Welcome!

Hello, JdeJ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jpe| ob 11:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You wrote: "Find a source for your claims. Inserting unsourced personal opinions is not in accordance with what Wikipedia stands for". But there is a source, the Folkting link! And why does it matter whether it is the first or the third sentence? During the Swedish rule in Finland (12th or 13th century until 1809) Swedish was the language of the state affairs and the nobility (at least from the New Age), it was the only official language. Because of this many Finns who wanted to climb the social ladder changed their language to Swedish. Civil servants worked in Swedish, so language change was a must for many. -- Jaakko Sivonen 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

It's true that some Finns changed their language to Swedish during the Swedish rule and that some Swedes changed their language to Finnish during the end of the Russian rule. That a significant proportion of both language groups have an ancestry that partially lies within the other language group is obvious. What I take issue with is claiming that the origin of Finland-Swedes is mainly due to Finns changing language. That is not the case, at least I've never found any source claiming that. JdeJ 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I would say that this section in fi.wiki supports that: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomenruotsalaiset#Suomenruotsalaisten_alkuper.C3.A4 It mentions the Swedish immigrants in the Middle Ages, but seemingly puts more value on the language change (notice the word kuitenkin - however). -- Jaakko Sivonen 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Proving one thing in Wikipedia just with another section of Wikipedia does not correspond to external sources. That paragraph does not say that Finland-Swedish ancestry is mainly due to language change. Even if it did, that would not be an external source. JdeJ 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

It does imply it, since it talks mainly about language change, only briefly mentioning immigrants from Sweden. -- Jaakko Sivonen 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments on my page regarding Finnish people. The other user clearly has some agenda and is not only rude, but not acting in the spirit of Wikipedia. He speaks of me using non-sense, but himself uses compeltely unreferenced claims and his own very controversial POV. Not only this, his personal attacks aren't that welcome either and I will report him to the admin. if it continues in such a manner. Thanks anyway and its always good too see more Christians on Wikipedia, ciao. Epf 21:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You are a lie spreading , anti-Finnish agenda pushing person who knows virtually nothing about Finnic peoples. I will speak my mind, I have a one month block in Finnish Wikipedia for critisizing the Svekoman users there, so I don't mind going down fighting against Finn-haters here as well. -- Jaakko Sivonen 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I see no reason why Epf would be anti-Finnish or a Finn-hater and I attribute those comments to your lack of perspective. Once again, you have to accept that people can disagree with you. Whenever someone goes against your personal opinions, you answer with abuses instead of engaging in a civilised discussion. It's not gaining you any credibility. Further insults by you on this page will be deleted, but you're always welcome to make constructive comments both here and elsewhere. JdeJ 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You claimed that no other people article mentions them in the info box, but in the Swedish people it does say "87% of Sweden is composed of Lutherans". Are you going to remove it too? And why should the box not contain that important information? People might take one look at the article and think that there are about as many Finnish and Swedish speakers and Lutherans and Orthodoxes. -- Jaakko Sivonen 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't mind, I just think we should be consistent. If you want to have it in, I'd suggest you give the acutal percentages within brackets instead of saying 'small minority'. It's both more informative and looks better. JdeJ 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

To my recollection I put it in percentages first, but you deleted it... Aiotko poistaa maininnan luterilaisten ruotsalaisten osuudesta väestössä artikkelissa ruotsalaiset, vai et? -- Jaakko Sivonen 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Right you are, although that was because you only gave percentages for the languages, not for the religions, making it seem like a targeting of Finland-Swedes Insert percentages for all four groups if you want, I won't touch them. En, en aio poistaa sitä ruotsalaisten artikkelista mutta minun mielestäni artikkeli olisi kyllä siistimpi ilman sitä. JdeJ 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Tehty (prosentit vuoden 2005 tilastojen mukaan). -- Jaakko Sivonen 19:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, tein vaan pikkusen muutoksen niin että näyttää paremmalta, tekstiä ei tarvita.

Is it you, Litany? -- PaxEquilibrium 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

No, sorry. Never heard about anybody by that name. This is the only name I'm using on Wikipedia. JdeJ 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You're getting pretty close to violating the three revert rule. Please have a look at this essay and remember that editing an encyclopedia isn't a matter of life and death. I've blanked other warnings to your user page per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because they accuse you of vandalism when your edits are not vandalism but part of a content dispute. Durova 15:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think he likes 3RR. Igor Berger ( talk) 11:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Per your request I have re-introduced Tajik's comments in their entirety. This was not a personal attack on Tajik, but a summary of what Tajik had said. You added a NPA warning to my page, when no one ever asks Tajik to stop personally attacking other users, especially Turks and Pashtuns.

I have attempted to follow WP dispute resolution process in dealing with Tajik, by discussing the issues with him, and by withdrawing from the dispute as advised. This has gotten me mocked, harassed, and personally attacked by Tajik, and administrators who support him.

But no administrator ever calls Tajik to task no matter how outrageous his behavior--and he is continued to allow to flame, call other users racists, not support his arguments, do anything he wants to in creating a hostile atmosphere at Wikipedia for Turks and Pashtuns.

He can ask an administrator to block a user for calling him a Nazi, and a couple of administrators jump to the task. Yet he calls me Taliban supporter, much worse than a Nazi for an Afghan, and nothing.

I did get the message about the dispute resolution process at Wikipedia, though: Don't bother!

KP Botany 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with the user so I can't comment on his actions. The point here is that possible wrong-doings by other users does not grant any of us the right to do wrong in return. If you feel that you have been attacked, I understand that you are frustrated although it still does not justify attacking others. I'm glad to hear that you edited the part I commented upon. However, you had no right to remove the warning I had put on your page, but I'll put that down as inexperience and not bother about it. Just remember it for the future. JdeJ 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Why can't I remove the warning? It's my talk page. And Tajik simply removes them from his talk page, and no one tells him he can't do that.

And, again, I did NOT attack him, I simply abbreviated his attack on me, I didn't make anything up, it's all there, even worse than my abbreviated from. How can you not know Tajik? His are the racist words posted on my talk page, that you forced me to put back on my talk page.

So Tajik can call me a racist, and Taliban-supporter, and that is NOT an attack, but if I abbreviate what he wrote, accurately saying what he said, I'm personally attacking him? How is that? They're his words, not mine.

Again, Wikipedia dispute resolutions should certainly come with a warning: don't waste your time, because more experienced users will simply effectively attack and harass and bully you while you're doing so, via administrator-fishing. What a horrendously unfair double standard. Tajik can post the comments ABOUT ME, but the same comments, if altered by me in the least bit, are a personal attack against him. That's outrageous.

But there you go, I've put it back up, Tajik calling me a racist left and right, because, after all, I wouldn't want to violate any Wikipedia policies about allowing other editors to personally attack me. What an incredible waste of time, too.

No matter what I do, Tajik will relentlessly continue harassing me with the assitance of administrators like you, who say that Tajik's words are not a personal attack when said by him, but are one when quoted by me.

KP Botany 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please use the move function, instead of copy-and-paste, when renaming a page. This avoids splitting the page history in several places. You should also state the reasons for moving an article in the summary or on the article's talk page. Thanks. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comment, both advices are very good and I will follow them in the future. Thanks again! JdeJ 11:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the Treaty of Fredrikshamn revert, I was looking at Jaakko's edit, went away for a while and returned and reverted, I didn't notice that you had been there.-- MoRsE 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem, I guessed that might have been the case. I'm getting quite tired of the same pages being vandalised by the same user over and over again, guess I'm not the only one. JdeJ 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, he's doing the same in svwiki, fiwiki and wikiquote too... MoRsE 23:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Really? Well, I'm not surprised to hear it. One apparent flaw in Wikipedia policies is that a block in one language isn't carried over to the other versions. JdeJ 23:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have for some years used to refer to Wikipedia articles. They do, however, have a tendency to change.

In some cases, this means that they not only give different answers from time to time, but they do actually answer different questions from time to time.

I'm not sure this is advantageous.

In any case, it does without any doubt disencourage me from referring to Wikipedia.

Specifically, the term "Finnic" is one of those obscure concepts that I've been happy to find explained at Wikipedia. There was once a sentence that, at least for me, was much enlightening about how the concepts Finnish/Finnic could be used in English by Finns, en explanation that helpfully made some wordings I'd come across not only understandable to me, but reasonable.

Paraphrasing, to distinguish between historically nomadic (or whatever) Lapps and agricultural Finns.

Using the history-tab, I browsed and found you editing this paragraph away with the explanation that you rewrote to make the text "more up to date".

OK.

You may be right.

I've no privileged knowledge about what the term means, but I dare say that as far as I can judge, your contributions have not made this article more useful to people in my situation.

Regards!

Christopher Hansen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.224.17.83 ( talk) 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC). reply

I would have to disagree with you. It is true that the article may be less straightforward now than before my edit, but I see no point in an article being straightforward and wrong. The paragraph that I rewrote did not correspond to reality and contradicted all modern research. JdeJ 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

67.165.216.16 is hard-banned user Primetime ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you see any edits by that IP or by users who appear to be him please contact me or another admin. All of his contributions should be reverted on sight. - Will Beback · † · 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the information! JdeJ 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Article Northern Sweden was Finnish up to the 20th century. The Swedes commited an ethnic cleansing by forcing the original Finnish population the Swedish language and indentity. "Det finskspråkiga Norrbotten har genomgått en etnisk "reningsprocess"." When is Sweden going to give the area to the Finns? -- Jaakko Sivonen 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

To begin with, I have no idea why you post this here, it's of no interest to me. I also suggest you check up on what ethnic cleansing means, as you clearly does not understand the term. JdeJ 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The writer him/herself writes "en etnisk "reningsprocess"". So... -- Jaakko Sivonen 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Why I posted this: to remind everyone who are the original people on the both shores of the Bothnic. -- Jaakko Sivonen 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see. As far as science (as opposed to nationalist fantasies) can tell, the same people have been living in Scandinavia for thousands of years and their languages are unknown. Later in history, the arrival of Indo-Europeans and Finno-Ugrians meant that these languages were adopted, but the population remained the same. As for the first languages known to be spoken in the region, the first known language spoken in what is now Northern Sweden and in all of Finland except the Southern coast was the Sámi language(s). The first language known to have been spoken in Southern Finland and further south in the region was a Indo-European Baltic language. Finnish arrived later late from the east, just as Swedish arrived quite late from the Southwest. JdeJ 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

How exactly is the map you removed from Europe inaccurate and offensive? JIP | Talk 07:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your question, I should have explained it on the talk page. The text of the map is 'Countries of Europe in local languages'. Yet it only gives the Spanish name for Spain, not the Catalan, Basque or Galician names. I don't see the Hungarian name of Romania despite over a million Hungarians calling Romania home. Even if the text was changed to say 'Countries of Europe in official local languages', the map would still be wrong. It gives all the official languages of some countries but not of others. Finland is just as bilingual as Belgium, yet I see only a text saying Suomi on this map. That is why the map is inaccurate. It is also why it is offensive - it is very offensive to the millions of us people who have lived for hundreds or over a thousand years in a country to find a map that does not recognise our existance and equal rights in our countries. JdeJ 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

JdeJ, thank you for the sweet message on my talk page. I never thought of us as "campers", maybe more like a bunch of cyberspace hitchhikers, searching for our scholarly guides to the galaxy. ;) Being in a camp, even if it's located in outer cyberspace, is too confining for a free-roaming spirit, eh? Pia 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

In case you are interested, there is a proposal to move an article about a 97% ethnic Hungarian settlement in Romania to its native Hungarian name. The town is called Székelyudvarhely by locals and Odorheiu Secuiesc by Romanians. For more, see the talk page of the article. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight. Information about Hungarians in Romania can be found at Székely, Hungarian Autonomous Province, Hungarian minority in Romania. -- KIDB 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

What weasel words are you referring to? Relir 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi- I left a comment on the AFD for Father of the Nation that you started. I would agree that some of the entries are suspect. However, for Donald Dewar it is a relevant term that is used frequently and I have added sources from the BBC and the Guardian to back this up. Thunderwing 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Looks like it is going for a delete consensus so far. I have no particular wish to keep the article, although I would consider a partial merge to Founding Fathers for some like Dewar and maybe Washington and Ghandi (although I recogonise more sources on the concept of the name rather than its use). Now Mother of the Nation is a different matter...! Thunderwing 09:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You are accusing me of falsifying articles and that is against wikipedia policies.. first of all, I will give you some links. I am not pro Yugoslav, I am totally neutral and have all sources to back up my claims.. First regarding Austria-Hungary rule on Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was administered and handed over by the turks in 1875 and then fully annexed in 1908.. this does not mean however that south slavs felt any less "dictated" until the original annixation point. Regarding Gavrilo Princip, he himself declared that he was a Yugoslav AIMING FOR ALL SOUTH SLAV unification.. (read here: http://www.bookrags.com/Gavrilo_Princip).. And I am sure you are aware of the Ilirski Pokret (illyrian movement from Croatia that wanted to unify all south slavs)

Yes, I have accused you of falsifying articles. While one should be careful with accusations, I must say that it seems safe to do so in your case. You have removed a sourced statement from a credible source around ten times, just because you don't like the fact. You say you are totally neutral and have sources, but your edit history says something else. You have numerous edits where you have replaced people's nationality with a Yugoslav nationality, yet not one single edit where you have replaced a Yugoslav nationality with any other. You almost never give any sources, more often you replace sourced facts with your own unsourced facts. You have been adding pure nonsense to a number of articles, with no sources to back it up. To conclude: yes, I have accused you of falsifying articles and I think anyone having a closer look at your edit history will be bound to agree with me. That is not to say that all you're edits are wrong, far from it, but please start providing sources for your claims and stop removing sourced facts. JdeJ 17:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Was your last comment specifically aimed at my last post?

If so, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but aside from the nom's not always productive tone, I think that all evidence presented in this AfD supports deletion. Frankly, I don't know what more to prove if no reliable source has ever made this distinction before. Malc82 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your question. No, my comment was only aimed at the nom's contributions, not at your posts. I don't agree with you on the topic itself, but I have no problem at all with the way you are presenting your opinion, and thus no intention to comment on your posts. JdeJ 16:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Everything in the article is sources. Why do you keep adding things that are mentioned in the article. Check the sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.129.28 ( talk • contribs) 20:14 31 May 2007.

To begin with, it would be easier for everybody to follow if you would sign your contributions and if you would mention which article your thinking about. I guess it's Yugoslavs. The so-called source for Princip, inserted by you, is to a link that in turns incorporate the Wikipedia page on Princip, creating a circle-argument. I wasn't the one who first inserted the fact-tag, but I fully understand the user who did so. JdeJ 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Princip stated he was Yugoslav, he was in cooperation with bosniaks and croats who aimed for unification of a south slavic nation ( http://www.bookrags.com/Gavrilo_Princip Quote: "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be free from Austria." . Also, Tito was the first to put forth a resistence in Yugoslavia and was hailed by great briton and acknowledged by other super powers ( http://www.trussel.com/hf/tito.htm). Now please stop changing the article to your own point of view.

I haven't 'changed' the article to my own point of view, I've merely added a fact-tag and a dubious-tag after to statements that appear to be vague and erroneous respectively. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly vandalised a number of pages to insert your own Yugoslav-agenda, overriding the concensus formed by many responsible users. That you do so using two different accounts only add to reduce any credibility you might have had. JdeJ 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I am providing you with facts, clear and very easy facts to comprehend. If you wish I can add the sources into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.129.28 ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:REDIRECT#Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken. Redirects should not be "fixed" if they work. There could be a reason why certain links are linked to in a particular way. For the particular case you are probably referring to, it is conceivable that comparable statistics on metropolitan areas using a single methodology could be developed in the future and the UN list of agglomerations may become different from such a list of metropolitan areas. So, unless the link you are fixing specifically refers to "urban agglomerations" (which is what the UN list claims to be), it is best to leave links to "metropolitan areas" alone as these two concepts are not exactly the same. -- Polaron | Talk 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

While I agree that it is probably the case that the irish revitalization hasn't been as succesful as the initiators hoped it cannot be declared an unequivocal failure until someone does a study evaluating its results together with its intended purposes. I am fairly sure such evaluations have been published and they must be included when making such statements. Read the first point of WP:SOURCES#When_to_cite_sources - and please understand that this statement is likely to be contested, particularly in the wording that you have written - which doesn't allow at all for different interpretations. The parenthesis attributing the irish language in Northern Ireland mostly to "nationalists" is also problematic and I think you should remove it since it cannot be proved and is a weasel phrase. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your message. First, I haven't written any of the sentences in the article, merely restored them - but of course I think they are correct, otherwise I wouldn't have done so. I see that you are Danish and obviously an expert in linguistic matters, but I hope it's not unpolite to assume that you haven't specialied in Irish and the socio-linguistic situation of Ireland? The clearly stated aim of the Irish revival was to make Irish the primary language of Ireland, just as Hebrew managed to be revived to become the primary language of Israel. This was the aim of both the Gaelic League and the founders of the state when Ireland became independent. As I'm sure you know, this has not succeeded no matter how one looks at the situation. In case the revival would have resulted in parts of Ireland becoming Irish speaking and other parts not, the result could have been regarded as a failure (Ireland still not Irish-speaking) or a success (Irish restored as the main language in parts of the island). Unfortunately (my personal opinion), nothing of the kind ever happened. Not only did the revival fail to bring back Irish as the community language to any community - Irish has even continued to loose ground to English so that some areas that were Irish speaking when the revival movement started are English speaking today. The Irish revival never succeeded in reviving Irish as the main language even in one small town anywhere in Ireland, yet alone bring back Irish as the language of Ireland. For this reason, it seems entirely uncontroversial to say that the revival failed - this is certainly what native Irish speakers themselves are saying. JdeJ 09:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your quick response and sorry for assuming that you were the original writer. I have met native Gaeilge speakers (who may or may not be "nationalists") who say that gaeilge is the "language of ireland" and don't even find the idea of a revitalization to be a question - of course the irish language should be taught in irish schools is what they say. They would certainly be at odds with the notion of an outright failure. I cannot imagine that it will be difficult to find sociolinguistic publications describing the apparent lack ofsuccess of the irish revitalization strategies in more balanced terms - and if no one else does so, I will do so my self and untill then let the {{fact}}-tags stay as a reminder. Anyway the way it stands it looks like northern ireland is the place with most irish speakers which is incorrect since most populous gaeltacht areas are in western ireland were some counties have as many irish speakers as 50%. A more balanced statement about the irish revival would adress this fact and also adress the fact that a language revitalization process can have other goals than making a language the new community language - for example reversal of language loss, reversal of negative language attitudes etc.

Thanks again, I agree with most of what you say. It's true that many Irish speakers, and others, say that Irish is the language of Ireland - this may be a historical view or a wish for the future, but is never used to claim that Irish is the main spoken language at the moment. It's also true that most of us eagerly supports the teaching of Irish. In fact, it's people with these views who are most likely to consider the revival something of a failure, due to wishing that Irish would have become the main language. As you say, it shouldn't be too hard finding sources. I'm on vacation right now and cannot check my own books, but a look into Reg Hindley's The Death of the Irish Language would give ample material. Not that the book is very good, but still. I fully agree with your last sentence, language revival can have many different goals - but the stated aim in Ireland was to restore Irish and unfortunately it failed. JdeJ 11:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

There is this man, admin Russian Mikkalai, who impose his POV on Transnistria. As he's a Russian he wants to divide Moldova who is a UN state, and to create Transnistria as a recognized state. They are trying to impose this POV by any means. You'll be blocked if you revert him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.141.109.205 ( talk)

This is an activity of a banned user:Bonaparte famous of aggressive sockpuppetry and trolling from open proxies. I strongly suggest you not to dive headlong into topics you have no previous inolvement without looking into talk pages first. `' Míkka 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! I have just reverted some vandalism on your talk page for you. :) -- Stwalkerster talk 09:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you forget you are the one who accused me of being a racist, so please relax, grow up and back off. I added depth to the History of Europe, the article has nothing to do with Democracy, so let it go...Do you deny Constantines influence on Christianity too?? If so we have major issue, report me all you want, I did nothing to you and I have done nothing wrong, I gave a good discussion filled with facts, dates, names, references...while you scream and sent me threats...I wonder who is going to be guilty here?? I have done nothing wrong but added much needed depth to the long history of Europe, so that is all I have to say to you...Please don't send me your angry messages anymore, thanks( Scipio3000 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

Also how can I possibly edit the page and clean it up with you deleting it every time I get going...at least let me present it to you in a finished product, before you A) delete it, and B) Flip out on me, thanks( Scipio3000 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

I'm feeling quite alright, thanks. Yes, when you start talking negatively about a whole people, as you did about the Germanic peoples, that is racism. Racism = looking down at a people. And could you perhaps find an angry message that I've sent you? You have accused me for a host of things, none of which has got any truth or even any relevance. Pointing out the roots of European democracy in Ancient Greece is not equal, or even close by any margin, to hating Romans. I've never even met a Roman, and I judge individuals by their actions, not peoples based on what some of their compatriots may do. You, on the other hand, have attacked people of my religion and people from my country just because you disagree with me. That is racism, like it or not. I've done nothing of the kind, that's why I've reported your very severe accusations. JdeJ 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Look I don't want this to get out of hand, I am only trying to present people with the most factual, non biased and informative article on Europe, so when people are done reading they have a good overview of Europe and Rome plays a large Role in Europe. The Romans were an international presence from 250 BC to 476 AD and then with the Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire, it is hard to argue or take that away...to do so is robbing people of factual history.

In saying that I mean you no harm or disrespect, so I hope we can work on this together, thanks( Scipio3000 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

Sure, I agree with you. Rome influenced Europe more than any other country and that should be reflected in the article. JdeJ 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks but I still want your input, If you feel it needs cleaned up or have any advice let me know, I want to give good depth on the Long History of Europe without spending too much time or not getting to key points. I hope I didn't offend you and thanks for being understanding.( Scipio3000 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

I have asked Scipio3000 to tone it down a bit. I would ask that you maybe step back for a few hours and let the heat subside. I am sure you both can and should work together. Your comments seem calm but let's diffuse things a bit before we have real problems. Thanks! JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

As for ancestors of Finnic people being among the first in Europe, this is not really so bold a claim. As you recall, in the Northern Eurasia, agriculture was rather problematic before development of domestic rye (and a few other, younger grains). Accordingly, the people inhabiting roughly the path taken from those northern people, including those that ended up becoming Fenno-ugric, was considerably nomadic in nature for considerably longer time than those of the more Southern Indoeuropean people that farmed the Fertile Crescent. This meant that their migration was strongly influenced by migration patterns of game -- such as deer -- and relatively slow, but also relatively steady. For various reasons, such as greater wealth leading to more common warfare, Indoeuropeans tended to migrate faster, and in more interesting patterns -- which, in turn, caused them to start colonising Europe somewhat later. Digwuren 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Scipio3000 is due to come off of block in about 2 or 3 hours. I am sure that he will head back to the Sicily page pretty quickly. I hope you will help him be productive by doing your best to avoid conflict with him. As I have said elsewhere, I think he can be a productive user but right now he's really on the line. I will be watching to assist but I hope I can count on you to help make this work. I know you have been through a lot of stress but perhaps we can move beyond that and get some good work done. Thanks for your help and patience so far. -- JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

First off I would like to apologize for my rash behavior. I also did not accuse you of saying that the Holy Roman Empire was the reason for the spread of Christianity, I am sorry you assumed that, as I was in debate with another user. Also I never said I was against the fact you said Ancient Greece has had a large influence on European democracy. It was because you refused to give me explanations why Rome did not belong and you kept deleting my changes without any explanation. I just wanted to clear that up. Regardless it did not give me the right to lash out on you and for that I am truly sorry and apologize again, take care.( Scipio3000 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

My apologies for moving your comment. -- SevenOfDiamonds 18:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You realize you made your vote on Crockspot look like a duplicate vote, right? See User:Tangotango/RfA_Analysis/Report. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I indented the comment in the neutral section. If you prefer it to be there in spite of the "weak oppose", don't forget to indent the comment in the oppose section. — AldeBaer 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, according to this you want the comment in the neutral section, so I reinstated it there and instead indented the duplicate in the oppose section. — AldeBaer 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jdej. Nice to be told this. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just explaining the "Slavic notion" among people. If you go to the central regions of the former Yugoslavia, namely Bosnia and Croatia, you might find that the various nations have bad tastes in their mouths regarding Slavism, especially looking at the 1990s. I know what you meant to say and you are right, nobody solely identifies as "Slav" and we are all mixed: or rather, we are all pure, that being people from all continents ultimately descended from the same source! :) Evlekis 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you your your support, but please see the clerk note below, Arbcom request protocol says that there can be no threaded discussion. So I suggest that you move your comment to your own statement under corresponding heading as I did. Threaded comments will be deleted per protocol... Best, Alexia Death the Grey 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! I would appreciate it, if you could give me your thoughts on this essay: Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia -- Alexia Death the Grey 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Your analysis that the article "World's largest cities" should refer to 1 article, the published document by the UN, only is unfortunately wrong. I have to remind you that this is a wikienviroment, which is based on the filosophy that by changing articles on well founded facts and with more sources than can be found in a standard encyclopedia article, this can lead to a more transparent and accurate picture of the world we live in.

However if you stubbornly still think you are right I suggest you change the title of the article to "World's largest cities according to UN report". In any other case please stop taking other people's freedom away of editing an article by using valid and accurate references. Regards, Maximilian

There has already been a long discussion on this and it was decided that using a single source is necessary for consistency. It's not possible to compared data taken from different sources at different times. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to argue your case on the talk page of the article where it is likely to be read by more people than on my talk page. Your accusations of me and Polaron being stubborn and taking other's freedom when trying to uphold a consistent list is, to be honest, just childish and ignorant. JdeJ 14:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I have responsed here so... feel free to propose ideas there :-) Thank you. M.V.E.i. 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

On the same link, a user made a proposal. Feel free to express your opinion. M.V.E.i. 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok so that evolved into a vote. Feel free to vote here. Because not much people take part in the discusion every voice is importent. M.V.E.i. 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

There is, of course, an English name for Paris, Berlin, and Istanbul. In one of those cases, it is spelled differently than the local name, in another it is pronounced much differently. As WP:MOS says, The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Edvard Beneš and Göttingen, but Nuremburg, naive (not naïf), and Florence). There is also an English name for the Vossstrasse; we should be using it; the reason we are not is the claim that Voßstraße‎ is neither English nor German. Since the article is trivial, and all the attention to it has been this nationalist and disruptive spelling campaign, Wikipedia would be better off without it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

There's an English name for Nuremburg, Munich, Rome and Florence and those names should of course be used. There's no English name for Voßstraße, there's just the erroneus spelling Vossstrasse just as some English papers sometimes wrote about the former Swedish premier minister Göran Persson as Goran Persson. JdeJ 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you are new to this English Wikipedia. There is a fairly strong consensus here that we should use what English uses, whether it is "correct" in the local language or not. I have already quoted WP:MOS; WP:COMMONAME is endorsed by WP:NAME, which is policy. WP:NCGN addresses the argument you use, which is neither original nor dispositive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

To begin with, I'm not new to Wikipedia. I've been here for more than a year and I'm well aware of the policies. Considering your ideas of trying to have articles deleted just because they don't go the way you like them to go, I don't really think you're in any position to be patronizing. Using English name in English Wikipedia is good and sound policy, misspelling names and calling them English is not. JdeJ 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I suspect PMAnderson may be misreading WP:NCGN. For an English name to be preferred it not only has to exist; it has to be “widely accepted.” In case of doubt as to whether a name is widely accepted, WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name provides guidelines. I am no expert, but I am not aware of any widely accepted English name for Voßstraße‎. -- teb728 09:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I doubt I am misreading WP:NCGN; I was part of the consensus that wrote it.Foreign names should be used only if there are no established English names; most places which are notable do have established English names, which often are the local name. It may be that Voss Strasse is not notable; but in that case, we should not have an article on it - an acceptable solution. The documentation on the spelling of the street is in the archive of the talk page; the documentation that English rarely uses eszett is here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You omitted the very relevant words immediately preceding the quote which you just gave: “If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name.” So the question is whether you can show that “Voss Strasse” or “Vossstrasse” (or something else) is a “widely accepted English name.” I assume from your new attack on the notablitiy of the article that you admit there is no widely accepted English name. But the fact that there is no such name is no evidence that the subject is not notable: You mentioned Besançon, Edvard Beneš and Göttingen above; you do accept their notability don’t you? -- teb728 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps what you are saying is that it is your personal opinion that eszett should not be used under any circumstance. I can see some merit in such an opinion, for eszett looks like a Greek beta to English eyes. But unless and until you get a consensus to change WP:NCGN to that effect, the latter seems to have a clear preference for “Voßstraße‎.” Inasmuch as you say “Please follow our policies,” I urge you to follow your own advice. -- teb728 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Here we go again with your old refrain. If you can't have the article your way, you want to have it deleted. It is getting very repetitive. JdeJ 16:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Good thing you put your note on the talk page, because the article is not at is face nonsense and had refs. I've deleted Swedish-descent Finns. Rlevse 21:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Jdej, at Talk:Voßstraße you accused me of dishonesty, and I responded. Did you see my response? -- Reuben 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi JdeJ, I appreciate the response. There's no need to remove anything, the clarification is perfectly fine. Thanks. -- Reuben 21:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Concerning the comments you made in [1] -- yes, in ideal world, it should be treated together. But Wikipedia's political power structures does not make it feasible to discuss the whole concept at this time. We might not even be able to keep this well-sourced narrower article. :-( Διγυρεν _{Εμπροσ!} 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

On a similar lines, you may not be aware that there is an entire ArbCom devoted to issues raised at this AfD. You may want to look at this to get a fuller picture of what's going on.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I think maybe the person who fact-tagged that was looking for a reference confirming the use of "un truck" or "un pickup" in Franco-Ontarian dialect, rather than whether camion was standard French or not. Just a guess, though. Bearcat ( talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Enh, no worries. They did kind of flag it in an ambiguous spot in the sentence. No harm done. Bearcat ( talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, you changed the lead of this article to say "It is a developed country, with the sixth largest economy in the world by nominal GDP" where formerly it said "fifth".

Looking at the article, I'm not sure where the original information came from, but since you changed it I suppose you're probably the right person to ask: where does your information come from, and if it's not given in the article already could you give a reference to it in that article and in Economy of the United Kingdom? -- Tony Sidaway 11:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

If I ever stumble into you remind me I owe you a beer for being the rock standing fast in the river of Norwegian nationalism. to the introductory paragraph is exactly what that article and my fellow countrymen who work steadfastly to build a superficial image of happy-dream-land with their white elephants and distorted facts needed.

All I want to say is, thanks for attempting to balance the article, if only a little bit. -- Joffeloff ( talk) 01:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply

First of all read before you give warnings, 2nd Iraq did exist in that time read Persian Iraq. Third you are so Biased that you gave me a warning and you didn’t gave Adam Bishop. So I'm asking you to fix your wrong information and edit the Saladin article and say he is Iraq-Kurdish. Mussav ( talk) 19:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Whether Iraq existed at the time or not isn't the topic here. The article on Persian Iraq doesn't support your view, but it wouldn't change much even if it did. The problem is the editing war. As I said, take the issue to the talk page if you feel you have a case instead of resorting to editing war. As for Adam Bishop, I think he is right in this case but he's no more allowed to violate 3RR than you or me and I'll mention it to him. Cheers! JdeJ ( talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

First of all thanks for your time and for your valuable comments and your Precaution, but The Arabi Iraq and the Persian Iraq proves that we called it Iraq from a very long time, the date shows we started to call it Arabi Iraq since the 11th century which it was before the Crusaders and Saladin thing. The Sumerian called it Iraq since the 6th Century which it backs my point more strongly. any way good luck and Happy new year. Mussav ( talk) 21:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw you contributed to the Gdanks article, there is ongoing discussion, you might want to contribute [2]. Also please remain civil and beware of personal attacks. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ^≈talk≈ 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Your edits seem to indicate bad faith and consist of personal attacks, If you have precise problems with any content don't hesistate to bring that up, but please stop from making personal accusations and attacks.-- Molobo ( talk) 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi and thanks for your message. I must agree that I am a bit dubious to your motives, yes. With all due respect, your past actions on Wikipedia seem to justify such a suspicion. As you know, you've been blocked multiple times, and for one year the last time. Having said that, I haven't reported you anywhere nor put any warning template on your page so I am trying to assume as much good faith as possible in the current circumstances. Cheers JdeJ ( talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The quote notes divisions between Slavic groups in history, religion, history. It mentions clear religious division between West and East Slavs as one of them.-- Molobo ( talk) 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It does, absolutely. But please read on. The South Slavs are divided along the same line, making it impossible to group West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs by religion. JdeJ ( talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Please no Original Research-West and East Slavs are divided by religion and we have sources to confirm this. -- Molobo ( talk) 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, do you understand English? I already said that, yes, East and West Slavs are divided by religion. And no, South Slavs are not divided from either two by religion. Ergo, the three groups are not defined by religion. What it is in this that is so hard to understand? JdeJ ( talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry but there are clear religious divisions as there is East-West division and even in South Slavs Croat-Serb Catholic-Orthodox division. The religious division between East and West is enough to note that divisions exists on religious level as those two groups are numbering over a hundred million people with clearly defined religious differences that have been remarked by Encylopedia Brittanica as sign of divisions in Slavic groups. I assure you that more then EB notes this and besides EB more sources can be added about those divisions-- Molobo ( talk) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Precisely. To quote yourself, even in South Slavs. South Slavs aren't defined by religion nor by culture nor by history. What is more, I'm tired of explaining the basics of European history and geography on three pages, please reply on the talk page for Slavic peoples. JdeJ ( talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

A question ? Poles persecuted Ukrainians in Silesia in 1918 ? I don't get your change.-- Molobo ( talk) 16:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, then you don't get it. JdeJ ( talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't. Why do you claim Silesia situations belongs to Polish-Ukrainian situation ? Please explain.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't write the paragraph. I simply restored it after you deleted it. JdeJ ( talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you read the whole paragraph and understood what it is writing about ? Silesia is neither in Ukraine, nor is it populated by Ukrainians. Please correct that error. And please could you explain why you restored a paragraph that speaks nothing about antipolonism.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It is clear I think that current wording about only linguistic divide is not enough in Slavic peoples. Do you have any proposal for compromise version that would describe the divisions in more precise way ?-- Molobo ( talk) 17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You reverted "Ukrainian claims" to "some" [3] "The source that gives that number reads: According to Ukrainian estimates, the AK may have killed in retaliation as many as 20,000 Ukrainians in Volhynia." Could you correct your revert ? -- Molobo ( talk) 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I've changed it to say "Ukrainian sources claim". Sorry for the mistake. JdeJ ( talk) 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Churchill and de Gaulle had a complicated relationship, although not as complicated and even antagonistic as that between de Gaulle and Roosevelt, there where ups and downs. There where times when they described the other as the saviour of there respective nations and at other times in lease flattering terms. But to describe them as rivals is just wrong; to be rivals you have to have something to compete about. De Gaulle never disputed Churchill’s role as the leader of the allies and Churchill always supported de Gaulle as leader of the French. Neither could one say that there where rivals for the post-war leadership of Western Europe? Churchill was in power 1940-1945 and 1951-1955, while de Gaulle was in power 1944-1946 and 1958-1969. Carl Logan ( talk) 13:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're perfectly right, thanks for taking the time to outline it in such detail. Keep up the good work! JdeJ ( talk) 13:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I restored that See also item for consideration by other editors. If it were deleted later in the day by someone who may have a hint of perspective in the matter, that would be fine with me. I don't know whether or not this is something many readers will be looking for. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with your decision. Personally, I don't find it very relevant to the university and I think it could be removed in due time, but I'm very sceptic to all edits by the anon. user regarding the university, so I fully understand your edit. JdeJ ( talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There are a lot of countries which want their names to be preceded by the words "The Republic of", i.e. "Republic of Ireland", "Republic of Iran", "Republic of Macedonia", etc. However, Wikipedia omits the words "Republic of" when referring to those countries in international lists, except when the word "republic" is necessary, i.e. for distinguishing the country from other countries having the same name (i.e. when "People's Republic of china" is intended to distinguish that country from "Republic of China" = Taiwan). Eliko ( talk) 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism or "Polish nationalism" as you did to Poeticbent. This kind of uncivil behavior is strictly prohibited, not only by our policies (which I am sure you are familiar of) but by ArbCom (see Wikipedia:General sanctions). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

We all have our biases, and they show in our edits. Accusing others of trolling, vandalism, or nationalism because of them is not the way to deal with them; civil discussion on talk and reaching a WP:CONSENSUS (=compromise) is.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello JdeJ. Thank you for your note. I have indeed been linking some book reviews to Wikipedia entries over the past couple of months. I'm sorry if this seems like bad form, but I can assure you that all the reviews are of high quality, highly relevant, and enhance the pages on which I have added them. I've always respected the structure of Wikipedia and ensured that the reviews are put on the "external links" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richtig27 ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks JdeJ. I'll certainly make sure any future pieces that I put up are relevant. And if you feel that they are not, then please do get in touch. I'm a big fan of the Wikipedia project and don't want to violate any web ethics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richtig27 ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You have been warned by the infamous Durova?!! I'm impressed. Sarah777 ( talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I am already acquainted with etiquette thank you very much. In future I shall make my own judgement on what I speculate on. Signsolid ( talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It's as simple as the IMF carries more weight on GDP figures than a news paper. Please don't keep spamming my talk page. Signsolid ( talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you aware of what the word "estimate" means. The estimate turned out to be wrong, as has been verified. Estimates are rarely useful as sources, and particularly unuseful when we know the facts. JdeJ ( talk) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"Only two reversions, both of them to revert outdated sources with current ones." I count three. -- John ( talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem, I am glad you are taking it to talk. Best wishes, -- John ( talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove the POV tag from the Vladimir Putin article. The tag specifically states "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I am disputing the neutrality of this article. You do not have a right to remove it just because you don't like it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or because you are of the opinion that the article is fine.-- Miyokan ( talk) 09:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're right on that, but you have not explained why you dispute it. Not liking criticism against Putin and callit it [[WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE is not reason enough. JdeJ ( talk) 09:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

For example, take this whole paragraph, unrelated to the biography of Vladimir Putin which belongs on the Nashi article:

"Nashi has been referred to as "Putin Youth" and the "loyal youth brigade" in the Western media. A Nashi advertisement was described in a Time magazine article as "reminiscent of Soviet-era propaganda with its non sequitur acceleration of hysteria"; the poster reads: "Tomorrow there will be war in Iran. The day after tomorrow Russia will be governed externally!"[182] Some Russian liberals refer to Nashi as "Putinjugend". The Boston Globe said that "movement's brownshirt tactics certain evoke shades of Hitler Youth, as does the emphasis on physical fitness, clean living, and procreation for the Motherland".[183] Some view the emergence of this and, more recently, other similar organisations, such as Young Guard and Locals, as one of the signs of Russia under Putin "sliding into fascism, with state control of the economy, media, politics and society becoming increasingly heavy-handed"-- Miyokan ( talk) 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, and what is the problem? I've read the same thing or seen it at the news in England, Germany and France. It's definitely not positive, true, but it's a phenomenon that has been extensively covered in the news in many countries and it is sourced. JdeJ ( talk) 10:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually if you care to look you will see the previous edit before mine said the introduction was too long. In future don't keep chasing up all my activities on here and don't make assumptions about what I do. Signsolid ( talk) 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Once again, read WP:NPA and WP:EQ. As I edited the France article before you did, I find it rather laughable that you claim I chased your activities. JdeJ ( talk) 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on France. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. (I'm warning both of you) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, I've made two similar reverts to the article. I've made other edits to the same article, sure, but on completely different subjects. I admit that I'm a bit surprised by your warning, as I've never seen this warning after just two edits. Cheers JdeJ ( talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

[4] [5] [6] :). I am taking reverts liberally here, you are both edit warring and it seemed unfair to only warn him. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Please cease your disruptive reverts, administrator Alex Bakharev has already said that this content is irrelevant and already discussed in talk in this edit [7]. Furthermore, by reinserting this - and the uniformly positive and extensive coverage that Putin receives from the state-controlled media. you are misrepresenting sources because no where in those sources does it say that state run media is responsible for Putin's high approval ratings. Go on, quote me where it says that.-- Miyokan ( talk) 09:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You are of course free to consider my edits disruptive and to comment on it. While I've made very few changes to the page, you're involved in an ongoing edit war in which I consider your edit warring highly disruptive. Speaking about administrators, may I remind you that only yesterday you received a strong warning from an administrator over your behaviour. You removed it, sure, but that doesn't make it any less of a warning. Cheers JdeJ ( talk) 10:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I thought you might want to have a look at the London article where there are problems similar to what happened in the UK article. One editor removed information showing that London has the 6th largest metropolitan GDP in the world after Tokyo, New York, LA, Chicago, and Paris, by claiming that the source for this is outdated (the source is a study by PWC from March 2007). This user has replaced the information with a claim that London is the financial capital of the world ahead of NYC, using as a reference the website UK Invest which is an agency in charge of promoting investments to the UK. I tried to explain that March 2007 is not an outdated source (if anything, with the depreciation of the pound, London's economy should have slipped further down the list of metropolitan GDPs, not up), and that UK Invest is not a neutral source for such a controversial statement as London overtaking NYC in the finance sector, but to no avail. It's all on the talk page of the London article, so perhaps you could have your say there (one on one discussions lead nowhere in general, it's better to have the input of several editors). Keizuko ( talk) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment. As I explained in the talk page, it is impossible to give stable links to particular countries, but the CIA World Factbook main page has a visible drop-down menu with a list of countries. Also, most libraries should have a printed copy of the Factbook. Please, advise if the source is sufficient in this respect in your view. Cheers Pundit| utter 17:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I have noticed you deleted my map representing the distribution of languages in Europe. I know it had many mistakes, but my intention was to improve it as soon as someone would have told me. It was just a beta version of the map I intended to create and which should have been almost completely accurate. Please write me what should I have changed to my map. Andrei nacu ( talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Have you seen the enlarged map? Some of your suggestions are already represented> Swedish in Finland, French in Aoste and Catalan in Roussillon. But anyway, I am thinking to make a better map that will also include the administrative divisions of the European coutries ( German lands, French regions, Russian oblast etc.). Thanks for your hints and I ll announce you when this map is finished. Andrei nacu ( talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Clemson University football recruiting scandal has been nominated for deletion per WP:AFD. Please participate in the debate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal, if possible. Thanks. Thör ^hammer 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I have a problem with this user (again). I don't know does he understands english or not, but he again begain deleting žepče map. We had discussion, I tried to reason with him, but it ended badly.

He has maps from touristic againcy which shows him otherways, so he is against the map on Žepče pages. No matter the Bosnian laws etc, he's stuck to those maps. And those maps are not all the same, one of it (touristic map of Žepče municipality) [8] is basecly the same to the map he wants to delete.

Help?:) Ceha ( talk) 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks:) I'll try to give my best in the future:) Ceha ( talk) 13:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I quote:

"An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted."

User:Kirev reverted other users' edits not 3 but 5 times within 24 hours. The fact that he reverted different sections or that his reverts are not "identical" does not matter. In any case, he will have the chance to defend himself after I complete my report. And I believe that he is capable enough of doing that. But if you wish to support him you can present your arguments as well after my report is completed. Cheers!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 13:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You may do what you want with your own time, I'm just telling you that no violation has been done. JdeJ ( talk) 13:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You can also tell the admins that here. Balkan Fever 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

For the current map I only used my knowledge on the distribution of languages in Europe. I couldn't find any accurate map on the whole Internet so I decided to make one myself. My intention was, with the help of responses from other users, to improve it constantly. But I realised the map was way too inaccurate and now I'm making a better one. I am using all the information I can find on each European language article plus the existing maps on the distribution of individual languages or language groups. I would very much appreciate if you could help me with several problems I am facing>

1. Should Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian be represented as one language (Serbo-Croatian) or like three separate languages?

2. Should the Occitan language be represented as it has retreated and is only spoken by isolated pockets in Southern France?

3. Is Sorbian a dialect of Polish or is it a separate language?

4. Is Galician a Portuguese dialect or a separate language as the Spanish leadership is claiming?

Andrei nacu ( talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello! You seem to know more on this that me! With reference to the Gdansk/Danzig ruling, should the article Diet of Porvoo not be called Diet of Borgå? At the time Borgå was clearly the official name for the town, and looking at the article this name was even used in Finnish at the time. 82.21.219.114 ( talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Just to let you know there's renewed controversy in the UK article. A guy keeps removing the information from the Financial Times because he found GDP figures in the CIA World Factbook which place the UK GDP above France's. It's obvious the World Factbook (which contains lots of errors by the way) used the exchange rates before the recent fall in the sterling, but that user claims the UK economy has overtaken France again (whicy, incidently, would need a Chinese-like growth in 2007 to offset the depreciation of the sterling). Anyway, you can see the whole thing at Talk:United Kingdom. I find it very funny how far some people are ready to go to remove that information from the FT. Obviously if the FT had written that the UK economy had overtaken China due to depreciation of the Chinese Yuan, there wouldn't be so many people willing to remove that information from the article, right? Keizuko ( talk) 15:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Has all the bad faith at Talk:United Kingdom turned you off? It seems all the reasonable editors are gone now, and the whole issue is a mess again. Anyway, I've restored the information from the FT inside the UK article ( [9]), but no doubt it's just a question of time before someone again removes the information, so let's keep an eye on it. Keizuko ( talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, keep faith. These problems happen only in the big articles. In the smaller articles there are much less problems. Usually in big articles when an edit war like that happens you have to hold firm for some weeks or some months, then eventually it subsides. It always subsides. It reminds me of the massive edit war that happened in the London article a few years ago when some editors insisted that the London metropolitan area had 18 million people and was almost as populated as the New York metropolitan area, when most demographers and geographers say the London metropolitan area has in fact 12 to 14 million inhabitants (closer to 12 than 14). For months people kept changing the article and writing that the London metro area had 18 million inhabitants, based on a document from the Greater London Authority which they didn't understand. Eventually the people pushing this 18 million figure left, and now for almost 2 years nobody has tried to add that figure again. Weird considering how persistent these people were in the past. So as you see there's hope. Anyway, I've reverted the UK article to your version, but there's more to come I'm sure. By the way, the pound has lost value again these past two days. Too bad for those who claimed it had recovered which supposedly made the article irrelevant. Keizuko ( talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Firstly, I would like to point out that I am not a sockpuppet, check my edit history and you will see that I have made thousands of valid edits to Wikipedia over the last couple of years - hardly the behaviour of a sockpuppet. I also find being called an "English nationalist vandal" extremely offensive. Please cease your personal attacks immediately. Dan1980 ( talk | stalk) 13:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You're making your case at the wrong place. As you can see at the relevant page, I believe there are good reasons to suspect sockpuppetry in your case. Given your own history of stalking other users and harassing them, I can only recommend you to start treating other users better, and other users will probably treat you better in return. JdeJ ( talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please stop reverting the article United Kingdom. If you disagree with a version of the article, take it to the talk page, even if it means leaving the the wrong version up. Please do not revert the article again, or you may be blocked for violating the three revert rule. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Do not defend a particular version of the article to me and then attempt to reinstate it. Instead, use the methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution such as a request for comment or a Request for Third Opinion. Neither of you appear to be taking any moral high ground on this issue, and should seek uninvolved editors to give a neutral opinion on the matter. This should be done with the current version of the page in place, even though it is the wrong version. This is not an endorsement of EITHER position in the matter, but rather a statement that the current practice of repeatedly reverting each other must be stopped. This should be done REGARDLESS of who is "right". Being "right" does not give you the privilege of acting poorly. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's hope that some sort of consensus can be reached at Talk:United Kingdom - as you will have noticed I have added a RfC to the article, however as yet it hasn't been listed at Template:RFCecon list for some reason. Hopefully we can get some "second opinions" on the subject, although I feel that the current article is a satisfactory temporary solution. Dan1980 ( talk | stalk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Check this, it's priceless: Talk:List of countries by military expenditures#United Kingdom and France rankings. Some people really need to grow up. Keizuko ( talk) 02:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Inserting tags on an article is not vandalism. And in an article on a location, anything which is not cited could be original research or point of view. And have you read the layout of the article? Do not bother me with idle threats which have no basis again. Good day. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

And what do you mean by deragatory comments? I think France itself is beautiful! And the people are sweetie-pies! There was no deragatorism anywhere. And I am for improving Wikipedia. Are you? Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

For everything. For hexing you, and for not explaining why I tagged France. It was in good faith, the tagging. I really saw those sorts of problems in the article. If I had known you have to explain why you've tagged an article for something, I would have done it. But please let me request of you that you first assume tagging to be in good faith; someone else who does such may not know that they have to explain, either, and they may feel hurt if you say they were vandalizing. That is why I lashed out at you, and hexed you like that; I hope no one ever says you've committed vandalism when you have not, because it really makes you feel... violated. You're a good editor, from what I've seen, and I know what you did was also in misguided good faith. I just hope we can put this behind us and be friends. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to the Plovdiv page. As you can see there has been a huge edit warring campaign for the past three months which has really pushed the boundaries of Wikipedia rules. I have tried to initiate discussion on the link with all parties concerned but it is third party involvement from people like your good self that is really supporting the discussion and stopping the edit war from occurring.

Thanks again. Koal4e ( talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's put it this way: that was my opinion about your opinion. I did not attack your person.-- Getoar ( talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You are assuming bad faith and had no business reverting my edit. As stated in the very first line of the 3rd paragraph of this article, "Europe is the birthplace of Western culture."...Europe as a continent is a WESTERN fallacy, a viewpoint that is foisted on the world by westerners. Eastern maps predating those of "europeans" do not show a divide in the continental mass between "Asia" and "Europe". The idea of a European 'continent' is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY under the heading of "Geology". If you want to have it a separate 'continent' for the rest of the article, fine, but don't belittle the science of geology by claiming that there are actually two continents in fact, when they only exist by convention.

Yes, report my edits. At least do me the courtesy of letting me know where you have reported them to so that I may respond to your irresponsible reversions.

There are other viewpoints of the world other than just those of westerners. Australians for example have maps showing the southern hemisphere at the top. Ignoring other peoples and cultures is wrong. You are wrong to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaq1qaz ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for clarifying the name. Do you speak Finnish? I'm looking for a translation of "Asukkaista 84,5% oli ruotsinkielisiä ja 15,4% suomenkielisiä vuonna 1970 ja kunta oli kaksikielinen." from the Finnish version of the page. TerriersFan ( talk) 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, it says that in 1970, 84.5% were Swedish spakers and 15.4% Finnish speakers. Using 1970 seems a bit old, though. JdeJ ( talk) 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You may want to check this article ( [10]). It seems there is British POV in many war related articles, not just the List of countries by military expenditure. I think we've just discovered the tip of the iceberg. Keizuko ( talk) 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You seem to be engaged in edit warring at Slavic people. Please be aware of WP:3RR, the rule that forbids every editor from reverting any one article more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you violate this rule, you may be blocked. I know that anonymous reverts by unresponsive editors can be frustrating, but the world is not going to end if the article is in a less than perfect state for a while. There are many other editors around that may help, given a chance. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

So far I have not breached the 3RR. I will stop reverting now and instead concentrate on convincing people on the talk page. After all why shouldn't there be and England flag on the page about the ENGLISH language and why shouldn't there be a german flag on the page for the GERMAN language? Thank you for informing me anyway... -- Camaeron ( talk) 15:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Quite right, you haven't breached any rule. The warning is usually given after the third identical edit to a page to warn users before they break any rule. As for your questions, I'll answer them on the talk pages of the relevant pages. I appreciate your decision to taking the matter there. JdeJ ( talk) 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for being polite and reasonable about it. We could do with more admins like you! -- Camaeron ( talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, in return :) I'm no admin, though, just a regular user. And I'm sad to say to I'm not always polite either - though I try to be ;) In this case, it is obvious we disagree on the issue involved but I'm sure we'll all be able to discuss it in a friendly and calm way. Cheers! JdeJ ( talk) 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, can you explain why this [11] is "nationalist POV"? I see it is referenced.-- Avg ( talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

My pleasure. I'm afraid you didn't check the edit well enough. There's no deletion involved, I merely reverted back to the previous order. The anonymous user had moved the Greek dialect called Macedonian above the Slavic language called Macedonian, and motivated this by saying it's an "order of preference". Claiming that one's own language is preferable to another is, to put it mildly, nationalist POV. I simply reverted back to the previous order, as a language in its own right is of higher notability than a dialect. So once more, nothing was added and nothing was deleted. JdeJ ( talk) 17:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

My apologies then, I didn't check that, I based my comment on your summary. Apologies again.-- Avg ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have read through the rules, so instead of going the wrong way my friend did, I will kindly ask you to explain why if the wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and unbiased, it does not follow the United Nations conventions. I would also like to know if you indeed understand that the way that article is right now, many people feel a direct aggression against their feelings. To conclude, I think again that if we had followed the United Nations conventions, all of this would not have happened. Kind regards. 87.221.5.113 ( talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the question. I didn't write the policy in question (though I support it) so I'm not able to say with any certainty why the policy looks the way it does. My guess is that Wikipedia respects the right of every country to call itself what it wants. Regarding the case in question, many countries regognise the country as FYROM and many other as the Republic of Macedonia. Wikipedia has chosed to respect the constitutional name of that country. I realise that some Greek users are unhappy with this, just as some users from the country in question would be unhappy if it was called FYROM. So unfortunately there seems to be no way of pleasing everybody. The solution to respect the constitutional name of every country is, in my opinion, the least bad. To be honest, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. I'm partly Belgian myself and we Belgians never complain about the country Luxembourg, although Luxembourg is also the name of a Belgian province. So we have exactly the same situation: one country (Greece/Belgium) with a region (Macedonia/Luxembourg) that is also used as the constitutional name of a neighbouring country. JdeJ ( talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

There is no such consensus in Wikipedia as you imply. Please check Burma. I personally opened a poll to rename the article to Myanmar (as per the constitutional name) and it was rejected. Truth is, the criteria are random and unfortunately, subjective. -- Avg ( talk) 15:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I thought about the Burma case. On the other hand, that is a case of a military dictatorship imposing a name that the democratic opposition doesn't suggest. But sure, I could definitely see the case for having the article renamed Myanmar. JdeJ ( talk) 15:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, there difference is that there is a horrible tendency to change the frontiers in the Balkans lately and second that there could be history usurpation (they already tried that and failed dramatically) and territory usurpation, which makes many Greeks afraid of it. That and there are hostilities with both sides, at least in the historic and territorial sense, not economically. Even though I am aware that 'Republic of Macedonia' will never be accepted under the United Nations, and that is what counts for me, I dislike seeing it, because I am Macedonian and Pontian of origin. Thus, the only thing that we could do referring to that article would be to rename it to something like 'Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)' to have the Greek side less unhappy without causing repercussion on the Skopjan side. I plan to give up on the issue, as the only thing that this article causes, as I stated before, is hatred and anger for something stupid. If you happen to achieve something like that, I guess many people will become happy; about me, I'm out of the question. If I am not able to make others understand our point of view, for any reason, I simple have to desist on the issue. Have a nice day. 87.221.5.113 ( talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

---

On the other side, the Republic of Macedonia has changed both the Flag and its Constitution at the request of our Greek neighbors,reviewed and listened to all of the mediator's suggestions,and is still called hostile and uncooperative.Aside from the wet dreams of some Macedonian ultra-nationalists(I'm sure there are some on the Greek side as well),most Macedonian people have no territorial or historical or cultural aspirations towards Greece.The name issue is still an active one,however,and it would be foolhardy to implement changes to the article before they even happen. 79.125.143.9 ( talk) 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your interest in the Eurovision article. Please note that, while the current year is indeed 2008, Azerbaijan and San Marino have not actually participated in the Contest yet. That's why Azerbaijan is still yellow. Once they have performed their song live on the stage on the night of the competition, then they will be deemed to have participated. Intention to participate does not equate to actual participation. Hope you understand. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi JdeJ,

The reason I removed those sentences from the "Ancient Period" section is because they are largely irrelevant to the history of the current Republic and go on into too much detail. Stuff about the Paeonian dynasty belongs in the article on Paeonians. The history of the current Republic was not significantly affected or shaped by the events whose description I removed. For the purposes of this article, per WP:SS, one sentence about conquest of the territory by Philip of Macedon and another about the Roman conquest suffice. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You are ignoring what I wrote. The stuff about the Paeonian dynasty is irrelevant and excessively detailed. The fact that the dynasty continued to be semi-independent did not in any way have an outcome on the current Republic. Alexander the Great had nothing to do with the area. The kingdom of Macedon was located further south. The area was conquered by Philip of Macedon, not Alexander. This is already mentioned in the article, and I did not remove that. Alexander did not even campaign there. As for your comment about other countries, look at the article on Greece. Two paragraphs for the whole ancient period, and this for a history much longer than that of RoM. And notice how only truly important events are included, whose outcome can still be felt today, such as the Persian Wars. The Paeonians are already mentioned in the RoM article, and that suffices. Details about them should be discussed in the pertinent article on Paeonians, not this one. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 22:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, look at the History section of Bulgaria and Albania. The territory of both these countries was part of Alexander's empire, but he is not mentioned in either article. That is because those areas were conquered by Philip of Macedon, not by Alexander. Therefore, there is no reason to mention him. Since that is also the case with RoM, the only reason he is included there is to push a certain POV by insinuation. You might know better than to assume that the ancient Macedonians are related to the modern-day ethnic Macedonians, but other readers might not be as well informed and this could lead them to be confused. Also note how succinct the Ancient History section of the Bulgaria article is, even the though the Thracians left a significant imprint. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Just to add my comment on this. I'm annoyed when any pseudo-historic connection is made between Alexander and FYROM. However, there are some valid historical elements in the disputed sentences. I think they should be included but Alexander's name should be removed. These guys want to purposefully create a blurry connection between Ancient Macedon and themselves.--    Avg    22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with you, but I still think the section is poorly written and includes a little too much detail on the Paeonians. -- Tsourkpk ( talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's alright, an easy mistake to make - it gets my goat when people don't use edit summaries too. Chwech 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I would happily disagree with you about the linguistic value of the Ethnologue. I guess you refer to its use in the European context, where you might have a point. That is where the Ethnologue appears to be weakest. The situation in non-European countries is quite different: In most cases the assessment there is based on fairly recent thorough research (which is still ongoing, that is why there are so many changes from edition to edition). But one reason why so many Europeans disagree with Ethnologue`s assessments in their countries is often based on political assumptions. In the case of Germany (my country) this means: Because all Germans are Germans they must speak some variety of German. The Ethnologue, applying purely linguistic criteria, comes to a different conclusion, and draws flak for this for example from the renowned Institut für Deutsche Sprache. IDS always claims that low German varieties are German varieties, while Ethnologue claims that they (Low Saxon) are to be classified together with Dutch. The Ethnologue view is correct from a linguistic point of view, but still gets rejected by experts - does that make it bad? But I'm looking forward to your references - maybe you have totally different situations in mind when you question the value of the Ethnologue. Thanks anyway for looking into this! Landroving Linguist ( talk) 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your elaboration on what bothers you. I take your word for it - those are probably quite stupid mistakes. Especially the use of old data when new one is available could make an SIL Member like me blush. Please note, however, that Ethnologue at the beginning of the UK and Ireland country sections states its sources, where probably all the information listed comes from. I have not seen these, but I guess that at some stage at least one linguist must have presented the facts as stated, otherwise they would not show up in the Ethnologue. Anyway, I would still maintain that in spite of all the errors Ethnologue is quite a useful book. The situatuion where I work, Ethiopia, certainly has no better resource available that gives a comprehensive listing of languages. Here, again, it suffers from old data, and I know that there are some things in there that I would change, but all in all, it is very useful. From what I read from you, I interpret you in such a way that you would think Ethnologue more useful if it had not so many errors in it. So here is the good news: You can improve the Ethnologue. Not quite in such an easy way as Wikipedia, but the Ethnologue Editors actually value any comment, correction or new source of data that would help them to improve the entries. It looks like you could make quite a valuable contribution with respect to Gaelic languages, and point the editors to some more useful sources than the ones they have used for the current edition. I would encourage you to do so. For the task at hand, if you provide good references for the claims on Gaelic in the Wikipedia, I have no problem letting the passage stand. But maybe you could take out the more general statements in the beginning, which are mainly an assembly of weasel words. Landroving Linguist ( talk) 06:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't rush things. If you want to do it well, you will maybe need more than a day. Thanks for your understanding! Landroving Linguist ( talk) 11:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Please don't vandalise sourced material, as you did in this edit. What you or your friends think is not WP:RELIABLE.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not here to insult you (and that wasn't WP:NPA), I'm just asking you not to violate WP:NPOV. Please provide a source for your claims.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, after these attacks you just went through, I want to affirm that I like your style. In dealing with our little disagreement on the Ethnologue article, your actions have always been above board, and I want to commend you for that. Cheers, Landroving Linguist ( talk) 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No change in policy, but this seems to be a content dispute rather than pure vandalism. Just because content is deleted, and just because it is deleted for a reason that is not in line with policy, doesn't automatically make it vandalism. I have seen edit wars where far more content has been repeatedly deleted, with very flimsy reasoning but, again, it is not typically dealt with as vandalism - unless the intent is clearly simply to vandalise. The user has been warned for 3RR now, so if it continue there is a remedy - does that address the concerns you may have? Cheers TigerShark ( talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Bonjour Jdej. Je ne sais pas si vous pensez que vous pouvez changer leur avis, où si vous les nourrissez, mais il est une plus bonne idée d'effacer ces annotations des trolls. Balkan Fever 08:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Merci pour la réponse :)! Il faut que je travaille mon français - je suis toujours «fr-2», et je viens d'apprendre le subjonctif ;). Quant à tutoyant (un nouvelle verbe pour moi, merci), d'accord. Je sais ça que tu essaies faire avec des trolls, comme user:Samuell, n'est-ce pas? «Le cheval est mort». Mais ils ne comprendront jamais. Dans les yeux d'un nationaliste, les gens avec raison sont nationalistes ou fascistes. Apparemment, tu es anti-grec (!?), et je suis un voleur «skopien». Mais, un autre problème: même qu'effacer les annotations, quelques trolls s'ennuient avec ça, et ils se plainent de la «censure». Quelquefois, nous ne gagnerons pas :(. Un autre chose, WP:MOSMAC n'est pas une politique; ce n'est que d'une indication. Balkan Fever 12:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Your 3RR report appeared to me to be incomplete. I added some information to it. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

In regards to your 3RR report, please understand that 3 reverts per day is a fence, not an entitlement. You could be blocked for edit warring even though you did not revert four times yourself. In the future, please do not use warning templates to communicate with established users. You can express your concerns with this user in a way other than a vandalism template. Discussing the issue rather than just leaving a warning template might diffuse it. (Or, at least, if it doesn't diffuse it and we eventually have to part ways with the user, nobody can say we didn't try.) -- B ( talk) 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

read the link fellow, there is a link of NATO official report, no need to imagine personal attacks Rezistenta ( talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've removed this IP from WP:AIV without taking any action against him. He could certainly do to read WP:CIVIL, but his recent edits do not constitute blatant vandalism. Canderson7 ^{( talk)} 16:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks aren't like vandalism, where an admin can swoop in and resolve the matter with a push of the block button. There is, however, an informal noticeboard where you can get help with uncivil editors: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Canderson7 ^{( talk)} 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I know it could look like vandalism from a quick glimpse, but the newcomer's edit was actually an improvement. Please check it carefully (and please do not bite) Niko Silver 12:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, you're right! If he had only used the edit summary.. :) Nah, just joking. My fault, I didn't check it well enough. Unfortunately, there have been so many incidents with deletions from Greek-related pages that I thought this to be another. I was wrong, and I'm happy you pointed that out! JdeJ ( talk) 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You're not in a position to call the work of any earnest contributors "vandalism", including mine. It is obvious that you intend to leave your tags there for a long-long time, regardless of other contributors. You may consider ceasing to police the article in question. Excuse me. Gregorik ( talk) 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Your contributions to Wikipedia are good so I don't get what your whining about. Let me also point out that the article is not about "Central EU". I haven't called you a vandal, but I have called some other contributors vandals and provided ample evidence to that fact. Since you don't know anything about me and my intentions, I recommend you to cease speculating about what other users intend, such nonsense only serves to undermine your credibility. As for the fact-tags, I want them gone as soon as possible, provided good sources have been provided. You yourself have made some good contributions in that regards, but some other users only delete tags without providing any sources. All in all, I have the greatest respect for your edits to Wikipedia and hope your behaviour as well will be of that high standard in the future. JdeJ ( talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't mean to be rude. It just seemed to me that you called my good faith edit "vandalism" in your comment, but I was wrong. Thank you for your reply. Again, excuse me. Gregorik ( talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I made some changes in the article Central European and I also cited the sources. How did you dare to undid my revision AND threaten me with the blocking? Why don't you write such messeges to users like NeroN BG who truly vandalizes the article (but not just the article. He also blanks this own talk page and behaves as if he did't reand my messeges)? -- Olahus ( talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

First of all, I don't know what NeroN BG has done or not. If he has vandalised the article, report him. However, him behaving badly is no excuse for others to do so. And you have not added sources for the tagged claims. If you think you have, please check commonly read articles ( London, Germany, New York) to see how to properly source. There are many very vague statements in the article, and you provided no source to back them up. I've listed some of them on the talk page. Please take the time to discuss changes instead of just deleting tags all the time. JdeJ ( talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, I cited now the sources in the article.-- Olahus ( talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I also removed the section about the cities because I don't think it was necessary.-- Olahus ( talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a note to let you know that you're at your third revert at this page. If you revert again before 10:57am tomorrow you will be in breach of the 3RR. As most of the edit-warriors at the page are IPs I've semi-protected the page. Stifle ( talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, JdeJ. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JdeJ, where you may want to participate. -- // Chris ^{(complaints)• (contribs)} 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC) . reply

It wasn't properly listed before. Hopefully outside editors will recognize this complaint as harassment and shut it down in short order. Good luck! // Chris ^{(complaints)• (contribs)} 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I've left a message at Talk:United Kingdom concerning your and Signsolid's edits of the UK and French GDP. Let me know what you think. Keizuko ( talk) 00:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, thank you for your time reading the post, I have added the diffs and quotes with exact phrases. Let me know whether you think this is a proper way to speak and to act for a user on Wikipedia.-- Moldopodo ( talk) 12:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Here is the exact diff for the discussion [12]-- Moldopodo ( talk) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you please tell me why you have a problem with all language maps using the same criterea.

In Paraguay Guarani is spoken by 90% of the population while Spanish is spoken by 75% of the population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 ( talk) 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I see Signsolid has created the account Itsempty to bypass his/her block. You should report this sockpuppetry case to admins so the sockpuppet account is blocked. I don't want to report it myself since he left a message on your talk page, not mine, so it's better you do it. The place to report sockpupettry is here: WP:SSP. Since he confessed on your talk page that he was Signsolid, it will be very easy to establish the case of sockpuppetry. Keizuko ( talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Re this, please read the Arvanites article. Those guys are in the Greek peninsula since the 12th century, and have been largely assimilated (to the point of even passing votes to the modern Greek government for not codifying and teaching their language!) Also, many leaders of the Greek War of Independence were of Arvanite descent. Finally, it may sound surprising, but to my own experience here, this group seems more nationalist-Greek than the "pure" Greek nationalists. In any case, their long-standing Greek self-identification is undisputed by scholars. Niko Silver 10:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, I don't dispute anything of what you're saying. My point is merely that we should never speak about what a whole people thinks and feels, it's never possible nor relevant. JdeJ ( talk) 11:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You should be blocked from this site. You must be a 1st year undergraduate with all the moralizing. Gee, get yourself a girlfriend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballygowan12 ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You appear to have made some reverts lately on Bosniaks. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. If you continue reverting, you risk being blocked from editing. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Stifle ( talk) 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

... reverting obvious vandalism and/or trolling doesn't fall under 3RR. The very aggressive troll operating from eight different IPs beginning with 77.78.19x is repeatedly vandalising the pages Bosniaks and Slavic peoples. I know that if you take only a very brief look it could look as an edit dispute, but if you look into the historyo of it, it's not only vandalism, it's vandalism with a severe racist stream in it. This has been discussed in great detail and the discussions can be found under the corresponding pages. The fact that multiple registered user has reverted this racist troll does not by definition make any of us guilty of edit warring, just of keeping Wikipedia up to standard. Cheers JdeJ ( talk) 11:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I am sorry, but I do not view those edits as obvious vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions for an exhaustive list of exceptions to 3RR.

I have blocked the IP for edit warring and a range block should be considered if the situation continues.

Please note that I have not said that any of you were edit warring. Stifle ( talk) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

When any editor uses eight different accounts to push for something he knows is incorrect, it's more like trolling and not an edit dispute. At the talk pages of these articles, we have gone through this in great detail. If the user was earnest, he would hardly falsify sources, replace the content on many user pages, attack other users and definitely not need to use eight different accounts. Of course it's more clever for a troll to disguise the trolling a bit so that it may look like "simple" edit warring for an outsider looking at only a fraction of the story, but an intelligent troll is no less of a troll. JdeJ ( talk) 11:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I've given the IP notice of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. Next time he shows up, he can be dealt with under those provisions, and if I knew how to block 77.78.198.* I would. Stifle ( talk) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

As for your support of my edits, thanks! I think I have resolved residual disagreements with Stifle! Prashanthns ( talk) 12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

thanks for your clarification on the respective talk page, where you contradicted many statement made by an IP. I would have almost added them to my trivial knowledge. Seems that I should be more critical in the future when absorbing information. Tomeasy ( talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the information. Maybe he was angry about the excluding of Anatolia in my map. -- Olahus ( talk) 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Signsolid is on the rampage again: [13]. Some people just can't call it quit...

By the way, we still haven't reworked those GDP sentences in the UK and France article. I'll try to make a proposal tomorrow. Keizuko ( talk) 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know that SignSolid once again reverted the Fortune Global 500 article. Keizuko ( talk) 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry about the vandalism before. Please contact me at [email protected] to explain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.68.240 ( talk) 10:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there JDEJ, this is VASCO,

Regarding your message where you view my edit summary (in PETER FROJDFELDT, referee) as RACIST, i will start by saying i am from PORTUGAL too (so the "PORTUGUESE IDIOTS" remark i made loses a bit of effect), i am just getting FED UP with vandalism and treat vandals the way they deserve, the same way i am now treating you POLITELY because you deserve. The level of hysteria (people call it love for a nation) that people reach with soccer (or "national identity") is really mad (and i mean MAD in a NEGATIVE, not GOOD way), my friend!!

Why did i react violently in this person's article: If you read this referee's edit history, you will find that user 93.108.18.193 made, on 19 June, 20:43 (just minutes after the game) these two "contributions": In external links, he inserted this fictional link (and i know 0 SWEDISH, bur know my PORTUGUESE, so i am glad to translate): www.oPeterFröjdfeldteumgrandepaneleiroeofilhodaputavaimorrercomumapirocaenfiadanocuateopescoco.pt, in ENGLISH www.PETERFROJDFELDTis a-big-faggot-son-of-a-bitch-go-die-with-a-cock-shoved-up-your-neck.pt...Charming isn't it? And you tell me these people do not deserve to be insulted? Come on...In the second edit, he proceeded to name that "fictional link" and inserted more foul language.

This "person" 93.108.18.193 also made, in just ten minutes (if you check his "contribution" history you will see it is true) 4 edits to RICARDO PEREIRA (portuguese footballer, goalkeeper for national team), that consisted in foul language (really disgusting i tell you, and he wrote it in PORTUGUESE in an ENGLISH article)

I know all about WP policies of "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS" and "ASSUME GOOD FAITH", but i treat vandals the way they deserve, nothing less. I also apologize for any incovenience that could have led you to send me that message.

From Portugal, have a nice weekend, VASCO AMARAL - -- 217.129.67.28 ( talk) 15:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply. Ok, if you're Portuguese I assume that you don't harbour racist feelings towards the Portuguese people :) I fully agree with you about the destructive edits of some other editors, but I still hold that we shouldn't insult even vandals. Block them if necessary, yes. Insult them, no. JdeJ ( talk) 16:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey JdeJ, you just posted that you're sorry on my talk page. What exactly are you sorry for? -- Muppeteer ( talk) 22:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the article "conflict". The user Turkuun ( talk) has not gained other editors approval for such a large scale article restruction where numerous article sections are just simple deleted or replaced randomly! I have contributed almost a year into the Estonia article with only 1 goal - to improve, to get this article featered and that it would be a fine specimen for article articles to follow. - and that is all. I have been working on this article for a long time and during this period the current article chapter and topic structure has been approved by other major editors. This has not been a original research but a very difficult consensus and constant upgrade - which makes it better not worse. The user Turkuun ( talk) who points out Wikipedia:Copyright violations has itself violated this rule a lot after having added numerous parts of data which hardly has anything to do with the main article - this article is about Estonia not the Statistics of Estonia or something else, I have suggested him to add and contribute data into other article as well but he has not responded to that - such as Economy of Estonia. I have been checking over the article section, began yesterday, and as i find any copyviol. section I have beee removing and adding no-copyviol. info instead. The version Turkuun economy version is based on Wikipedia:Copyright violations as the hole section is based on only 1 source where a large rip off has been taken. Also the user has removed completely the former information and added information which does not give a large picture of the economy of the country of which the article is about.

• Also the edits I made yesterday - where I removed some of the copyviol. text - is NOT BASED ON COPYVIOL. text anymore! Please read or check the edits I have made, also Turkuun should read them before stating copyviolations.

I understand that such article fights must be pain in the @ss to read and deal with. Also I find them very not adult way to approach to a problem. But in the decision making one should not make fast decisions and give bannings, labels as a vandalist where he or she does not know the hole picture. There should be made clear line between those who know about what they are talking and those who do not know or who have a smaller amount of info - I mean the editors. Please remove the 24h bann or warning - as I see this is very unfair and is unjustified action. Karabinier ( talk) 22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Large chunks of the text are still taken word by word from Estonian government sources. In case these sources are under the public domain, please show that. In that case there is no problem, but it has to be shown before inserting text of this kind. JdeJ ( talk) 09:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Which sections? The economy section is public domain text free - as i composed the text myself by using references which confirms the text. I would like to restore the society and economy sections as they were because they have no copy-violation issues - only if the reference adding is illegal - then yes but references adding is not illegal it is a must in wikipedia as I know. The problematic area is the Government and politics section which I tend to rewrite and remove the copyv. issues. Now if I do that - removing the copyv. issue by rewriting and imrpving the text then I am afraid the user Turkuun starts again the lobby against me. How I am suppose to answer to that?

Karabinier ( talk) 14:16, 218 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make some inquiries over the next few days to clarify the issue of Estonian government websites. In any case I think this involves several paragraphs at most, so I don't know if a massive revert is justified. In fact I think Turkuun has only identified 3 or 4 paragraphs as potential copyvio, and Karabinier has apparently fixed a couple of them since. So I don't see how a massive revert is justified when only perhaps 5-10% of the text may be of issue. Perhaps the {{Copypaste}} template should be used for those contentious paragraphs. Martintg ( talk) 13:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• I see this situation is not the first time for the user Turkuun. The user Turkuun has aggressively replaced major portions of the article with his far-right extremist non-NPOV views. Something should be done about this. He is attempting to demonize the public sector, trade unions and the welfare state ideology, all of which are well-respected by the vast majority of Finns. In doing this, the views that he purports are often not sourced or not at all supported by the sources he cites, or when they are, the sources are not NPOV or the support is vague. The POV that he is forcing on the article are worship of the NATO and some form of laissez-faire economism.

Karabinier ( talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Someone might interpret that you continue avoiding constructive article improvement. Please help us to get rid of copyright problems in articles Estonia, Military of Estonia, Maavägi, and images you have received complains from, instead of attacking other contributors. Turkuun ( talk) 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

With all due respects to both of you, my talk page is not the place for your discussion. My involvement with the Estonia article starts and ends with trying to see to it that no material possibly under copyright is included. For anything else, I'm not involved and any discussion on that between you two should take place on the talk page of Estonia. Cheers JdeJ ( talk) 16:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi JdeJ,

Got a reply concerning www.mil.ee:

"photos and other content from www.mil.ee can be used freely, but we want to see that source (www.mil.ee) is clearly identified. Also images and content can not be used for beneficial purposes."

-- Martintg ( talk) 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll edit however I want thanks. Signsolid ( talk) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You, me and everybody else edit accoring to the rules of Wikipedia. JdeJ ( talk) 11:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm investigated listed copyright problems, and I wanted to see if you are satisfied that the current article is copyright free. I do not read German. :) If you believe problems persist, I will track down an administrator who does to help out here. If you're satisfied, I will mark the matter resolved. Thanks for any assistance you can give in closing this. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Since you've been editing and haven't responded, I suppose I should presume that you have no further concerns. I'll mark the matter resolved, then. Let me know, please, if I've misinterpreted. :) (But at my talk page, as I will now stop watching yours.) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

If I am elligible to recieve a warning for edit warring on Mixed language, then I believe so should User:Angr, and if he is not, will file an ANI report on the situation. Also, I do not consider it good faith for you to label my edit as "vandalism", and am reverting to the correct versions. 89.242.104.114 ( talk) 21:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Your removal of tags is vandalism. User Angr has every right to insert the tags you're removing as often as he wants as you have no valid reason to remove them. JdeJ ( talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You have just broken WP:AGF. My removal of tags is not vandalism due to the fact that the tags highlight an issue which is not there. I am supposing you have not read the citations then? And also, what exactly do you think you're doing reverting all my edits? Are you actually suggesting I am a "vandalism only account", because if you are, then I will be the one filing the report. 89.242.104.114 ( talk) 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

If it pleases you, I will settle to call you a POV-pusher and a vandal instead of "vandalism only". Your edits today are filled with POV-pushing and edit wars. JdeJ ( talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

POV pushing? Oh, and please explain that one then? Is it POV pushing when I reference what I am saying with multiple sources, and explain that there are arguments against the sources too? You are treading on thin ice. I suggest you have a quick read of WP:AGF. 89.242.104.114 ( talk) 21:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I always assume good faith untill proven wrong. Your constant edit warring today and your personal attacks on multiple users speak for themselves. You have violated WP:3RR on at least two articles. Case closed for my part. Further comments here will be read and removed as I don't see this as a discussion board. JdeJ ( talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well I highly suggest you respond, since you are reportable for vandalism, unless you can explain these edits:

[14]

[15]

[16]

Regards 89.242.104.114 ( talk) 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I will gladly explain them.

• [17] I restored the page to its previous version, a version by an establised and well-known user, after an anonymous user had changed it without providing any reason for the change.
• [18] An anonymous user added some non-scientific theory going contrary to mainstream lingustic theories. I duly removed this fringe theory to the established one that had been edited by a responsible user.
• [19] I removed a piece of WP:OR. Some anonymius user had added a theory of his own without a single source or even an explanation. In accordance with the rules against original research, I removed it. JdeJ ( talk) 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Well, I read some of the conventions about: "In articles where there is a need to distinguish the aforementioned ethnic group from the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia Use "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" to distinguish them from the other ethnic groups in the region" and I noticed in sections of articles referring to these groups of people as minorities in greece, there is use of "Aegean Macedonians" or "Ethnic Macedonians" or "Macedonians" contrary to the convention above. Consequently, I reedit these parts and ablate these terms with "Slavic Macedonians". It also mentions, "Aegean Macedonians or Aegeans should be avoided because it may have double meaning. It is used by members of the ethnic group for describing their compatriots that happen to originate from the Greek region, and rarely by western scholars for describing the Greek inhabitants of the region. It can also be considered offensive for Greeks under certain contexts." Therefore, I expect you to delete immediately the article "Aegean Macedonians" and all of its links until the next time I log in. -- Dimorsitanos ( talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• I notice you undid the editing about the "overall majority of countries recognise it under its constitutional name". I preserve the right to expect enough and rational references and citations to points of doubted neutrality (in the beginning of an article without further explanation of the point made, therefore I add a tag of citation needed.-- Dimorsitanos ( talk) 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I will continue further reading and I hope I have clarified the reasons for my editing. Thank you. -- Dimorsitanos ( talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I've replied at your talkpage already, and as I said

-any user is free to nominate an article for deletion, following the established procedure

-the tag for citation needed that you added is good. JdeJ ( talk) 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm confused. I noticed there was a poll about deletion which had no result. Did this poll end? How may I vote? Do I need to propose a new deletion debate? I also do not understand why does it have to be debated in the first place. Isn't that against the conventions made claiming it is an offensive term? Shouldn't it be deleted immediately as any other anti-convention editing reverted on the same rationale? And if so, would you please tell me what is the deletion template I need to add? -- Dimorsitanos ( talk) 20:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to express my dissapointment concerning the system on which the english wikipedia's function seems to be based on. Countless political points with no or irrelevant references are kept, as well as articles that based on the conventionts the wikipedia community has made itself should not exist.

And in order to prove my point,

1) As clearly stated at MOSMAC "In articles dealing with the predominant ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia Use "Macedonians" (only if the meaning is unquestionably clear) or "ethnic Macedonians", " In articles where there is a need to distinguish the aforementioned ethnic group from the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia Use "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" to distinguish them from the other ethnic groups in the region" The latter has been frequently been violated at articles or section concerning these "Macedonian Slavs", a term which is insistently avoided and replaced with "Macedonian" contrary to the convention made. 2) At the same page, the wikipedia community made another convention stating:

"Deprecated names (province) The following name is deprecated:

The name Aegean Macedonia should be avoided for general use, except in articles describing the irredentist concept. Note that Aegean Macedonia can be considered offensive for some Greeks, but the Greek government has not raised issue." Nevertheless, an article " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Macedonians Aegean Macedonians", not to mention the propagandistic statements with no references, saying horrible things about the greek nation's behaviour towards these group of people. And although the page had been nominated for deletion, it still exists. And on top of that, I am informed I donnot have the right to re-nominate this monstrosity so soon for debate.

3) I also disagree with the concept of some conventions themselves, such as the right for this nation to use the term Macedonians to identify themselves, but for the greek people to try to avoid the use of plain Macedonians to identify themselves, but need to add Greek next to Macedonia. Talking about neutrality..

4) The concept of the conventions indicates that for internal reasons, each side may use the terms it recognizes, as well the internationally accepted terms used when refferring to the UN and the organizations, in respect to their onomatology. And although at FYROM related articles, the internally accepted terms are used freely, the Greece related topics are invaded with propagandistic maps of uncertain quality, using terms as Aegean Macedonians, Rep. of Macedonia, as well as balling up Arvanites and their language with the Albanian immigrants. All these points confuse the reader, who cannot distinguish what macedonia really means. It's like a ball of confusion. Not to mention the maps indicating pieces of modern greece as slavomacedonian terriroties. And if someone dares to express his/her troubling about the, as stated by the wikipedia itself, offensive terms "Aegean" or whatever they may come up with, the response is of Points of Discussion such unutterable level: "This is the section where major points of the Article should be discussed. Please put your objections here so that they can be adressed.P m kocovski (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)-Point 1- Article name Aegean Macedonians or Ethnic Macedonians in Greece. I believe some users have expressed concern that Aegean Macedonians may be ambiguous. That is a legitimate point and should be discussed. NB: crap about being offended or about irredentism is not worth taking note of. BalkanFever 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)" - "Please watch your language. Are you not civilized?--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)" - "Your comments- Please note that comments like this are not tolerated. If you do it again, you may very well be blocked. Balkan Fever 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" reply

I hope the wikipedia community can give some conviencing response to my worries and prove me wrong.-- Dimorsitanos ( talk) 04:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to inform you that i nominated this article for deletion and I was accused for disruptive behaviour, due to former nomination with no consensus. I would like to state that I did not get the chance to vote and I didn't receive the rationale on which the article still extists, while violating the conventions of the wikipedia community on the offensice term "Aegean Macedonians". I'm informing you on my worries on the implementation of the wikipedia conventions.

Thank you for your time. In expectance of your response. -- Dimorsitanos ( talk) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Reporting is up to you, if you think it's necessary. Recently, my giving people warnings has resulted in too many AN/I threads about me, so I'll stay out of it. Balkan Fever 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Celtic nations. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. The Ogre ( talk) 12:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

A new anon user has appeared introducing MagdelenaDi Arcos edits. I have used my three reverts for today, mind chipping in? ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Please try to get along with other users, rather than escalating disagreements, as you did here and here. That was not a personal attack. The user was making a good faith effort to explain a difference of opinion. Perhaps they were a bit presumptuous about your English language facility, but I don't think they were intentionally trying to insult you. A better way forward would be to nicely ask the user to restate any remark that you found offensive, rather than accusing them of bad faith. Jehochman ^Talk 11:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Your talk page is rather large. Would you like help setting up an archive and an archiving robot? Let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 12:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

That would be great, thanks! I've been wondering about how to do that for ages .-) JdeJ ( talk) 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

MiszaBot will be along in a while to finish up the job. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Great, thanks a lot! JdeJ ( talk) 15:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I don't speak english very well, so, could you help me?? in the page of naples, i would like to write that the second most populated metropolita area of italy is Naples and it's wrong Rome!!! Only one o Two references tell that Rome (like world gazetter), and a lot of references tell Naples that the second most populatet area in Itay (references: ONU, SVIMEZ, EUROSTA, ETC..) sorry for my english!!! -- Denver85 ( talk) 14:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I just received a warning from you, please take a look at the actually topic and let me know your decission, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxygen305 ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I understand your feelings, but 3RR is there for a reason. Having said that, the accusations one user made against you concerning vandalism are nonsense. JdeJ ( talk) 17:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi again, thank you for your fast response. So what do you advise to do?-- Oxygen305 ( talk) 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the best thing would be to have the article locked for a few days, this is a heated topic that would be well served by a respite for everybody involved. JdeJ ( talk) 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Since I am new here, would you be able to arrange that and let me know?-- Oxygen305 ( talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

As I made clear elsewhere, the "vandalism" thing in the edit summary was a matter of hitting the wrong button. If I could have edited it, I would have. What I was responding to was a clear 3RR violation. I don't particularly appreciate being accused of 3RR when I explicitly took care not to violate it in the face of Oxygen's 14RR or whatever it was. I've told Oxygen305 I'm done with the Haider page, it's too much trouble. Hiro Antagonist ( talk) 17:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jdej, I have no idea what I have done to upset you but something, obviously. Firstly, I would be grateful if you would behave a little more civilly towards me. Secondly, you are in no position to threaten me or anybody else that "you will be blocked from editing" as you have no ability to do so. If you'd like to take me to AN/I I'd be more than happy to see you there, given the way you have behaved this morning.
Now, down to matters at hand. First, Nick Begich. Twice now you have reverted me so that the article says "The son of Croatian immigrants", with a rude edit summary of "Rv nonsense. The source you posted yourself clearly states that he was the son of Croatian immigrants". Now, the source in question quite clearly says "My dad grew up in the Mesabi Iron Range in Eveleth, Minn., where his father, John Begich, spent his life working in the iron ore mines. My grandfather, John Begich, was born in 1893 in Podlapaca, Croatia, a country without a history for strong democratic institutions, in an area of the 20th century's worst genocide in Yugoslavia's recent wars. After growing up in an impoverished 19th-century village whose survival depended on backbreaking farming, my grandfather, armed with an eighth-grade education, left Croatia in 1911 to join his brother in Minnesota". So I expect you to revert your changes, with an apology for your accusations of "nonsense" and "vandalism", or I will take the matter to AN/I myself, as I have no desire to edit war with you.
Next, Italian language in Croatia. The rambling, disorganised section you have restored mainly repeats what is said more coherently in Istrian exodus. It is a blatant content fork, and I would recommend that you read that guideline carefully before you bandy around accusations of vandalism. Regarding the sources, Marino Manin is reasonable, but I doubt that "Petar Strčić, in HRT's TV-show Latinica" is quite up to our standards. However, I will be more than happy to discuss the matter at the article talk page if you wish to do so.
Lastly, I'm sure it is abundantly clear that I am somewhat disappointed with the way you are behaving towards me. I do not take accusations such as you have made lightly, as I am most certainly not a vandal. Very far from it, as the briefest perusal of my contributions undoubtedly makes clear. Kind regards, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 10:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your reply. Obviously the source on Nick Begich contradicts itself, one time claiming NB was the son and one time the grandson of Croatian immigrants. In the absence of further sources, we cannot easily decide which of these is correct but if you know of any additional sources, you are most welcome to include them. As for the page on Italian in Croatia, it's possible that parts of what you deleted could be removed but other parts were perfectly valid and well-sourced.

I don't blame you for being upset about my warnings, but please understand that your own behaviour caused them. If you blank a large section in an article without using the talk page to explain why you have done so, it will look like vandalism to others. Nobody else but you can know what you were thinking at the time, so even if the logic is clear to you, you'll have to make it clear to others.

Last, please understand that the wording in all warnings are standardised and that I did not write them, only post them. If you had used the talk pages to outline the reasons you have provided here, you would of course not have been warned for vandalism even though I would still have disagreed with your edits. JdeJ ( talk) 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

My apologies for the NB son/grandson business. I was mistaken. However, you also reinserted a claim that the grandfather supported the fascist Independent State of Croatia. Be careful. The source does not say that. Someone else has taken that line out. Best, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with you on that, the source is vague on the subject and even if it weren't, it is hardly relevant to the article. JdeJ ( talk) 13:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Your warning is a tad ridiculous, don't you think? I breached not a single Wikipedia policy, and reverted for good reason. It would appear that you perceive every edit that is contrary to your opinion as "against policy". Either that or you're trying to scare-off other people with unwarranted warnings. If you like, I'll copy-paste a warning on your page as well for reverting my edit, and we can go on warning each other forever. I suggest that instead you follow wiki policy and reach consensus on contested and controversial edits before you find yourself reported for 3RR violations. -- DIREKTOR ^{( TALK)} 18:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If you would have taken the time to read the talk page, you would have discovered that I'm involved in a discussion about the form of the article. If you rush in, delete a large part of an article without even bothering to take part in the discussion, I don't think you're in a position to lecture others. I find this behaviour all the more surprising as you are generally a very careful contributor who usually makes good argument for your opinions. I would just hope that you would behave in the same responsible way as you usually does also in the article in question. Cheers JdeJ ( talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

My apologies, it would appear the harshness of my earlier conduct was unwarranted. I restored Alasdair's version due to the POV IP user's edits that followed your contribution. However, while my behavior was rather rash, I do not see why you felt an immediate warning was necessary. A more "amiable" approach would have sufficed I'm sure. -- DIREKTOR ^{( TALK)} 19:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You're absolutely right, and I apologise for that. I misjudged the whole thing, it's been a long day and I simply wasn't as attentive as I should have been. Unfortunately, it wasn't the first bad edit I did today so I better leave the editing for tomorrow :) If you want me to remove the warning, just tell me and I'll do so. Cheers JdeJ ( talk) 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Its not really a problem, I'm glad we're agreed. It would seem we both need to "refresh" our powers of attention. Regards -- DIREKTOR ^{( TALK)} 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply