User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 5
 Archives |
|---|
Move Qadaa → Kaza
Could you pleae move Qadaa to Kaza? Kaza is the more common term in English. I proposed the move on Talk:Qadaa over a week ago and there were no objections. I had previously merged the old Kaza article (about the Ottoman term) and the Qadaa article (about the modern use in Arab-speaking countries). Thanks, and Happy New Year! --Macrakis 17:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, good job, thanks. I'm considering how best to do it. In theory, I ought to do a history merge, but that would result in a terrible jumble, with versions of both articles alternating in the new unified history. Maybe I'll do a - horribile dictu - cut'n paste move? What do you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the messy move/merge. And thanks for the explanation about phonemic diphthongs in Talk:Turkish language. --Macrakis 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't you warn Dodona for personal attacks? Miskin 09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was just a confused political rant. Not worth sweating over. But why did you reinstate the whole silly rest of the thread? I deleted the whole thing for a reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That was an accident. Ranting or not I found his last edit really offensive. Miskin 10:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, can you take a quick look here. I am having some serious problems with civility on Tajik's part. I tried being nice, being formal, being humorous, but he still comes back with all types of personal attacks and degrading comments, both about me, about Turks and about I don't know what. I reported him for 3RR yesterday, but nothing happened. But the main problem is with civility. Thanks Baristarim 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your catch on this article. I wasn't sure which to go with, I just knew that it neeed to start heading toward the door. Pastordavid 12:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
External links edit war
I just saw your edit summary - looks like you went to the trouble of filing that for nothing. -- Steel 13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, thanks. Perhaps I wouldn't myself have gone for such a long block, but I guess you're right... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- This might be a long shot, but do you know (or know anyone who does) anything about Hrisi Avgi? -- Steel 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't get why he's looking for trouble so much. The worst part is in the 3d rv he says "per NikoSilver", while I clearly said in talk "not reverting"... I really wish he could help me help him. NikoSilver 13:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, seems he can't stop himself. Just like our other right-wing friend I blocked again yesterday... Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- About Hrisi Avgi, I only know what's in the article, and that Mitsos is a self-declared sympathiser or member. I think he has described himself as a "Nazi" somewhere here on WP too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- The other main editor to Hrisi Avgi gave up Wikipedia for the new year, and I'm concerned that it's become highly PoV since due to Mitsos. Greek politics (or whatever this is, not read the article myself) is not my strongpoint, and I'm trying to find someone knowledgeable in the area to take a look at it. -- Steel 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know enough about it to know it doesn't merit an article this long. KP Botany 18:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- The other main editor to Hrisi Avgi gave up Wikipedia for the new year, and I'm concerned that it's become highly PoV since due to Mitsos. Greek politics (or whatever this is, not read the article myself) is not my strongpoint, and I'm trying to find someone knowledgeable in the area to take a look at it. -- Steel 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't get why he's looking for trouble so much. The worst part is in the 3d rv he says "per NikoSilver", while I clearly said in talk "not reverting"... I really wish he could help me help him. NikoSilver 13:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- This might be a long shot, but do you know (or know anyone who does) anything about Hrisi Avgi? -- Steel 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Haven't seen the "Nazi" thing, although he identified as a "white supremacist" in his userpage. And regarding the "help me help him" comment, I and a lot of other Greek editors here have really tried. A lot. NikoSilver 14:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know... - BTW, the nazi comment was here: [1] Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
I did answer the questions though! Thanks for the info. I have to have 100 post?
- I have been her awhile, I just don't make many edits. If I must remove my RFA, could you do it for me? Dphantom15 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: sources
Hi FTS. There is not exact date on which modern Greek literature begins. Conveniently we consider "Digenis Akritas" as the first script of the modern Greek literature, the first script that is different from medieval (Byzantine) Greek. Emmanuel Legrand, Mario Vitti, and others argue in their works about when modern Greek literature begins: 9th, 10th, 11th, 1204, 1453 or 1669. The truth is that none can come to a conclusion, since the differences between modern and Byzantine Greek are very few. The θα in the future tense came in usage after the Hellenistic-Roman times, about the same time when οσπίτιον->σπίτι replaced οικία and νεαρόν->νερόν ύδωρ replaced ύδωρ; this, on its own is not enough to say that the song is older. The Swiss Samuel Baud-Bovy, in his La chanson grecque (pages 163-174) places the song in the 9th century; so does Linos Politis, in his History of modern Greek literature (5. Το Δημοτικό τραγούδι, Κυρίως άσματα, σελ. 103). Also, Fauriel, the man who made the Demotika songs known in the West, referred to their ancient roots, and the early composition of this specific one. Goethe, in a letter to his son, Augustus, on July 5 1815, referred to the demotika songs' early origins (I will write it in German, since I have it:)...): Ein Freud der Neugriechen war bei mir, der Lieder dieses Volkes mit sich fürt, das Köstlichste in dem Sinne der lyrisch-dramatisch-epischen Poesie, was wir kennen (K. Dieterich, "Goethe und die neugriechische Volksdichtung", Hellas-Jahrbuch, 1929, pp 61-81, and, for the Greek translation that I've read Σ.Β. Κουγέας, Νέα Εστία 11, 1932, σελ. 621 και εξής). Also, "Digenis Akritas" seems to have arisen from the demotika songs (Linos Politis "L' epopee byzantine de Digenis Akritas. Problemes de la tradition du texte et des rapports avec les chansons akritiques" in "Atti del Convegno Internationale sul tema: La poesia epica e la sua formazione", Rome, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1970, pp 551-581. Also, the works of A. Pertusi); some academics say that it is in fact a composition of smaller demotika songs (the fact that in some places in Greece, only parts of this epic poem have survived during the ages, e.g. Η μονομαχία του Διγενή με τον Χάρο στα Μαρμαρένια Αλώνια, gives more credit to the demotika songs as an early modern Greek poetry-also have in mind that the link is unbroken, both towards ancient and modern times). Δεν έχω καταλάβει τί ακριβώς μου ζητάς για τις μελωδίες, την ηλικία και τη μετάδοση. Θα ψάξω να βρω παραπάνω στοιχεία για τη μετάδοση σε άλλους λαούς. Προς το παρόν, βρήκα αναλογία με την "Μπαλλάντα της Λεονώρας" στους δυτικούς ευρωπαϊκούς λαούς. You are right about the version that I have used in the article; it is the most widely known version, and the one I first read in my region. Unnecessary to refer to other versions, since there are too many. Apropos, the differences among them are, in fact, of no importance. The version I linked to is not the one I used for the translation (if u've noticed, line 39 of the translation, is missing from the link). Much regards Hectorian 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I kinda thought that u would be able to find one of the books i quoted above, but i did not know u had Politis':). Yes, the outline of the story is dated back to the 9th century. The same applies for Digenis Akritas; on page 27 of the book u already have, it talks about 6 versions of the poem (if i am not wrong, a 7th one has been discovered some years ago), some of which do not include some parts. "The Dead Brother's Song" had been used, sang and modified all this time until recently. The version i've used for the translation has been the most widely known, probably the one that has brought to our times most of the original text. It is like the Bridge of Arta song, which is still found in a variety of versions. About the θα in the future tense, i am not quite sure... maybe what i remember is that the two forms coexisted for some time (as it happens in all linguistic changes during the ages)-i will have to look it up.
- The melody is the standard melody of the demotika songs. I am not sure if i am able to use the English terminology, but i bet u have heard demotika songs. (on page 20 of the book u have, there are full details about the iambic decapentasyllabic) (if Politis was not dead already, i could be accused that i am promoting him far too much LOL).
- An article about the Decapentasyllabic verse / Politic verse (ξέρουμε γιατί το δεύτερο ονομάστηκε έτσι) would be indeed very interesting, and i was a bit disappointed that such an article does not exist already. it is on my "to do" list from now on...
- I had no idea about the Lenore ballad until recently. but what i know about it is in the academic sphere. i would be grateful if u could give me a link with a translation of it in English, sometime, so as to see the relevance between both poems:). Ciao Hectorian 21:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- This scene is very similar indeed! It also reminded me somehow of the Sleepy Hollow... I'll see if i can find a translation of Lenore ballad in English or Greek; there must be! Cheers Hectorian 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks!:). I'm gonna read it right away! Hectorian 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Very dramatic and sad that is...! Bürger did a really good job! Thanks again:) Hectorian 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
RE: Talk page formatting
That's strange, I just did a test print and it was quite large and legible. What kind of printer settings or browser are you printing off of? Also, what may be the interest in printing my page if I may ask :)?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops sorry for the misunderstanding, no that little tidbit is not on purpose and I'm not too certain what is triggering that. Any suggestions? My html does have embarrassing amateurish eeps I must admit...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Think I fixed it, check my talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, FPS :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Yes! Nice to be here! Do I have to change something in the page? I read something about changing the time. Do I have to? And if yes, what time exactly?!! At the top? The time of Aldux' signature? Thanks!--Yannismarou 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK! I figured it out!--Yannismarou 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Precedents
I really hope this reasoning is not an one-off case. (I'm refering to this vs that) NikoSilver 22:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, see what you mean... But I voted on this one, so I won't get involved in closing it. Of course, the "precedent", if it were one, would mean "no consensus", hence "keep"... That what you want? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your precedent applies to the method, not to the result (of course). The method suggests that WP:COI votes should be discounted. Had there been more WP:INDY votes in either side in PGG, I'm sure your method would produce a different result from no consensus. For more information, check also this precedent. :-) NikoSilver 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If the Maniots article was to be merged then would all the infomation be added onto the Mani Peninsula article? Kyriakos 11:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
PLease have a look at what I said at the Maniots article talk page. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the cookies!
My one true weakness. Tombseye 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: FYI
Thanks. The checkuser actually wasn't done on wiki, but I can forward you the email if you want. I don't mind at all about the redirect either. Cheers, Khoikhoi 11:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I hadn't thought of Greier as well when I welcomed who I thought was a Hungarian user. ;-) Khoikhoi 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, it's 4 days. Khoikhoi 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Just verification.
I'm just trying to get information. I have never seen a process open to move the article; Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I to Ottoman casualties of World War I. The current content does not include other parts of the Ottoman millet such as Ottoman Armenian casualties. If there is one could you give me the link. Or are you willing to collect all these articles under the article that you moved the content? Also what is your base on moving these articles? Historically speaking I do not know anything, if you give me some citations for this action, I would appreciate. --OttomanReference 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that the AfD was very much also discussing the option of a move or merge, and as I pointed out in my remarks on the article talk page I see that move justified by the weight of the various opinions expressed there. As for the content, I take it from the AfD discussion that there was in fact willingness expressed by several editors to work on the article and improve it in a suitable fashion. If it should turn out that casualties of other groups within the Ottoman empire are not documented well enough to write much about, or if the figures found in the literature don't make sufficiently clear what groups are included, that can all be pointed out in the article too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- The page has a very long debate history. Most of the people do not really have enough background, and they act on current national and religious beliefs. One's claims towards uniting conflicting fronts without their specific involvement is not enough for justification of deleting or renaming a historically valid concept. I have not seen (not solidified) the effort to gather all the sides under one article. Besides, the military casualties are Muslim millet, especially after the 1st battle battle of Sarikimas, I have never seen an citation claiming that Armenians, Jews or Greeks were in the hot conflicts which the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I covers hundreds of battles. All the Christians, Greeks Armenians and Assyrians perceive their casualties as "genocide" so they are not civilian casualties of Ottomans, which they form a special (specific) pages. That leaves us with Muslim millet. I 'm astonished that you might even mention the numbers do not belong to muslim millet, as depending on the source from a million to two and a half million people would not have any classification. A) "discussing the option of a move" is not enough to justify. B)"act willingness expressed" can be proven with the development on such a cooperation and the "merge" procedures are very clear. "Merge" can be performed after the "so called" cooperation develops and generates that page. C) "figures found" you need to prove this POV with the citations. Also, I would be delighted to have my hands on that citation. I'm looking for your justifications as soon as possible. Thanks. OttomanReference 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I replied here. There are some serious problems with that reasoning, and I will be applying it here as well. In fact you are right. The latest title can stay, but I hope that you will stick behind your reasoning and back me up when I will have moved the other article very soon. Thanks Baristarim 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing the cut-and-paste move, I am sorry that I had to do it that way. So what are we going to do? I am thinking that both articles can stay, and we move the info about the Ottoman Muslim casualties to its link and break the redirect. Baristarim 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I also replied in the talk page, and suggested a solution.. What do you think? Baristarim 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I moved the page back to its original state. However I apparently made a typo and now there is a period at the end of the title and the redirects are a bit messy I think. Can you help me move it back to "Ottoman Muslim Casualties" proper? FP, most of the keep voters knew what they were voting for: a seperate article. Listen, I am trying to hear out some of the arguments, but I am afraid that the same logic can be applied to the polls in PGG, and you know that nearly all third-party editors that showed up there have expressed reservations with that title. I am more than sceptical when someone who had been acting just the opposite in another article changes the tune in another article. This issue was discussed to death, and anyone can create a new article at the redirect, however this page should remain where it is, and keep its history. Baristarim 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've undone the mistaken move; the rest is left to you. As I said, my decision yesterday was not a binding administrative act, so it's all up to you, if you guys must move war, be my guest. About the "logic" behind it all, I'm not aware that I have "changed my tune", nor do I see how what I said would carry over to the PGG case in the way you seem to think. I'm afraid both you and Niko substantially misunderstood what I was saying on both occasions. We seem to be all misunderstanding each other all the time these days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Don't worry, I know that same logic cannot apply to PGG, but my point was just an exaggerated analogy. By the way, on a more technical note, I seem to have problem with moving pages from time to time. Why is that? And what can I do about it? I had to ask some admins if they could do the move on such occasions, but they were mostly uncontroversial therefore it was easier. In this case I suppose that I first didn't see a problem since my latest move included a typo. Cheers! Baristarim 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Moves can't be done by non-admin if there's already a page at the target ___location, unless that page is itself only a redirect with no changes in its history. I yesterday deleted all the confused move history of that redirect page, so it should be "clean" now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are right. However, Dirak just move the page to "World War 1" just to be able get around the redirects that made the page move impossible. 1 is never used. And the page histories got messed up again. I really find this very inappropriate, the AfD was closed as Keep and any potential moves/new articles should have been discussed in the talk page. I will be careful about 3RR and move warring, however I am deeply troubled with what's going on... Thanks for sparing your time to deal with this mess btw. Cheers! Baristarim 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- And the view of the majority was a universal title. //Dirak 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- No it wasn't.. People knew exactly what they were voting for: a seperate article. Nobody is stopping anyone from creating a new article with a more comprehensive title. This article should stay with its history, and a new article created if need be. Baristarim 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- And the view of the majority was a universal title. //Dirak 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Now that I had to call in Nishkid to help us pick the right Wrong Version and protect it, could you two please at least help to tidy up the mess of all the broken redirects and stuff? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is, the wrong page was protected. This is what should have been protected [2]. It should be restored to the last good/stable title (i.e. the one by you) and protected. //Dirak 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ok, I will do it to the protected version. But, unfortunately, again, the histories of the redirects are messed up which would render any future moves impossible. "1" is not the correct version to begin with.. I have never been opposed to the creation of another article, however this move messes up the article's history since it has always been about the original title. There should be a new article with a new history if need be. FP, this has been a really disturbing. The move was done very haphazardly and in very sneaky fashion. The AfD closed as keep, and most people knew what they were voting for. This should have been discussed in the talk page. Baristarim 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The protect was correct: the AfD was closed as keep, and any further moves require concensus. This is fine, and anyone not happy with the title should raise them in the talk page. And without using "1"s to get around the redirects - which is disrespectful against the wikiprocess. Baristarim 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yawn, violating the 3RR which you did is also disrespectful against the wikiprocess. //Dirak 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Fixed the redirects.. I really hate finding myself in such situations, and worse having to oblige others to waste their time on such issues - therefore I am truly sorry FP about the inconvenience this has caused. Hopefully it has not taken too much of your time from doing things more worthwhile. cheers Baristarim 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
? He protected it here [3]. He protected "Ottoman 1" after the protection at "Ottoman Muslim". In any case, I will break the redirect at "Ottoman Muslim" and start a new article later this week if this charade is not resolved. "1" was, IMO, a method of overriding impossible page moves. This is really lame FP.. And we are letting this happen? That article should be moved back to keep its history consistent, and a new article created at "Ottoman" with content transfer from "Ottoman Muslim". Why is this charade happening? Baristarim 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)- (edit conflict) Struck out my comments. The page is protected and I don't want to disturb anyone with this any more for the moment. Sorry about the mess FP, we do deserve to be blocked :( Baristarim 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't anybody dare start new pages here. The page stays where the page history is, for as long as it is protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:Districts of Turkey
Dear FPaS, Thanks for your contribution in template and sample use in Çanakkale. We have allready another variable there, "image" which has exactly same value as "sortkey". I am planning to delete "image" variable and use "sortkey" variable instead it, to keep as simple as possible. If I use, "sortkey" variable, for example in; "Image:{{{:sortkey}}} Turkey provinces Locator.jpg" will there be any problem with this variable.?
- Where can I find all details of programming in wiki?
Regards MustTC 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, if you can guarantee the "image" variable always has the same value as the one needed for sortkey, we can of course unify it. The template techniques are a bit tricky to learn; I found a few things at m:Parser functions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think yes, has same value. But there may be some exeptions in article names which include more than one turkish character. I will check all provinces, just now. I replaced "image" variables with "sortkey" in template. Also I deleted image parameter in Çanakkale Province. It worked. No problem. I will check parser functions. Lets see my old programming experiments would be helper to me or not?
Thanks a lot. Regards.MustTC 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for comments. Ok I will check situation for different cases before any change.MustTC 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hierarchy
You may right in hierarchical point of wiev.
- I followed generally old categarization, in old versions of the articles mostly there was Turkey category.
- In any case, to cleanup the articles will be much easy in the future, only changing one parameter or deleting only one sentence in template.no need to deal articles one by one.
- You are right in your last comment;"image" & "provname" are substitude of each others(one in Eng.letters other Tr.) in only Province names, not in articles other than Provinces. Ok. Lets keep "image" & "sortkey" variables seperately.
Regards. MustTC 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
RfA
If you offer still stands, I'm willing to try and run the gauntlet... yandman 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, let's talk about it later today - right now I'm rather busy, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. Maybe I should get back to earning my salary too. yandman 09:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Phantis wiki
Hello, Fut.Perf., Our intention at Phantis was indeed to create a free wiki, under GFDL, for yourselves - and anyone else - to freely use, copy, etc. At one point, it was brought to our attention that it was wrong for us to copy information from you without proper acknowledgement. We then created the "Credit Wikipedia" template which you may have noticed on several of our articles. Should you think that a better way exists, all suggestions are welcome. Hope this has been of help, if not, please contact Lazarus - the man who pays the bills in Phantis - for further discussion. I will let him know you contacted me. Many thanks for doing so and I hope we may continue to aid one another in our ultimate goal which is to spread knowledge freely on the web - --Irlandos 11:33, January 22, 2007 (EST)
Origin of 'Ístanbul'
See my latest additions to Talk:Names of Istanbul. --Macrakis 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
About my username
hello already i read your mensage and I see that you do not like my name of user not itself because I bother you my USERNAME of user that name it choised I because i like, i don't understand that ask me about my user and i don't know do that!!!--Hjncfkdnmhbjk 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding MfD/Template:No Merge
Sorry for having sounded like a process-wank. The entry just stuck out, and my brain was on auto-reply-mode. Personally I'd just have prodded that template, it really doesn't need a full blown TfD :) CharonX/talk 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your position on Ottoman casulties
Thanks 4 everything; I'm looking for the Ottoman Armenian casualties, I hope you show the same sensibility. --OttomanReference 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Ottoman casualties"
Hmmm...this is a tough one. The current title is indeed ridiculous. The main problem that I see, is that the article is almost a POV fork of the Armenian Genocide page, making it seem like it was just a civil war. I know that Fadix wrote the Ottoman Armenian casualties article, he might be someone to ask. Another person I recommend is Cglassey—he is a historian who knows a great deal about the Ottoman Empire during World War I. However, to be honest, I really don't like either of those titles, and would prefer Something Completely Different... I need some time to think about this one I guess. Khoikhoi 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was actually watching that AfD. Anyways, I feel somewhat uncomfortable about moving the page at this point; I feel that in a way, it would be taking sides. I guess the grammar is bad for the current title, but think about how many Wikipedia articles out there are just crap (take a look at Special:Random if you don't believe me). You'll find pages with tons of spelling mistakes, bad grammar, etc. I just found Seidokan right now. So in conclusion, I suppose you'll have you find someone else to move it for you. Sorry. :-( Khoikhoi 09:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I think the new title will be fine, since it is a valid title and a topic that needs to be covered. However my point was that it would have been much better if another article was created and the content moved from "Muslim". Now it is the other article that has its history. Oh well.. On the other hand, I still have to register for the record that how this move happened was very disturbing. There should have been more consultation in the talk page, particularly since it was pointed out in the AfD that anybody could create the "Ottoman" article. Soon enough I am sure that there will be a new article at "Muslim" - but I know for a fact that many people are still going to vote delete or merge, no matter what BS they said in the AfD. There are people who cannot take the fact that there can be a seperate article - which is pretty racist IMO. FP.. Nearly every third-party editor in the PGG RfCs (including the first one (way back when) have voiced miscontent with the title (including many other third-party editors who are simply too afraid to step into the talk page). And every single new title is being rejected by the same editors on the same exact grounds. Not to mention the "revenge" at TRNC title-tag. What is your take on the situation? Baristarim 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- What I still don't understand about your two-article plans is, how are the two articles to be dovetailed with each other? Which sections of the current articles will be linked to which main articles? To my mind, given the structural division into military and civilian casualties, and the very different roles that the religious divisions play in each of them, it would all be much more easily treated in a single article. That's a simple matter of structural organisation. I don't see why so many people seem to believe that would mean a downplaying of the Muslim part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Baris said: Nearly every third-party editor in the PGG RfCs (including the first one[citation needed] way back when) have voiced miscontent with the title[citation needed] (including many other third-party editors who are simply too afraid to step into the talk page).[citation needed] And every single new title is being rejected by the same editors on the same exact grounds.[citation needed] Not to mention the "revenge"[citation needed]
- Baris, I need citations for these please, I reposted them below because you removed the fact tags (despite my non-flooding comment). NikoSilver 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm finding all this very annoying. The reasons why Baristarim & co. are so insistent on having "Muslim" in the title is so blatantly obvious that even Winnie the Pooh can work out what they are, and they are not in the BS the opposition to that view are being fed. The ulterior motives (which ultimately come down to Turkish-pushing) are crystal clear and were confirmed yet again with OttomanReference's dab page. Baris, do everyone a favor and stop accusing people of revenge (and other ad hominems), başarmıyacak... //Dirak 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Or else the evil sock maker will come and get your HAIR!!!)
- Hey, I don't want to be getting yellow flags for the rest of the evening, okay? Go fight somewhere else. Σιλάνς ανόητοι, αλλέ εις τας κουζίνας σας. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Θα μιλάμε και θα παραμιλάμε! Ουστ από 'δω! ;-) //Dirak 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, yellow flag! NikoSilver 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Meta authentification
I confirm that Meta user m:User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, making this edit [4], is me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to...
... in good faith adding the article to AFD, having the decision be a resounding keep but move, then have this done and then have a new MFD promptly created? By all rights, I should have just speedy kept the AFD. If you would like, I can alert everyone. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Mitsos
Hiya, I just saw you extended Mitsos's block for evasion. I noticed an IP had been editing the page, but was hesitant to take action myself in case someone accuses me of picking on him. I've reverted the IP's edits per WP:BLOCK, and semi-protected Hrisi Avgi. The protection is set to expire at exactly the same time as Mitsos's block [5] [6] (I've been waiting for a chance to try out that new toy feature). Just a heads up. -- Steel 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I hadn't even noticed we can make protections with an expiry date! Is that a new feature? - But anyway, I'm frankly not quite sure if the level of disruption on the article really justifies protection. As long as it's only two or three edits once a week? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a new feature. Introduced yesterday (or the day before, I forget). Anyway, I'll leave the decision on protection up to you. If you don't think it's necessary then feel free to lift it. -- Steel 13:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just in case you haven't seen it before: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mitsos Spylab 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
no more "farsi" template ...
Hi
Accept my apologize !
Thanks for your support
 |
As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey |
Userpage
Hi, just wanted to talk to you about my user page. I don't really think that having a billingual list of cities in northern Greece is a big deal. But what really concerns me is the amount of offending content on other userpages and Wikipedians don't seem to mind at all, and they are wasting their time removing content from my page when really there are real discrimatory content on other pages. For example, User:Makedonas has on his userpage content that states my language doesn't exist and that its a dialect of another language, he is dening my nation saying that its "Tito's invention" and he also has political songs (no song is more political than an anthem), and he has an article of the city Kozani, and nowhere does it say that it that its not a Wikipedia Article but a user page. My userpage is not dening anyones language, race, or religion, his user page also says "Macedonia, 3000 years Greek history", if put on my user page "Macedonia, 3000 years of Macedonian history" it will probably get reverted. How about User:Asteraki ? Look at all the articles on his page, yet for some reason you are more concerned about a billingual list on my page. Macedonia 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm fully behind the initiative once taken by Francis of purging all of this stuff on a mutual basis. I seem to remember he once went ahead with that, but these things keep seeping in left and right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
User: NisarKand providing FAKE (pretend) sources for false claims
Hello FP. A few days ago you blocked me due to what you saw a revert war between me and User: NisarKand on the Afghanistan article. What was actually happening was that Nisarkand was making a false claim and then using a FAKE (pretend) source to back it. By that I mean that he says one thing in the article but his source says something else. And that is why I had to revert. It was Nisarkand that was making a SERIOUS VIOLATION of Wiki's rules, providing false sources. I think that I should not have been given that ban and that Nisarkand should have punished accordingly to his violation. I will list a few times he has done this.
- When you blocked us for revert-waring, he did the following. He was uploaded this [7] map which is from a nationalistic source (Nisarkand is nationalistic, not neutral, just to let you know). This nationalistic map claims that that entire territory was called "Afghanistan". When in fact it was not certainly not. I explained it to him saying, "This image is wrongly named. That is not a map of Afghanistan because Ahmad Shah Durrani called himself "King of Khorasan", not Afghanistan. All that territory was never called Afghanistan." Only parts of that territory was called Afghanistan. Then realizing that I was right about him using a nationalistic map, he quickly cites a source. He provides this source [1] and he says, "Source by Fridrich Engels added to explain this was the boundaries of Afghanistan in the 18th century. Please do not remove sourced information." I then decided to read through his source because I was shocked that any source would claim such a thing. I read through it and NO WHERE did I find that the source says what Nisarkand was claiming! The only thing close to his claim from the source is the following, "His kingdom extended from Khorassan to Delhi" That is NOT even close to his claim and in no way supports what he says, the false claim that this territory was called "Afghanistan"! And then I reverted that serious violation [8] and got banned for it. So here is my evidence that Nisarkand provided a FALSE source for a FALSE claim. Please check the history log to verify what I said here, I also explained myself on each edit so it should be clear.
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Afghanistan_1772_%28Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_Empire%29.jpg){kind=link}
- Also, on another article (Kandahar) he did the following and I explained it on the discussion page of that article so I'll just copy paste: User: NisarKand wrote that "As a result of several battles, more than 30,000 Persian soldiers were killed by the Afghans, along with their leaders Khusraw Khan and Rustam Khan." and cited this source [9]]. I went to that source and read the entire article. No where did it say what User: NisarKand claimed. In one sentence it mentions "though the Persian General Ṣafí-qulí Khán with 30,000 troops succeeded in defeating an Uzbek army of 12,000 he was immediately afterwards defeated by the Abdáli Afgháns". That means that the Persian forces FIRST faught an army of 12,000 Uzbeks, then fought the Adbali Afghans meaning we do not know how many Persian soldiers survived to fight the Adbali Afghans, nevermind the number that was killed. Nisarkand made a false claim and used a fake source to support it, that is a clear VIOLATION of Wiki's rules. So I have deleted that sentence. He also put this on the Afghanistan article and after I caught it on the Kandahar article, User: Tajik also saw it on the Afghanistan article and removed it from there as well [10].
Now these are 2 major instances of Nisarkand providing fake sources for false claims. I have caught a few others but those were more minor. Additionally, User: Tajik has also caught this several times and he may also report a few examples of this violation.
Also the other day he uploaded a picture and gave it a total made up filename and description. I told other Admins about that and they deleted the picture so I can't show it to you now, but that was another one of his dishonest violations.
This, making stuff up and providing fake sources, is a very serious offense, so please try to do something about User: NisarKand. I think this is a very serious violation of the rules and I wouldn't be surprised if he was banned for it.
Thanks. --Behnam 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is still true that you need to stick to 3RR, because NisarKand's edits were not obvious vandalism. You need to discuss these things on talk pages and get other editors involved to form a consensus. One hint: The discussion on Talk:Afghanistan has been so chaotic you will find it hard to get outside neutral editors to even read it. If you want to make your points heard and understood, be precise. Be brief. Don't let yourself be drawn into long threads. Don't mix your criticism with personal accusations, like you did here, and like everybody seems to be doing on that talk page. Nobody wants to read those, me included. One new section heading, one paragraph, just one sentence describing why you think a certain source shouldn't be used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I accept my short ban. But FP, the above is not any personal criticism or accusation. I was just trying to provide 2 cases of NisarKand using "pretend" (fake) sources.I know they are long, but I was trying to prove it beyond doubt. If 2 of them are too much, can you please just read 1 of them? I really don't see how NisarKand can be let free with this. Please just read the 1st case. This is too serious of a violation to ignore. Behnam 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you again, but aren't you going to do anything about this? Behnam 07:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way...
Do you mind if I protect all the articles that Mywayyy is currently using as a playground? Khoikhoi 05:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've added Thasos, Chios, Samothrace, and Alexandroupoli to User:VoABot II/admin watchlist.js. Let's see what happens... :-) Khoikhoi 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Reverts to "Great Fire of Smyrna"
What is Wikipedia doing about those other articles on Smyrna 1922 (Destruction of Smyrna, Burning of Smyrna etc) that automatically revert to the ridiculous "Great Fire of Smyrna". Is this a turkish website or can alternative postings be accessed? THIS ISSUE MUST BE RESOLVED.--Tedblack 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Εχεις δικιο
οκ λοιπον, θα σεβαστω την αποψη σου μιας και το εχεις ψαξει περισσοτερο. ΑΧαχχααχ μα γιατι σε οποιον μιλαω για το μαρκοπουλο μου λεει για τα μουστοκουλουρα του Δαρεμα? Περαν την πλακα, οντως δεν υπαρχουν καλυτερα! Θα ηταν χαρα μου να σου στειλω κανα κιλο. Ελλαδα μενεις? ;)--KaragouniS 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
ok φιλε, νασαι καλα τοτε :P --KaragouniS 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry που δεν απαντησα νωριτερα αλλα για καποιον λογο δεν ειχα δει το μυνημα σου. Οχι, δυστυχως δεν ξερω σχεδον καθολου αρβανιτικα εξαιτιας του οτι πλεον εχει ερθει πολυς ξενος κοσμος στο μαρκοπουλο (και γενικοτερα στα μεσογεια) και μιλαμε μονο με την κοινη ελληνικη. Μαλλον αυτη η γλωσσα χανεται σιγα σιγα...--KaragouniS 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Afghanistan maps
Hi Future. The map is still the same map of. However, it was reprinted in 2001. The source of it is the communist government of 1985, and thus, the map has no license. Tājik 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. Do you know anyone in Wikipedia who knows how to create good maps?! That would be great! Tājik 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have two maps, and one of them clearly says 1985 Communist Government (well not clearly, its a little blurry, but you can read it still). Here take a look [11]. The other one [12] that says "MAM Computer Graphics 2001", I don't think that means it was re-printed in 2001, I think that is the name of the graphics program they used to make it and the "©" is probably for that program, not the actual image. Behnam 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ethno-linguistic_map_of_AFG.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Afg_ethnic_map.jpg&oldid=102878665){kind=link}
Poem
Δεν είμαι πια καλτσέμπορας! 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Em let's change it re then! Παραιτούμαι! 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
ColtsXLI
It has come to my attention that you may have unfairly blocked ColtsXLI as he had only made one vandalizing edit and that was one that appears to have a possibility of being purely accidental.I only ask that in the future you first display a warning before jumping on the block train. Please do not treat it as a witch hunt everyone makes mistakes.Cylonhunter 02:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Maniots
I have editted the Maniots article so that it is not only the history of Mani but also the enthnology and culture. Could you please take a look at it and tell me what you hink and wether or not it should be merged with the Mani Peninsula article. Thanks. :) Kyriakos 08:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Re
Cylonhunter
It was Netsnipe who officially declined the request, btw. I don't really believe his story here, but I think we can't do much but to watch him. – Chacor 15:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue V (I) - January 2007
The January 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter (the first issue after the merger of the History of Greece Wikiproject with the Wikiproject Greece) has been published.
You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.
Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
ROARRRR!
Bad little user! Steal Bishzilla's Supports![13] Bad moon rising! Bishzilla | grrrr! 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC). 
Edit warring
First, I didn't notice at all that I have violated 3RR rule before some day and that I have been reported. I agree, I shouldn't involve in edit warring, but sometimes it is hard to resist when someone is constantly reverting your edits. About Kicevo article, you cannot say I was going against consensus in that article (there is no previous consensus as I know, at least not in the article discussion page). Before some time, I and several other users agreed to have the following consensus about some of the Macedonian and Greek cities: if a special Name section exists, then any relevant name can be mentioned and explained there. That way we solved the edit warring in Bitola article, in Florina article and in other articles as well. Kicevo article also has a Name section. If you take a better look, you will see that I tried to discuss my actions in the discussion page, so they aren't blind reverts without any explanation. In addition, by further examination you can notice that other users were involved in edit warring as well: Khoikhoi did 3 reverts in the same day (23 January 2007), however, he/she at least discussed it in the discussion page, FunkyFly without any discussion did 3 reverts on 25 January 2007. I'm open for discussion and I hope we will find a consensus about that article. MatriX 12:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... yeah, well, that's just it: what I can see is that at least three editors agreed against you on the Kicevo page (LieutenantBoom, Khoikhoi and FunkyFly). That's one against three. Persisting to revert in such a situation is "editing against consensus" in my book. If you are faced with opposition like that, then reverting on and on is simply not the way to proceed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, reverting on and on is surely not a way, however, "one against three, four,..." is very common situation, especially when the edit is made by some Macedonian editor. You can notice there aren't much Macedonian editors around in the last time, even if someone tries to edit something, he would face "one against three" situation in the most of the cases.MatriX 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
TedBlack
No problem. As for the plainlinks, here's what my sig looks like on my computer:
I'm not sure why you don't see anything... Khoikhoi 07:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
PGG resolution attempt
Hi Future, an attempt has just begun to resolve the Pontian Greek Genocide dispute through an arbitration committee. Since you have mediated there before, could you please voice your support or objection to such a measure here. Thanks, --A.Garnet 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you'd be willing to let me know what you think of the concern I brought up on Jan. 10? As a classicist with no expertise whatsoever in phonology, I have long accepted the account in Allen, which I was taught. This account may be wrong, but what I really find unsettling is that it seems to have been falsely attributed to Allen in our Wikipedia articles. I'll be grateful for any response you may care to offer, either here or at the article's talk page. Wareh 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the explanation at the talk page. I confess, I don't find the apparent system of phonemic "compromise" as clear or rational as it might be, but given the attendant uncertainties with ancient Greek, I suppose it doesn't make sense to complain. (Though it still seems the article is in error in saying the charts lay out Allen's ideas. His Gott example is unmistakable, and in that context I feel sure he means "pet" to signify /ɛ/.) As a non-phonologist, I wish for the experts' best guesses, as clearly transcribed phonetically as possible. I don't have any books with me now, but my gut tells me that representing ο and ου as /o/ and /oː/ (as opposed to the quality nearer /ɔ/) may misrepresent later experts' consensus as much as it misrepresents Allen's views. In your talk page comment, you seem quite emphatic about the quality of ου—is the scholarly consensus really that clear, and is this another example of "common practice in phonology" being happy to represent what may very well have been just like Gott as /o/? Wareh 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty certain about <ου> = [o:], yes. Since it merged with <ου> = /ou/, and then was raised to /u:/ quite early on, and was always distinct from <ω> = /ɔː/, it simply must have been closer than ω. The literature I have is quite unanimous on this point. As for "phonemic compromise" or misrepresenting Allen, it's just a question what phonemic notation is all about. Saying that "Greek omicron was /o/" means that omicron stood for a sound that was distinct from all others, and that was located somewhere in the back/mid region. Not less and not more. There simply is no claim about its more precise phonetic nature implied in that statement, so there's also no way it could possibly contradict Allen if he is in fact making such phonetic claims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the trouble of a further explanation. I'm obviously not conversant with the conventions of phonology! (Good point about ου vs. ω as always distinct, a point that was less on my mind because, as you say, it seems to have had the value /u:/ from so early on.) Wareh 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty certain about <ου> = [o:], yes. Since it merged with <ου> = /ou/, and then was raised to /u:/ quite early on, and was always distinct from <ω> = /ɔː/, it simply must have been closer than ω. The literature I have is quite unanimous on this point. As for "phonemic compromise" or misrepresenting Allen, it's just a question what phonemic notation is all about. Saying that "Greek omicron was /o/" means that omicron stood for a sound that was distinct from all others, and that was located somewhere in the back/mid region. Not less and not more. There simply is no claim about its more precise phonetic nature implied in that statement, so there's also no way it could possibly contradict Allen if he is in fact making such phonetic claims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Bozcaada map
Hey future - the map looks great, could be used for both - however, the only suggestion you need is called an "overview". This is the little 'square' in the corner that shows a bigger area (like an entire map of Turkey) to show the user the area that your map covers... much like they do in National Geographic, or like I did with the Districts of Turkey maps. Thank you for the neutral input. Rarelibra 13:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Aegean overview is quite applicable, I think. Especially because that is where the islands are - and after all, the islands do have a Greek history. I would leave them as they are! Rarelibra 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
FP can you re-upload that map without the annoying (and off-centered) white border? It doesn't align with the rest of the pics in the infoboxes (and anywhere else). I'd do it myself, but I'd have to export the result in anything except svg (which is not supported by neither of my apps). NikoSilver 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
| That one! |
|
| :-) NikoSilver 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
- Hey Future - the only other thing I would do is highlight the actual island as a different color in the main map - so that it stands out as the primary focus of the 'foreground' in the map. Just a thought. Rarelibra 14:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow!
Wow! Great maps! Can you also learn me to make maps?! What programs do I need? Is it easy to learn? Can I easily uploap them then to Wikipedia?! I'm now reading the Aegean dispute article, and I intend to write a detailed review in its talk page.--Yannismarou 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
WOW! #2
Awesome maps, awesome work in the article about the Aegean dispute. When you finish, you definitely need to feature it! NikoSilver 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
For Patras, how about comprmising with the Cypriot pronounciation of Batra or is it m'batra? That should keep us all democratically unhappy... kidding :-). Nice maps, takes ages to download. Politis 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hey, can you keep an eye on the Turkey page for a while because of User:TedBlack? I don't know if you have been observing it but he is sneakily adding a lot of information to that article in a way to disrupt it blatantly. After the etymology addition was reverted, he added that the inflation was 27percent citing an unaccessible figure even thought the accessible inflation figure says it is 9 something. Thanks Baristarim 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: A block of yours
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. After looking into things a bit more, I've unblocked and responded at User talk:Nwwaew. Luna Santin 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
More Tajik/E104421 edit warring
Are these users still under your informal revert parole? It looks like they've definitely violated it here: [14], and like E104421 has violated it here [15], and he's also racked up 3 more reverts today at a related article [16]. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)