romania and I don't remember you taking a favourable side to us. If you were a celebrity, perhaps we could've added your name with its own section to the Anti-Romanian discrimination. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)[edit]

Hi Francis, how are things? Can you please give your opinion on the recent additions made to this article, specifically the "Turkish Policy of Massacring Christians" section? It's not the subject matter I dispute, but the sources being used to provide the narrative. As an example:"According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Turks felt that they needed to murder their Christian minorities due to Christian superiority in terms of industriousness and the consequent Turkish feelings of jealously and inferiority," or "The Turks continued the practice of slavery, seizing women and children for their harems". Statements like these are being made off the back of articles and headlines from the 1920's, as if they are somehow uncontestable facts. Please look if you can, --A.Garnet 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case you should suggest superior sources, not call into question the neutrality of the subject matter which you claim not to dispute. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By subject matter, I mean I agree to a section on attrocities, not that information from an article entitled "Turk's insane savagery" from the 1920's should be used as the basis for that subject. --A.Garnet 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, the savagery was not "insane"; it was most calculated and deliberate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Francis. I need your input on the consistent disruption introduced by User:Icar on pages pertaining to Communism in Romania. Check out his contributions: virtually all of them involve removing mention of the Romanian citizenship for communists of ethnicities other than Romanian (in the case of Eugen Rozvan, he has removed categories pertaining to his citizenship, even though it is clearly referenced in the text; on Haig Acterian, he has removed the category referring to his communism, even though two scholarly sources mention that he was one). He has also prioritized the names they are not referred to by anyone but the Adelaide Institute and Corneliu Vadim Tudor - which makes wikipedia move closer to the reliability of those two "sources" - and spuriously claiming they are "pseudonyms". When I pointed out, as a side note, that the version of "pseudonyms" could work just as well for Mihai Eminescu and Ciprian Porumbescu, he commented that his edits referred to communists who were enemies of this country etc., and not to people who were subject to a forceful process of assimilation (conspiracy theory anyone?).

For the rest, he has introduced and reintroduced libel on the article Alina Mungiu-Pippidi and that on Leonte Tismăneanu (see my old comments on the talk page there, then check out his version), and removed text he considered "too detailed" from Vladimir Tismăneanu. In one noted example, Vasile Luca, his version starts with the absurd notion that he was a "Soviet leader" (?!).

Luka Laszlo took up Soviet citizenship and sat on the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR. Does this make him a Soviet leader? I think it does. Icar 11:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Through a process of stalking, this has also leaked on other pages, such as Iuliu Maniu. In the past, he has been known to simply vandalize pages, by stating that there were "too many references" from books he hasn't apparently read, but he knows are "Trotskyist". In the process, he has preached to everyone who would listen that I am "a Stalinist", "a Trotskyist", and other things of that nature (I am especially fond of the comparison he drew between me and Communists who would torture people in prisons...).

This behavior has so far raised strong objections from respected users, such as Jmabel, Bogdangiusca, Khoikhoi, Biruitorul, Turgidson, Alex Bakharev, and Illythr. When his versions were reverted by Bogdan, he made no further comments and simply reverted back. Also worthy to note that his edits have twice been pushed by sockpuppets of Bonaparte. Dahn 11:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. He has also done this to other pages: Vladimir Colin, Gheorghe Pintilie, Valter Roman, Gheorghe Gaston Marin‎, Ana Pauker, Alexandru Sahia, Alexandru Nicolschi, Olga Bancic, Ştefan Foriş, Iosif Chişinevschi, Emil Bodnăraş, and Lothar Rădăceanu. And, yes, I fully agree. Dahn 11:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed! Thank you. Dahn 12:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to add Silviu Brucan. Dahn 11:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I was quite certain Dahn did some canvassing. This note does not concern the whole list of articles cited by Dahn, but only Valter Roman. You can see from my last edit (probably overturned by now) that I do not seek the transformations Icar is asking for. Instead, I only seek a less ambiguous formulation for Roman's national/ethnic/whatever affiliation:

  • Dahn's version: VR is a Romanian communist activist
  • My version: VR is a communist activist from Romania

Why do I seek this formulation:

  1. Valter Roman did not place a lot of weight on either ethnicity, or citizenship. He was a Communist (with a big C).
  2. The formulation "Romanian activist" is ambiguous, given the ambiguous nature of "Romanian" (citizenship/ethnicity).
  3. The expression "activist from Romania" solves this ambiguity.

Dpotop 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Francis:
  • Well, Dahn made you do more than vote: Actually edit in his favor on a dozen articles. So yes, I still think it's canvassing.
  • I'm not an expert in racial purity, either (as you seem to imply). However, common sense and my current knowledge of Valter Roman made me believe that defining him solely as a Romanian citizen is misleading. It seems that I was mistaken, as Dahn (below) brought some new sources where Roman actually assumes his citizenship (and does not relativize it, as he does with his ethnicity). My argument above may not be relevant any more given this new source. Dpotop 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admirably spurious. First of all, Roman did place emphasis on his citizenship, as opposed to his ethnicity - I have looked through his memoirs, and they are filled with statements of his national origin (conversations he claimed to have had with his colleagues about the superiority of Romanian culture, his compliment to the city of Roman - when he chose to indicate it as his place of birth, because he wanted all details on his International Brigades documents to rhyme - "Valter Roman, Romanian, from Roman", etc.). This is, of course, a side note, since it does not matter if he did or didn't, the issue being about him being a Romanian citizen.
Now, this in interesting. Is this information cited? Because if Roman actually adhered to his Romanian citizenship I have no further objection. I will actualy support you. It's the first time you cite this source in a dispute with me. Are his memoirs published? Dpotop 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. This information does not add anything to the discussion, since he did not need to satisfy your criteria for loyalty in order to be a Romanian citizen. Whether I cited it before is thus utterly irrelevant. 2. The memoirs I was referring to are Sub cerul Spaniei, which I think you know have been published. I used to own the book, but never read from it while I had it; I have given it to a relative of mine, together with other books, and looked over it again in the past months, because I though of borrowing it and adding details from it to the article (which I am going to do eventually). The fragment about "Roman-Romanian-Roman" was also published in a Magazin Istoric (I think it was coincident with the book being published) - I have it around, but I would prefer to source from the entire book when I get to (at the risk of having a certain user throw more garbage in my general direction).
I must stress that i do not encourage you to support my version based on what you consider to be "loyalty" or "adherence" or whatever it is you call it. I do however expect anyone to support it, since it is a reasonable and decent mention of a person's actual and factual citizenship, one without wordplay and sophistry. Dahn 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mention whatever you like in the body of the article, but do not insert outright lies in the lead. Icar 12:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The supposed "ambiguous nature", which you have brought up in the past, is ridiculous. For one, for better or worse, his ethnicity is indicated in its proper place in the text. Furthermore, the link leads to Romania, not to Romanians, and, as you were already told a million times, the nature of leads in general points to country, not to ethnicities. I assume your contributions target people who cannot tell the difference before and, hell, after clicking the link
In general means except for special cases. Here we have a special case. The guy was not Romanian, but made to look so by the vicious occupying force. By no means was he ever a member of a "Romanian unit" in the Spanish Civil War; these were Soviet agents, paid by the USSR to export communism to Spain. Communism was illegal in Romania at the time. He was a Romanian army general only after the Romanian army was entirely re-staffed by the Soviets. So he should not be depicted as Romanian in the lead. Funny that passage about Roman-Romanian-Roman. The communist propaganda sources quoted above have no merit on wp, unfortunately for POV-pushers.Icar 12:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual ambiguity is in "from Romania", which is: a) virtually unprecedented in indications of citizenship (so, yes, if all were to work right, it would be the exception); b) a poor attempt at relativizing his affiliation - "from Romania", again, does not mean "a Romanian citizen", but someone originating in Romania. For a person who, for better or worse, was a Romanian citizen for virtually all his life (and a Romanian national for all but the first five years of his life), a member of a Romanian unit in the Civil War, an Army general, a high-ranking member in a party with monopoly on power, an academic at a Romanian institution of higher learning, etc etc, this formulation is a mere POV push bordering on the uttermost absurdity.
The "big C" version of "communist" is your own interpretation of English, absurdly inconsistent, and adds nothing to anything. Dahn 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please check the MoS:BIO page for how to treat pseudonyms. Also check Lenin, Stalin and Che Guevara to see how to introduce communist leaders known under a pseudonym. Icar 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Needless to say, Icar is hiding behind the spurious reference to names such as Valter Roman and Ana Pauker as pseudonyms (when they are in fact legal names, and the best known references to those individuals, no matter what the Adelaide Institute and Vadim have to say); needless to say, the articles cited (except for Guevara, where nationality is clearly mentioned, and where "Che" was indeed a pseudonym) are not featured, not standard, are subject to inconsistent edits, and the tendency in featured articles is to indicate most used name first (just as many other articles in the same situation do not "follow" Icar's creative interpretation). I personally have heard enough chansons de geste from this guy. Dahn 12:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ana Pauker is a legal name after marriage (I am not surre about the spelling but it is not relevant). Why would someone lie that I claim it is a pseudonym?! Valter Roman on the other hand is a pseudonym. Stop POV pushing. Icar 12:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have said, I'm not interested in virtual worlds. Dahn 12:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Dahn writes nonsese: Che is presented as "Argentinian-born". In the same spirit, the happy bunch of Neulander, Luka and co. should be called "Austria-Hungary born communist leaders". Right? Now in pages where User:Dahn did not yet re-write history, Stalin is introduced as Dzhugashvili, while Lenin is called Ulyanov. Then why hide the truth regarding communist people of foreign origin who acted in Romania? Icar 12:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's telling that Dahn promotes a versions that says that Iuliu Maniu "was an Austro-Hungarian and Romanian politician." (by the way the guy was Prime Minister of Romania) while he endorses a version that says that "Vasile Luca (born László Luka; June 8, 1898—July 23, 1963) was a Romanian communist politician", how about some consistency? The same thing he does with a guy who had both Soviet and Romanian citizenship (and was born in Russian Empire)... oh and I see that you consider that a list of Communist Jews in Romania is antisemitic, hmmm, how so? And doesn't that influence your POV, or you don't have POV, only people who have different views than you have POVs and "we push our POV" while you just "say how it is" interesting.... So let me appeal to your impartiality, how is Dahn edit war on Iuliu Maniu consistent with his edit war on Vasile Luca, both were born in Austro-Hungary and Iuliu Maniu was ethnic Romanian while Vasile Luca wasn't (not that there's anything wrong with that) but why a Romanian is treated as "Austro-Hungarian" first (when he become notable as Prime Minister of Romania) and a ethnic Hungarian born in Austro-Hungary (Soviet citizen too as it looks from Icar's post) is called "Romanian communist politician"... where is the consistency? -- AdrianTM 08:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Your comment at User talk:Black Falcon[edit]

Hi. No problem, I can understand and appreciate that you posted a follow-up to your initial comment. I realise that by closing them differently, I left open the possibility of a deletion review charging that I did not evaluate them equally ... but, that's the point: I evaluated each discussion separately and closed it on that basis. As I noted in the Serbophobia AfD, there is no consensus that all "anti-X sentiment" articles are inherently invalid, so the AfD outcome for one article cannot directly extend over others. The fact that they were nominated separately, have different strengths and weaknesses, and received separated deletion debates also precludes any attempt to treat them all the same.

As regards your three points:

  1. If someone recreates "anti-Hungarian sentiment", it can always be renominated for deletion if the article is again an original synthesis of various facts/incidents.
  2. The Serbophobia article may be refilled with original research, but proneness to OR, POV, or vandalism are generally considered weak reasons to delete an article unless there is consensus that a valid article can't be written with what is there.
  3. I don't see a problem with renominating the articles in the future, though I'd advise to do either a bulk nomination – if the nomination rationale is the same for all articles and you want all articles to be considered together – or to tailor each nomination to its respective article.

Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-Hungarian sentiment[edit]

It is very interesting,only the anti-hungarian sentiment article has been deleted, although most of the voters (8 of them), who said to delete the article (14 delete votes) agreed to the deletion only, if the other articles go too.Baxter9 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I don't think a quick renomination of the same article would be a good idea. Why not rather extend it first to another batch further afield, to drive the point home, before revisiting the old ones again? New candidates high on the crap list would be: Anti-Turkism, Anti-Malay racism, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Canadianism. Take your pick. By the way, I'd personally disregard Black Falcon's advice, and stick with the same format: Individual AfDs for each, but linked among each other. We want to make sure they are seen as part of a common problem, but still they should each be evaluated on their own merits. Fut.Perf. 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, I would just like to commend you on weeding out among these anti-x articles. Most of them are prime examples of W:OR. Let me know if I can be of any help. CheersOsli73 10:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your reverts for User:Dahn[edit]

Why don't you take the time to explain your position on these articles you are reverting? User:Dahn had other editors in the past play the part you're playing now, it is not very honourable.Icar 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English Spelling Reform[edit]

I think somebody needs to rewrite the article. It does not present a balanced view of modern spelling reform efforts. I believe readers will have wasted their time reading both Spelling Reform articles. And since Wiki has such a big web presence, its bogarting the subject from the legitimate reform websites.JO 753 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for finding the IPA error. I am the author of the Nooalf website and no, its not a parody.JO 753 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like somebody vandalized the talk page.JO 753 16:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wrote: "Strange, it might be worth you noting on the site that it isn't intended as a replacement for English spelling, but rather U.S. English spelling. Noticeable with the first example, "alien", which I pronounce /eɪliən/ whereas your pronounciation would be something like /eɪliɪn/." ( I suppose you were using some IPA font which isn't on my computer, so whatever symbol is after the e showed up as a square. the samples I use below are in Nooalf ascii, which yoiu can see as a small black letter on the chart )

Thats not correct. Nooalf does not specify a particular spelling for any word, just a letter for every sound. The sounds covered in the chart are based on U.S. broadcast quality english and the samples on the chart are based on the same standard at normal speech speeds. In other words, if you were to ask any major network news anchor to pronounce alien, he may say it ALEaN, ALEUN, ALEIN, ALEeN, but if he said the word in a an ordinary sentence he would certainly say ALEIN. If you read the LoJIK page on you will see that any one of these spellings is acceptable.JO 753 16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You responded to the Q asking why you removed the Children of the Code link with "because it isn't an appropriate link". Aside from the response I left on the talk page there, this also gets down to the basic flaw with Wiki; people who dont know much about a subject making editorial decisions.JO 753 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used X because it is redundant in traditional spelling, a simple, yet distinctive character, and its on all keyboards. The horizontal line is an easy addition that I use in a few other letters also. The edth & thorn letters are unknown to most English users, plus not readily available on keyboards. All the letter choices are explained on the LoJIK page.

The i before e thing amounts to a bluff. Its often used to fool people that there are actual 'rules' governing English spelling and that its the 1st of many.

Thanks for the font recommendation. I'll get it today.JO 753 05:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It will help if you install the 2NQ4YQ font.JO 753 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am curious what visual impairment you have. The colored text on gray at looks very plain to me. I spent a fair amount of time with the Adobe Photoshop color picker finding colors that contrast well.JO 753 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gess I'll add a plain text version of the site again. Whats easier to read, black on white or white on black?

I no longer have a page titled main. Maybe I left a link somewhere, or there's a mirror site I don't know about. Thanks for the the Doctype warning. I know nothing about it. Things just get more & more complicated for no reason it seems. Probably part of the Microsoft 'lets make old stuff not work' philosophy!JO 753 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Fran.

Could u please check the image: Southazerbaijan-cartoonprotest.jpg

I dont think it has the copyright status claimed by the uploader.

Thanks.--Zereshk 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was this image deleted: [5] I though I had a week to determine its copy right status?Hajji Piruz 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh ok, thanks.Hajji Piruz 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Regarding your comment here: [6] I did not re-upload any images. The one you are talking about was uploaded before the one you deleted. You should delete both of them until I can get the copy right confirmed. Again, I did not re-upload anything. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my image[edit]

I noticed your message on my talkpage regarding copyrights of the image I uploaded. First time I clicked on wrong tag. Now I put another because the site has disclaimer "Some rights of this page's plain text stuffs are reserved for the author" which does not apply to images. I would apprceiate if you could calrify the Wiki approach for usuing images from such sites which make pictures available free. --Dacy69 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to contact the author of the site. But for the author of image - this happened in supressive Iran, people got arrested and killed for that demonstration. So, I don't think that the author of image will reveal his identity. But I suppose that permission from the site's author will suffice because he takes responsinbility for placing it on the site and make it for free use as his disclaimer does not mention copyrights for images.--Dacy69 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mediation request[edit]

User:A_Jalil I made dozens of edit which he almost universally undid, regardless of the contribution to the article and with no talk. Some of the more egregious examples:

Needless to say, these edits essentially help the Moroccan POV and serve to undermine the Sahrawi one. Every reference to Moroccan occupation and the intifadas are deleted, every reference to Polisario is made "Algeria-backed." This can't go on, and I refuse to have several dozen edit wars across Wikipedia about this. I've worked with you in the past and I'd like to know if you can mediate between us now. Barring that, can you direct me somewhere else? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks If this goes on, I'll head to AN/I. I've posted on his talk and the talk of articles, but he keeps on abandoning talk and reverting/undoing/editing regardless. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right I do have access to JSTOR, for now, and I'm actually in the process of saving all the WS articles I can and use for citation. Thanks again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unexplained Reverts[edit]

Koavf has asked you - as a friend - to mediate or at least that is what he titled his edit here on this page, but you went on reverting the articles he refered you to without explanation. That is not mediation that I know. Please use the talk page to justify your reverts because in the absence of that, they will be reverted. Cheers.--A Jalil 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any reason why you are restoring pov/nationalistic colors on the wikiproject page despite WP:NOT/WP:POINT? -- Cat chi? 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of the majority of non-involved contributors (that is myself) most of them are for the colours or don't care. Please stop undoing the hard work of other users just because it tickles your fancy. - Francis Tyers · 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has little to do with my fancy. "Hard work" for what? Creating unnecessary controversy? Wikipedia:WikiProject France has less national colors and it is a "country" wikiproject. -- Cat chi? 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International[edit]

Amnesty International is not a reliable source. It mostly gets its information from dissidents and separatist groups. It makes a lot of mistakes all the time. For example, just within the last year Amnesty International claimed that Arabic was not taught in Iranian schools for the Arabs. This turned out to be false as Arabic is taught in every school in Iran, as Iran is an Islamic theocracy and the Koran is only supposed to be read in Arabic, all Iranians are taught Arabic as a second language in shcools, including the Arabs. Amnesty International was later pressured into making an apology and admitting their mistake, and they did. Thats just one example.Hajji Piruz 13:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the full report: [7]
It states: "Even where the majority of the local population is Arab, schools are reportedly not allowed to teach through the medium of Arabic;"
Amnesty International does not even verify the claims that they make. As you can see, they say "reportedly" because they get their information from others, mostly dissidents and separatist organizations with agenda's.Hajji Piruz 13:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amnesty International never made a public apology because they feared it would hurt their credibility. None of the news organizations covered their admitted mistakes, although many of them covered the AI claim that Iranian schools did not teach Arabic to Arabs. Their apology was under the radar.
And the only reason Amnesty International even made a statement regarding it in the first place was due to pressure from the Iranian community who protested, not because they understood their mistake themselves.
Again, read AI reports, it uses words like "reportedly" because most of the time it gets its information from other people or groups, and the Arab situation brings into doubt how many of these claims they actually confirm themselves.Hajji Piruz 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats not what I'm debating here, I'm no fan of the IRI, I know about their human rights abuses. I'm debating the fact that you say its a reliable source. Reliable sources do not say "reportedly", they make fact statements. Amnesty International should not present itself as a reliable source if it doesnt even confirm all of the claims it recieves. This is like a news channel making all kinds of wild assertions without ever confirming them, who would watch that news channel? It would have no credibility correct?Hajji Piruz 13:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont doubt for an instant that hundreds or possibly thousands were arrested, as in democratic countries in large protests hundreds or thousands get arrested, so I'm sure that was also the case in Iran. I'm just debating AI's credibility in general, especially with regards to Iran as it has previously made a mistake about situation there in the past.Hajji Piruz 13:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example, look, Iran admitte to arresting 330 people [8]. I dont doubt what that particular AI report says, I doubt the fact that AI is a reliable source in generalHajji Piruz 13:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont mind what AI says when its true, but I mind what it says when its false. An organization that doesnt confirm its claims or publicly admit its mistake's should always be taken with a pinch of salt, or else whats stopping them from making up things later on when the public doesnt watch over them anymore? Fox News is also the most watched news network in the United States, does that mean its the most reliable in the United States? CNN is the second most watched, does that mean its second most reliable in the United States? Size has nothing to do with it.Hajji Piruz 13:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never disputed that that particular AI report was wrong. I added the other sources to verify that atleast the AI claim that hundreds were arrested was correct.Hajji Piruz 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They did not do it publicly. Thats one of the things that pissed off all the people who complained to AI about their false report. At the time, several media outlets and news channels picked up the AI report that Iran did not teach Arabic to Arabs. When people protested, instead of AI publicly acknowledging its mistake and putting out a public statement retracting its claim, it did so under the radar. No one even knows that AI even made the mistake in the first place. Did you know about it?Hajji Piruz 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for talking to me about this.Hajji Piruz 13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its ok. Well, I hope things get better at the office, have a good (cooler) day!Hajji Piruz 13:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my uploaded image[edit]

Hi Fran, I updated information regarding this image [9] Could you clear this case opened by you[10] and also would apprecaite your advise on the proper tag.--Dacy69 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some other admin without proper notification on deletion page deleted it even though I got permission to use it. Could you look at this case.--Dacy69 04:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aromanian machine translation[edit]

First of all we would like to thank you for the information and the proposal. Yes, we would be more than interested to participate in the creating of a Romanian - Aromanian machine translation or even better, English - Aromanian translation (or vice-versa). Thus we believe that we can show the difference between the two languages, even though they look pretty much the same. This is one of the reasons we haven't been accepted into the Latin Union, and we believe that we have the right as a NeoLatin or Romance language to be a part of that great family and finally keep our language which I am afraid is beginning to become endangered. Thank you again and we look forward to hearing from you with some more information about the project.Eeamoscopolecrushuva 12:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:Linux and its associated zillion archives. Over the last year or so it's been established by community consensus that there's no authority for calling the operating system in general GNU/Linux, and most free software articles use the more common term Linux at this point. There's no more potential confusion here than there is for the idea that FreeBSD has a kernel called, yes, the FreeBSD kernel. GNU/Linux is a term pushed by a minority and shouldn't be used as a general wikilink to the OS article unless there's a clear reason for doing so. Chris Cunningham 08:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I like my hat :) The thing is, there's no need to pipe these links, and piping them still presents the text using the contentious wording. I'm happy for all these links to say GNU/Linux if consensus is established that this is what Wikipedia should be referring to the Linux OS as, but currently consensus is the other way. I know that this obviously doesn't affect things like Debian GNU/Linux which is a proper name and should always be presented with the GNU bit. Chris Cunningham 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, there's no policy per se to "demand" this, but Linux isn't simply shorthand for GNU/Linux, and out of the high-profile free software articles, the one on free software is really the only example of GNU/Linux currently being used except where directly relevant. That's an obvious and inexplicable inconsistency. Chris Cunningham 09:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here to point out that there is no need to pipe those links, but that's been said. To say something new, no, there is no consensus about the name. ( If there was consensus, the current 3-for 3-against debate wouldn't have started. So "GNU/Linux" is fine, and the Wikipedia policy is: "Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken". Gronky 09:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Francis, you and I are apparently of (at least partially) different opinions about how to write the Serbophobia article. My first option is to delete the article alltogether. This since I don't think Serbophobia is a real, systemic and established concept only a name used by some. However, if the decision has been to keep the article, I think it should be as NPOV as possible. To me, this means that is should start off by saying that Serbophobia means xxx and only then, in separate sections called something like "Political use of the term" go on to explain how different people believe that the term has been used. It's important to be clear about the difference between opinion and fact.

In the interest of avoiding another long arbitration process I think it would be best to agree on something. I don't think the current version is acceptable. In my opinion, the most constructive way forward would be if you or Duja proposed another version. Comment? Cheers Osli73 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, I've posted a reply on my talk page.[11] My first option is still to delete it though.CheersOsli73 10:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Francis,

Theres a rv war going on here about the inclusion of content suggesting a genocide of Kurds. I'd appreciate some fresh input. Cheers, --A.Garnet 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me too. See the penultimate section in the talkpage please. NikoSilver 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Church of Kish[edit]

Hi Francis. Could you please have a look at the article about Church of Kish? We have a dispute about the origins of the church and reliability of certain sources, maybe you can help to resolve the dispute? Thanks. --Grandmaster 09:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, could you please remain involved with the article? The admin Richard who protected the page tries to mediate, but I think he needs an assistance from someone well familiar with the background to the regional problems. Thanks in advance. --Grandmaster 05:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at {{User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw}}

User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the {{ }} and w/o the [[ ]] to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The userbox was primarily for the category Category:Wikipedians against the onychectomy of animals so you could just add this with [[ ]] without the preceding : -PatPeter 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again! Knowing that you take an interest to this category, it is being debated upon to delete it at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_against_the_onychectomy_of_animals, so if you fell this category should stay on Wikipedia, please contribute. -PatPeter 18:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khojaly Massacre[edit]

Can you please, check [12]. TigratTheGreat reverted again, claiming that the massacre is fictional, when the source from HRW on the top clearly cites it. This massacre was documented by videos [13], HRW, AI and Memorial reports, there are articles in NY Times, BBC, AFP, some of which are referenced in the article. Atabek 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Can you please be mediator for changes to Khojaly Massacre article, as currently it contains strong Azerbaijanian POV and it is protected from edits. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just thought you should be aware that your tag on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy was reverted within minutes of putting it on. 01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurdistan Workers Party[edit]

Hey; I guess there was a misunderstanding on your last revert. I am Turkish alright but I don't have a bit of nationalism in my blood. If you look at my edits you'll see that I try to keep the page as NPOV as possible. But there's no reason to delete the sourced info. Regards, Kerem Özcan 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You're the topic of discussion at WP:ANI. --ElKevbo 00:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been suggested that some of your comments at Talk:Khojaly Massacre have upset the sensibilities of User:TigranTheGreat. As I have commented I don't believe that there is any substance in the complaint(s), but I have undertaken to ask you to more carefully consider your form of words when engaging in discussions with sensitive editors. Please consider yourself so requested. LessHeard vanU 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Hey Man[edit]

Apology accepted. You wouldn't have a chance to cause me to stop contributing, so don't worry about it. Regardless of the actual effect, however, you crossed the line, and it was my duty, as a member of the community, to report you.--TigranTheGreat 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I commented on the talk page as a third opinion and the issue at the article seems to be User:Bi wanting to add an external site that is maintained by him. Other editors have said that it is a violation of WP:COI and WP:EL because the site doesn't have any significant information regarding Frank R. Wallace and its run by him. Both are frowned upon by Wikipedia policies.

Bi told me that you gave him permission to add the site. I don't really see a good reason that the site should be there, but I want to ask you what you think about the problem. Thanks a bunch. Mr. Killigan 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed on Safavid dynasty[edit]

If you have time or interest, perhaps, you could help to mediate in this matter. On Safavid dynasty talk page [14], I have presented numerous references to Safavid origins, and I will continue doing so. Yet I am unable to incorporate these into the article, due to POV reverts by User:AlexanderPar, and endless disputing of sources with OR by User:Hajji Piruz. I don't want to get involved in revert wars. Today User:AlexanderPar reverted me removing two different sources, including the one to the Cambridge History of Iran, [15] not even providing justifications. It becomes practically impossible to edit the article or do any form of research, and the article right now is a POV disaster. I reported the problem to WP:ANI, as before User:AlexanderPar was doing the same removing pertinent Amnesty International and HRW reports from Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy, claiming them non-credible. But no one is interested in dealing with these NPOV violations at ANI. Thanks. Atabek 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atabek, you already brought your case on ANI and they rejected it. Why bother Francis now?
Atabek is trying to use non-authoritative sources, along with his interpretation of the sources, in the article. Atabek claims that the Timurids and Ilkhanids were Turks and not Mongols (OR), and one of the sources he used also says that, which is inaccurate and brings into question the reliability of the source. Regarding the Cambridge History of Iran source, Atabek inserted his own interpretation of it into the article, and its not what his source means in the fuller context (which I had to post on the talk page myself).
Atabek is also picking and choosing which sources he wants to use. Although the leading (western) scholars in the field of Iranian history say that the Safavids were most likely of Kurdish origin, Atabek brings up some random sources which state that the Safavids were Turkic, saying that any and all sources should be used. Then when I bring up the fact that if we are no longer sticking to scholarly authoritative sources, some sources mention the Safavids being Persian, Atabek refused to acknowledge it.
See the talk page, Alexanderpar, as well as I, have been involved in the discussion and have given reasons.Hajji Piruz 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Say_macedonia--call_me_by_my_name.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Say_macedonia--call_me_by_my_name.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bleh999 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Francis[edit]

FYI. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia UK[edit]


At some point you expressed an interest in supporting meta:Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (

Thanks, Andreww 14:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

Debate on the correct adjective for Kosovo[edit]

Hi! Based on your interest in the Balkans, you may be interested in the currently ongoing debate on whether we should be using Kosovo or Kosovar/Kosovan as the adjective for Kosovo. —Nightstallion 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

three finger salute (tri prsta)[edit]

Can you please explain why you keep adding that the Three-finger salute is a nationalist salute to the first sentence of the article? Are you fully aware of the usage of this salute? I've posted on the article talk page about this, and you have not responded, yet keep adding this to the first sentence of the article. // laughing man 16:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best article on NK - Khojaly??[edit]

Hey, I couldn't help but notice that you keep mentioning that the Khojaly article is the best one yet in regards to Nagorno-Karabakh related articles. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but the articles on Operation Ring, the Capture of Shushi, the Battle of Kelbajar. I also believe that the Sumgait Pogrom article has not only been significantly improved, but is of much higher quality than Khojaly considering the number of sources it uses and how they are used to present info in the article. Give me some feedback. --Marshal Bagramyan 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to add your opinion on the Sumgait page. When it's only one editor who is doing all the work (much less an editor who has some disposition towards the work), it's not surprising that sort of problem crops up. Currently, I find it much more enjoyable uploading pictures of scenery or working on the transportation of my country than getting involved with the arguments on that page. If things turn really sour, I'll look into it and give my opinion on it.--Marshal Bagramyan 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


hi Fran, how are you? where did you went for holiday? I haven't seen you online, ce mai faci? esti bine? sora-ta ce mai face? ;-) Bonny

Please look at the page and its history. Also, please look at the personal attack by user:KazakhPol in the summary of this edit. Jahāngard 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Hello Francis, You welcomed me to Wiki a year or so ago when I first wrote, so I wonder can you help me? I have only written a few articles, yet today I find that two admin people have deleted my article ' Helfire Sermons' spuriously claiming it as non-notifiable. Any advice? Regards Andy Ford 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you still mediate?[edit]

It's just that I ALWAYS remember good people and there is a little problem I honestly feel you could solve better than most developing on Asperger syndrome. This time there really ARE no "good guys" or "bad guys", I can see all sides myself, it is just becoming messy and I think the right, impartial voice could settle it all very quickly. --Zeraeph 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The number of the ethnic Macedonian in Bulgaria[edit]

according to the last census in Bulgaria in 2001 is 5,071. 3,117 of them live in Blagoevgrad Province. This number is not rejected by any neutral academic center or by the European Union institutions as irrelevant on any ground by now and was confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in several cases, for example on 19 January 2006 in a case of the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden and others v. Bulgaria:

81. The Court already found in Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (cited above, § 110) that the applicant association had only about three thousand supporters, not all of whom were active. Furthermore, as is apparent from the facts of another case concerning a sibling organisation, the political party UMO Ilinden – PIRIN, its public influence was negligible (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others, cited above, § 15 in fine).

According to the chairman of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Kr. Kanev in "CEDIME Interview at the office of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee", June 22, 1999:

In the 1992 census, 3,500 out of the 10,803 registered Macedonians defined Macedonian as their mother tongue.

Still more, according to the most prominent leader od ethnic Macedonian Movement in Bulgaria Stoyko Stoykov (Information Agency Focus, 29 November 2006, press-conference in Brussels):

"there are between 5,000 and 10,000 Macedonians"

Please, don't write unrealistic claims for large ethnic or linguistic Macedonian presence in Bulgaria in the future unless you find relevant contemporary statistics. The next census in Bulgaria is planned for 2011, lets talk again after its end. Greetings, Jackanapes 10:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you explain me on what ground you deny the relevance of Bulgarian censuses, which are internationally recognized? Why do you think that suppositions from an author, closely tied to Yugoslav authorities and made more than 20 years ago, are more relevant than two recent censuses in Bulgaria? There weren't more than 3,000 literary Macedonian language speakers in Bulgaria even 15 years ago, when bigger part ot the people, educated in the period of the "cultural autonomy in Pirin Macedonia" (1945-end of 1960ies) were alive. Your logic is perverted. According to you I am obligated to give you academic references about something which doesn't exist... You have to prove that large Macedonian minority really exists in Bulgaria because you insist on this statement! Give me something modern which is more than suppositions! - Jackanapes 11:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then we have to erase Bulgaria from the list of the states in which literary Macedonian is spoken because this list contains only states with significant number of speakers. Do you understand this disproportion and lack of principles? - Jackanapes 12:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Macedonian language[edit]

This is not nationalism or pseudo-humanity, this is reality!This are another examples for creation of some languages!

As late as the XX-th c. the method of linguistic partition (glossotomy) would be repeatedly applied, motivated politically, rather than linguistically. In the West (as was the case of Slovenian Nindian) those attempts crashed and burned. In the East however, forcefully conceived languages under communism Rumanian/Moldovan; Finnish/Karelian; Tatar/Bashkir; Turkish/Gagaouz) did survive to live a longer 'life' thanks to political coercion. Those who refused to accept language partition would be proclaimed nationalists and treated in the respective way. In politics, language partition was counted upon as a way to reinforce the new political borders, thus eliminating the feeling of one-time belonging to a certain community. The strategies behind the fathering of such new languages in the communist regions would follow one and the same principles.[16]

All that holds good of the Macedonian literary language (македонскиот jазик).

Date of creation: 1944

Place of creation: The Socialist Republic of Macedonia (within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) - the "Prohor Pcinski" monastery.

Used by: some 1 200 000 .

Oldest literary monument: "New Macedonia" - 1944 newspaper.

Fabrications: H. Lunt, A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje, 1952. [17] Jingby 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess!You are descendant from Aromanians wich migrated after WWII by political, communist reasons from Aegean Macedonia to Romania! Jingby 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for help[edit]

As you have expertise in linguistics, can you fix Accent (linguistics) sometime? I've run into the article only recently, and it is just terrible, especially considering the legitimacy of the subject. Thanks. Regards, The Behnam 16:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shushi Massacres[edit]

Hi Francis. Could you please have a look at Shushi Massacres? This article is highly POV and is based solely on Armenian and pro-Armenian partisan sources like Caroline Cox. Despite a well-known fact that the clashes in the town started after the attack of Armenian sources on the Azeri quarter, which is admitted even by Armenian historians, the current version tries to present these clashes as a “massacre”. No reliable sources referring to the event as Shushi Massacres has been provided, and according to WP:PROVEIT “If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it”. I would appreciate your assistance with bringing this article in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Regards, Grandmaster 14:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, could you please have a look at Khojaly Massacre, the same user who created the above article attaches unjustified tags to the Khojaly article. Grandmaster 09:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, I would appreciate if you remained involved with Khojaly article. It became a total mess, some editors added plenty of info from, a partisan source with clear agenda. Grandmaster 10:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chopping Accent (linguistics): you cannot just erase what you do not understand[edit]

Francis, a few premises, a bit randomly: ·

  • Whether one likes it or not, accents do exist. Denying them won't make them disappear, and refusing to discuss them and to display their multi-facetted reality for lack of understanding how to grasp the phenomenon is not the proper approach. In particular, deleting the whole paragraph dedicated to Accents and acting (just an example, this particular section is not the most important one in my opinion) will not make accents fade away from the countless movies which make use of them (regardless of whether they are used judiciously or not)
  • I'm not the author of this article. However, a lifetime (60 years) of dealing with accents in a multiplicity of languages, while they do not automatically give me the status of an "expert", allow me to state that the observations made in this article are, on the whole, valid. And so is its approach.
  • The {Expert-subject} and {worldview} boxes have been posted on top of the article for a while now. These are per se sufficient to draw the reader's attention to the fact that the article has to be improved, which is not something I argue against, by any means (see my previous remarks on the discussion page) Your manner of dealing with this does not improve anything, quite on the contrary. If you happen to want to edit in a qualified manner, the proper way to go about the issue, I believe, is to bring your suggestions to the article's discussion page.
  • If you don't like certain formulations (and I'll agree that not everything is well-formulated in it), please make some suggestions as to how they can be remodelled instead of just chopping whole paragraphs away. There is a huge difference between judicious and sensible pruning, on the one hand, and amputating, as you have done, on the other.
  • Accents don't belong to the category of things that easily (if at all) can be quantified, or even less so experimented upon in a laboratory. The same can be said about "Intelligence", for instance, and that's regardless of whether there exist a profusion of references to cite from or not.
  • As the article's author has pinpointed on the discussion page (which you should have read before coming with your scissors), no presentation of the phenomenon of accents can be dissociated from the fact that, from the start, they also are perceived subjectively.
  • If one may judge from both the discussion and the history, a number of people have been upset at the contents of this article since it was created. However, very few seem to be able to come with anything constructive besides claiming that the article is bad or chopping out what to them - and to them only - doesn't appear to be valid.

Would you mind going to the discussion page and justifying every one of the points you wish to edit or delete, so that a consensus can be reached? Thanks. In the meanwhile, I will be undoing most of what you have removed today. Else, before you feel that there is anything personal in all this, let me tell you that I am fully sympathetic with the Warning statement on top of your talk page, and with the statements below it too.

· Michel 16:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis, reply posted on the Talk:Accent (linguistics) · Michel 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khojaly Massacre[edit]

Hi! Is it not better to explain what is a "hysterical source" means as no fact if there's such a term or rule for Wiki? Pls lets discuss such questions before making changes in the text. Thanks! Andranikpasha 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preity Zinta[edit]

Hi fella hoz it going (can you believe how quick this year is going). I'd like it if you could read and review Preity Zinta some time and let me know if you have any pointers for GA promotion thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool! It is one of the best articles on an Indian actor I've seen on wikipedia. Some of it may need rewording or verifying further but its good isn't it. And oh my o my she is sooooo fit. Her and Mallika Sherawat, Aishwarya Rai are just ridiculously good looking aren't they?? Last week I managed to make a personal alliance with a Bollywood website with photographers in Mumbai to make free images for all Indian actors possible -the result is the beautiful images you see! Thanks I'm glad you like it - you think its ready for a GA proposal now? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Remember how you used to tell me I gotta do something with my connection? Well, I got ADSL. :) --PaxEquilibrium 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, I don't know where the best place to mention this would be... but the page Baja Arizona is pure nonsense (the concept is the same as Southern Arizona, except that the phrase "Southern Arizona" is actually in common use) and it was successfully voted to be deleted last year, so I'm not sure why it's still around because I can't find any records of a deletion review or anything similar. What say you? --Node 10:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Welsh is not an official language in the UK. English is not an official language of the UK. The UK does not have an official language. That is, there is no legislation the specifies what is and what isn't an official language. However Welsh along with, Irish Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, and Cornish are recognised as regional languages. See Languages_in_the_United_Kingdom#Status. If you add the Welsh name of London and Leicester then then these other languages would also have a claim to be included in the lead, and then others might argue that Gujarati, Arabic, and Hindi are more significant to these places than Welsh and so they would have to be included in the lead. Thank you. Jooler 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:47, 6 October 2007 Francis Tyers (Talk | contribs) (109,880 bytes) (london is capital of the UK, Welsh is one of the official languages in the UK) (undo) - "I didn't say Welsh was official for the UK" - it sure looked like it to me. But Welsh isn't an "official" language. It is recognised as a regional language, in Wales. There is no obligation to use Welsh in any respect in any matter outside of Wales. For example the 2001 census forms had separate versions for England and Wales, with the Welsh one having a Welsh language alternate version [18]. As regards the articles in question, I would have thought that the above message would have made it perfectly clear that giving undue preference for one regional language over any other would be inappropriate. Jooler 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the person who originally removed your "Llundain" contribution, I feel I ought to make my case clear here. Welsh, as Jooler notes above, is not a language of any substantial importance in London either de jure or de facto - I daresay there are as many speakers of Chinese, Polish and Hindi in London as there are of Welsh - and it would be impractical to list all the available foreign-language names in the first sentence of the article. But just so you know that this is not a topic Wikipedia wishes to neglect, you might want to look at - and hopefully improve if you can - the following article: Names of European cities in different languages. Guten Abend! Lfh 19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's back![edit]

Some people are trying to revive the Macedonian noticeboard, and there's also a (RoM) Macedonian WikiProject now. Want to come and give us your blessing? Fut.Perf. 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Francis, just to inform you that documentary about punk rock scene of Novi Sad, "Bilo jednom..." is uploaded to Google Video with English subtitles. First portion can be found at There you will find the rest of the film. All best, Jdjerich 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Armenianisation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Please note that I did not add the PROD template to this article, I am just letting you know. —  Satori Son 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tose Proeski[edit]

A sad, sad tragedy... --PaxEquilibrium 13:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, do you have a Paypal account? I would like to send you some 20 euro as a gift (next week). --Thus Spake Anittas 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey fella howz it goin going these days? Could you have a quick read of Preity Zinta again and participate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Preity Zinta cheers its now up for A and looking good ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preity Zinta FA[edit]

Hi. I'd like to thankyou personally for your comments which helped the Preity Zinta article achieve A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unbelievable. We had about 25 supports at the FA against 5 who opposed and are now trying not only to remove it of A status but as a GA back to a B class in a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC: Speciesism on discrimination template[edit]

Hi I thought you might be interested in commenting on this request for comment. -- Librarianofages 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mitch Clem[edit]

Francis, I don't much give a hoot about the Clem article specifically, but I am concerned with deletion of other people's work without a due process and sticking with WP policies. To that end, I've made this AfD a bit of a test case, Please return if you have the time to discuss the issues, especially the section I added at the bottom. User Richard Norton has opposed my removal of the extensive notes to the subject's self published site. On further research I ahve reveresed my removeral of these notes and documented the reasoning at the bottom of the AfD. You might also want to join in at the talk pages for WP:N and WP:BIO where the guideines are decided. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope that when you do have some time you might join in the discussions at the policy pages. Based on your user page, you look to be well educated and a good contributor. I like to encourage people to get involved in the policy sections. If the rules don't work, let's make them better. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not agaiiiiiin![edit]

What's this supposed to mean Fran? Are we starting a chit-chat in the RFARB page? If so, I'll respectfully pass from commenting there. Just a question: If I had said (or if I now rephrased) to "WP practically does not adopt the Greek position" (that you propose), would there be any change in the rationale that Greek users here feel like as if they landed on Mars? Also, for your last comment that includes "ethnic Macedonians" to the collaborating parties in Macedonia (terminology), I remember I found it much harder to debate with you, than with the occasional vandal that would come across from the Republic. Sorry to note this, but there wasn't actually any such collaboration from them (and bad people could say that this is the exact reason the article is super, but I'm not "bad people", of course...) NikoSilver 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, FlavSavr added a couple of helpful bits, but they were too few and too early if you recall. I think he too is a little disappointed Big Al is called Greek there, and I've actually met no-one from the Republic (including him) refuting the doctrine that he too was Makedonski (along with Samuil, the Bulgarian Empire, etc etc). On the other hand, many Greek editors (including me) frequently come to the difficult position of supporting the consensus, be it the name of the country, the people, or their language. The YELLING in contrast to your "reasoned comments" were my actual point, and thanks you agree. Anyway, I'm glad we managed to put a little brick on the wall of serenity in Macedonia related articles with "terminology", but it was just us too (or people like me and you), if you understand what I mean. I also remind you a couple of comments you were forced to make to them, like "drop the pseudo and the name will be yours", and "don't wind up the Greeks" and "claiming he wasn't Greek is ridiculous" etc. Those bits were helpful, and not their contribution. Unfortunately. NikoSilver 11:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The first armed conflict occurred recently in northwest Macedonia... --PaxEquilibrium 12:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Very nice job you've done on Persian-Tajiki transliteration. One point though: Farsi is not a correct designation for using as equal to the Iranian Persian. It is the native name for Persian in all Persian-speaking countries. It is actually wrong to use it in an English text at all. You can find more about this in Persian language page.

Take care.--Mani1 19:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I can read both Persian and Tajiki. I am too busy these days (a lot also with the Persian Wikipedia) to be able to get involved in another project. But if you have questions which I, as a native-speaker, might be able to answer you are always welcome. I check this page more than the page here.

Take care.--Mani1 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've signed up to do the GA review. I'm not a linguist, and I'm fairly busy, so process may be slow - if either of these is a problem, let me know and I'll withdraw. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few first thoughts.
  • There are a good number of red links, some of which seem quite important. Any chance of fixing some of these?
  • I appreciate that an article like this has to use technical terms, but some of the more important ones could do with a brief gloss, so the non-expert doesn't have to keep linking to explanatory articles
  • Your referencing system seems a bit odd, with very short in-line entries followed by a bibliography. Why not use standard in-line referencing?
  • There needs to be some careful copy-editing to pick up the odd grammatical error/typo.

Jimfbleak (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be found here. Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on Balkans-related articles if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting the article Serbo-Croatian language tag removal[edit]

Hello! I see that you do not agree with the idea of splitting the article Serbo-Croatian language. Do you mind telling me why? And why did you remove the tag that indicates the suggestion? I would like to hear the opinions of others as well, not just yours. Mrcina (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does en.wp have a definition of extremist sources (or in particular far left/right ones)? We would like to improve our policies on ro.wp concerning (among others) Verifiability and Reliable sources and we could use a suggestion. --Alex:Dan (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for intruding, but: the definition belongs to outside reliable sources, as does everything on any wikipedia project. Dahn (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article name misspelled[edit]

Merry Christmas and all the best for 2008 from the Bald One ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 13:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frances, the name of the republic includes hyphen between Nagorno & Karabakh, it is missing in the name of the article Nagorno Karabakh Republic , please correct. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NK split[edit]

Next time you "unilaterally decide" something, bring it up with the vague moderator first please? Maybe a calm word would have tilted me in this direction, but it still seems a bit disrespectful. --Golbez (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's okay, thank you for the response, maybe we just needed someone to come in here and kick our butts. It may eventually return to the status quo, but til then, at least maybe some new discussion is happening. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for splitting the NK article[edit]

Francis, fresh air is always useful, splitting the article made things much more clearer. Steelmate (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Xmas[edit]

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O A M A T A A | msg  18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Have a Merry Christmas, Francis! Dahn (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linguistic question[edit]

What's the linguistic term for a naturally evolving spoken variety used by speakers of different dialects (of the same language) to communicate with one another? Please respond on my talk page, thank you. --AimLook (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If i understand well your question, the answer would be diasystem. Francis can correct me if i am wrong. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macedonian Language...[edit]


I am Greek and your contribution of a source as to why "Macedonian" is an official language in Albania is simply of those things that start flame-wars.

[non-relevant parts trimmed. - Francis Tyers · 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

C. It NEVER states "Macedonian" is an official language ANYWHERE in Albania.

3. What it SAYS is that "Macedonian" at that time were being taught with non-standard books in certain areas in Albania.

[non-relevant parts trimmed. - Francis Tyers · 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

Why didn't you take the trouble to read it, before challenging my {{Fact}}??? I mean you know that these things cause flame wars...

So, do me a favour and get my {{Fact}} back...

A.1. There was a case in Florina where a man who identified as being "Macedonian" (like those in ROM) attempted to change his surname from Stoidis to Stojanov. The local courts rejected his application as did the Supreme Court, as he didn't have a lawyer (no lawyer would represent him and the court didn't appoint him one when he asked for one).
As for the other points, only Francis can answer why he choose to use that as a source. --AimLook (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've responded on your talk page. - Francis Tyers · 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you have found another source, you should replace the previous one. :D And, I'm not one to deny that "Macedonian" has the status of a minority language in some areas in Albania or is being taught there. Yet, this has to be formed as a statement of "recognised as minority language in parts of: Albania (areas where this happens)". A source stating this in more detail, like stating that 'here' and 'there' this does happen would be ok, too. However, you should take into account that this is about the official status. Check this one out: Turkish language. See how, the article's infobox states that Turkish is spoken in Greece, and yet it does not include Greece in areas where Turkish is an official language or a recognised minority one. While there is a treaty between Turkey and Greece recognising a minority in Thrace, this treaty (Lausanne 1923) doesn't recognise an ethnic Turkish minority, thus, even though Turkish is taught in Thrace as a minority language in minority schools, it is not an officially recognised minority language. It's considered just one of the languages of the recognised Muslim minority in the area. The others would be the language of Pomaks, i.e. Bulgarian, and the language of Roma Muslims. That is to say, that while there are minorities everywhere, their languages do not have a recognised status de facto. For example, there's a "very big" minority of Turks (round 2,000,000), as well as Greeks, in Germany, mostly ex-workers and their descendants. I know for a fact that there are a few Greek schools in Germany, some are even administered by the Greek government. I suppose, there are Turkish schools, too, and more than the Greek ones. Yet, none of those languages are considered minority ones in Germany. Nor, there has ever been a need to recognise Greeks or Turks as minorities in Germany. So, you got to understand that things work like that. :D
So, please change the status in that infobox, or provide a source that states things in a clear way.
Francis Tyers, as to whether the parts you trimmed where relevant or not: I could make a .tk site called and state some bad things or stuff that is not real about "Macedonia", then add some trimmed quotes saying that "Macedonia" never existed and then have some friends from the local university add their names. That is to say, that sources are to be judged as a whole. A source that flames about Greece, and uses "Macedonija" as one of its own sources is not a very good one to use. So, please either change the infobox or the source. Or, let me do it, and tell me if you agree with the way i'll do it.
Aimlook, yes, you may have a point there. But, i'm not really sure that is the whole story... We already have some people here with 'Stojanov' as a last name, of Serbian, Bulgarian or from that unnamed country (unnamed, meant as a sacrasm :P). Moreover, the whole thing sounds like a farce. Having lived in Greece for long enough, I'm convinced that these things CAN take place :( . However, this most likely is a single case, or perhaps not. Either way, he should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. I have never heard of a court dismissing a case due to a lack of a lawyer. However, if this really was the reasoning behind all this, I'm deeply sorry. However, things like his whole stance towards the case may have been taken into account.
Moreover, I came across this now:
"The rejection was based on three citizens’ objections which though were never communicated to N. Stoidis."
Perhaps, people will say that this is just the cover, yet, according to Greek laws, if there are objections, they have to be taken into account.Heracletus (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serb-Croat language madness[edit]

I'm sorry.

If that won't do I can scry for an English link? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to my e-mail. Did you get it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPA assistance?[edit]

F-T, could you please help be with IPA over at the Djuradj II article (for the intro)? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, no; that's what I wanted. That in the article is the modern articulation.
You also gave me an idea - I should also add the original Old Serb-Slavonic name ;) when I find it. Thanks! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi F-T; sorry to be bothering you again, but could you please do the same for Andrija Radovic and Nikola Petanovic? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I should have looked! You seem to be a Balkans veteran :o) In any case, thank you for your vote, and please keep an eye on the MilHist Project main page over the next couple of weeks--mrg3105mrg3105 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Might I please ask you to move the article back to Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive? S-comma is indeed official and correct, but s-cedilla is used throughout Wikipedia and is more readily viewable by more users, so before embarking on such a big change, I would ask that we wait for some sort of consensus to develop on the matter. Also, due to a move and a redirect where you were involved, we lost the page history for Ploieşti, another situation I'd like to see rectified. Thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Francis. Could I please ask you to reconsider your diacritic plans? I'm leaving aside that the new diacritics look ghastly, and instead noting that: a) the matter was already discussed (informally) - back when I started contributing, it was Romanian editors who told me not to start using the Academy's diacritics; b) Romanian wikipedia itself does not use the Academy's diacritics; in fact, if you look over the net, you'll notice that, of the sites who use diacritics, it is only the Academy who uses those diacritics! c) the change would have to applied in a gazillion articles, in such a way that it could not even be handled by bots; this, I presume, is a burden you transfer on other users, when, in fact, consensus was reached over this a long time ago. Dahn (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But, either way, we all would have to accept one system or another, right? I mean, unless we want wiki to go to hell. If it is what the majority does, it is probably the most legitimate - regardless of our individual keyboard layouts. And I still don't know why this issue resurfaces when the number of characters where the change would have to be applied is counted in millions, and not back when you guys were just beginning to work on articles like Romania and Romanians. Dahn (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing is that there is virtually no instance where s<turk> would not be used, so, in fact, it has already gone away. This also means that the conversion is not at all trivial: none of the wikipedias present the user with two opposite sets of diacritics, so you would have to introduce s-cedilla and prevent it from seeping into other languages. This would mean that you basically couldn't do it by bot. The hegemony (nay, the effective universality!) s<turk> already has on all wikipedia projects also means that any such exercise would be futile and counterproductive. Dahn (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, since s<turk> is used in several languages, and you want to introduce ș only in Romanian, you would either have to instruct a bot to understand the difference between Turkish and Romanian, or check every time it makes an edit to see if it was correct (which is the equivalent of doing the change by hand/asking others editors to do it themselves). Dahn (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macedonia naming dispute[edit]

Thank you. BalkanFever 12:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The probable sorry state of 'core anthropology' articles on Wikipedia has been recently identified here

As a self-nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology member, I thought I'd check on your interest and willingness to see anthropology better represented on Wikipedia? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note on diacritics[edit]

Hi Francis, I see the problem with the corect Romanian diacritics has come up again. At ro.wp we have a plan to switch to the correct Ș and Ț (see here), but it's still way too early. The biggest problem of all is that many readers --- over whose operating systems and web browsers we have no control --- still see the correct Ș and Ț as little squares, which is much worse than seeing the incorrect diacritic. In fact, the visual difference between ȘȚ and ŞŢ is not even noticed by most people. As such, the transition towards the correct Ș and Ț will only take place when a large majority (rather than just 50%) of our readers will have solved the problem of correctly displaying those characters.

The transition itself will be trickier than you might think. The internal links have to keep working, the template parameter names will be corrected at the same time with the pages calling those templates, all the talk pages in Romanian have a Ţ in their name, some pages have to be corrected manually (or almost) since S-sedilla is sometimes the correct character, the interwiki links need to be handled differently, etc. If everything goes smoothly we evaluated that the transition period will take a couple of weeks, with a bot working non-stop, and this is just for the 270,000 pages of the Romanian Wikipedia. But the job is actually more than just renaming pages and editing them: Before and after the transition there will be lots of editors using the "other" diacritics, and these have to be monitored by bots, for a much longer time than two-week period (think years).

I understand it is frustrating for you to have to use the wrong characters. For editors like you, we have at ro.wp a tool (installed among the gadgets, in the preferences) which converts the correct Ș and Ț into the currently accepted Ş and Ţ. (If you want to use it on en.wp, so that you won't need to change your keyboard settings, please contact Gutza --- he programmed it ---, I'm sure he'll be glad to help you.) After the transition, a similar tool with the opposite effect will be used by editors who have the wrong Ş and Ţ at their keyboards so that their edits are corrected automatically.

Indeed, the switch to the new diacritics will have to be made, at least for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation. But we'll have to choose the right timing and organize ourselves properly. — AdiJapan  12:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very nice of you, thanks, I think we're going to need all the help we can get. As for the right timing, it may take a few years from now. — AdiJapan  14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



here are some comments You have written me concerning Tajik :

1) for Tajik <ғ> IPA value is [ʁ], not [ɣ] similarly as in some other modern Iranian languages. My Phonetic information comes from works such as Rastorguyeva's Short Tajik Grammar or Sokolova's Tajik Phonology and many other. Tajik sounds <қ, х, ғ> are all uvulars so they should be marked as [q, χ, ʁ] in IPA...

2) letter <в> in Tajik Latin alphabet - this information is mainly from the book of Lutz Rzehak (2001) Vom Persischen zum Tadschikischen. Sprachliches Handeln und Sprachplanung in Transoxanien zwischen Tradition, Moderne und Sowjetunion (1900-1956) (Wiesbaden : Reichert), there are given three variants of Latin alphabet for Tajik, the version I edited is the latest version that appeared to be used as standard. Btw in Komunisti Isfara there letter <в> is also used, not < b >.

3) please note that Tajik <ӣ> is not [iː] as you noted, but it's value is ['i] in IPA - i-yi zadanok is stressed /i/, not long.

4) according to contributing to Tajik Wiki - my knowledge of Tajik is quite bad these days, I'm learning the language so I'm not sure I could write some information with my beginners Tajik... maybe later as I will return from Tajikistan in Summer I should be able to speak/write much better


That anon on Macedonian language...[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jingiby. Thought you might be interested. Fut.Perf. 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I remember, you are not a Balkanian and you don't have a nationalist POV. You might be watching the page anyway, but if you're not, please consider giving your 2c worth. BalkanFever 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm part of a project trying to get Winston Churchill to featured status. In doing so we are creating articles on parts of his life. I am working on the above part. He was Colonial Secretary for part of this time and helped found the Kingdom of Iraq. In Talk:Kingdom of Kurdistan you give some information on the revolts that predated the kingdom. Can you give me some sources please on the revolts? They are very hard to find Backnumber1662 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, since you took part in the discussion about renaming this article, you may be interested in participating in a most evil poll to determine the public opinion on the naming issue. --Illythr (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Tajikistan merge[edit]

I've started a discussion here about merging WikiProject Tajikistan with WikiProject Central Asia. If you wish, please join the discussion. Otebig (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your origin...[edit]

I think I read somewhere in some archive that you are descended from Aromanians. Is that true? BalkanFever 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit late now :D, but I found the diff: [19]
It was only now that I found your response: [20]
BTW it would make you "Francescu Taiar" or something like that. BalkanFever 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation[edit]

Just so you don't think I am advocating this from sheer stubbornness, my position is that good article research should discriminate between good and bad original research, even when it is the source for the article. I don't think reference work editors should compromise on article quality in any way as a proof of our integrity expected by users--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit at WP:GAU[edit]

A definite improvement, thanks! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]