Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what exactly in your editing of Macedonia (disambiguation) was an accident? I didn't revert your latest edits, but I still find the current version unacceptable. It's the most outrageously dysfunctional, convoluted and non-conformant version of this page I've seen in a long while, and that's saying something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally deleted the whole adjective section in this edit of mine[1]. Furthermore my wording was a draft, but I saved. Sorry.

On your objections, I want that to be simple as much as you. Don't judge me for being inefficient as yet. See my reply in Talk:Macedonia (disambiguation)

Look, I implore you: stop. Please, just stop. Now. Everything you have been doing to those dab pages has been hopelessly confused. You are just taking it from one level of nonsense to the next higher level with every edit. It's getting worse and worse. Stop. You have not the inkling of an idea of how to do a dab page. You are simply not getting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I 'll stop in a little while, but why should I have to? I haven't done anything against Wikipedia rules. If nobody likes it, it will be reverted - eventually. Edit your way (yours is NPOV, unlike others), but don't do it on a daily basis. lease give the other editors a chance. I will stop, didn't have the intention of doing this forever. I don't think any of the edits are "nonsensical". Don't tell me nonsensical. One last thing, please consider the splitting. All other similar concepts in Wikipedia have two pages. One for the noun or proper noun and one for the adjective. About the last, continue this discussion in Talk:Macedonia (disambiguation). Shadowmorph (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot express to you adequately how profoundly I share your concerns regarding the unconscionable move of the article in question. Unfortunately, I might myself be caught in a COI if I, who had been involved in the discussion, were to unlock it and move it back. I have contacted other parties and hope to get response from them by the time I hope to be back tomorrow. I sincerely hope that both of us receive the kind of rational responses we deserve. Thank you, and please try to be patient. I know how hard that can be, but I do hope that reason will prevail. Hang in there. John Carter (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sympathy. I'm not really a quitter but will have to lay back and see where this goes. By the way what is this arbitration you talk about? Is there a link to that? Shadowmorph (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been filed yet - it's due to be filed on April 22nd, by common agreement. If you like I'll send you a link when it's been filed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, please do. I totally disagree with the amount of disrespect you have shown against:

1. Me, by ignoring the discussion started in Macedonia (disambiguation, now said) and bordering with the definition of lying [talk page] (other editors too were ridiculed, one even said too us we were "seeing ghosts" to anticipate your move)
2. All other editors in an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" [WP:Purpose] (we can't move it back)
3. All Orthodox [Good Friday] editors, using warlike tactics [Yom Kippur War] to begin an edit war (especially to Greek and Bulgarians that might object to your move) Shadowmorph (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Macedonia naming dispute. It seems to have been accepted by the arbitrators, and thus may be moving to a different page shortly. If it does, a link to it should be able to be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration in the "Active Arbitration" box. If you wish to make any comments regarding the matter, please feel free to do so, observing proper wikipedia etiquette of course. Yes, I know that might be hard; I have had trouble with it myself in this instance, so I sympathize. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Macedonia naming dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of any disagreements over the legitimacy of the article, can you please hold off editing Macedonians (Greeks) for ten minutes or so? I would like to do a history merge between this version and Macedonians (Greek), which was an earlier article on the same topic. No prejudice to any further discussion about re-merging or redirecting, just technical cleanup. Which of the two titles would you prefer, "Greek" or "Greeks"? I'll leave the choice to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was on an "editing" mode before, paused it for you Fut. I have some relevant photos of the monuments, still haven't uploaded them. I think that Macedonians (Greeks) is better sounding since both of the words are in the plural. Forgive my aggressive manner of editing, it's just to counter yours. Shadowmorph (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the article was only one point in AfD. It wasn't the agreement, regardless your view or mine. AfD was towards Keep. Please read my version of Macedonians (Greeks) and make whatever change you feel appropriate Shadowmorph (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll merge it under the "Greeks" title then. Give me ten minutes, this takes a bit of admin handiwork. I'm personally still not convinced the article is legit, but I won't redirect it for now, as that might be understood as against the spirit of the arb injunction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done, feel free to resume editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about the Makedonia page. I know you go for simplicity. But shouldn't the original name be distinct or the Greek version, and not create a different impression by mixing with the slavic names? I trust you to understand the issue. I wont make a big fuss about it Shadowmorph (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt our readers would care. All they need to know at that point is that if they are looking for material about the real country or region or whatever, they need to click that one link there in the first line. Everything that visually reduces the highlighted status of that link, by surrounding it with more text, makes the page less ergonomic. The etymological and orthographical details are irrelevant for the purpose of a dab page; explaining them in the footnote is more than enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. BTW, another small thing: edits like this aren't really needed, there's nothing technically wrong or even disadvantageous of having links piped through redirects. Greek Macedonians is perfectly safe and legitimate to link to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Should have fixed the redirect of Greek Macedonians better Shadowmorph (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have matched the 1000-word count in my main evidence. The responses are a bit of extra. Thank you Shadowmorph (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again :) I need some help. I promise this won't take long. Can you mail me? My nickname (sqrt5p1d2) at yahoo dot com. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding evidence to Macedonia 2. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their evidence to 1,000 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have matched the 1000-word count in my main evidence. The responses are a bit of extra. Thank you Shadowmorph (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What are you excactly refering to here? Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First of all I didn't say you are anything, so no hard feelings. I just wanted to show how stupid it is to analyze nicknames and how wrong conclusions it can lead to. I said so that all of those are absurd. Since you are curious, I was referring to a possible allusion to "Pirin Macedonia" (PMK) that's why I linked it (in my evidence) to the note in the Bulgarian province article that says it is an irridentist term. "Aegean Macedonia" is another one, that you have used, I think. Anyway I didn't say it was, I just said that nickname analysis can jump into conclusions like e.g that you are a nationalist. I was just making a point. I didn't say that ChrisO is a spy too. I really wouldn't care about you being a nationalist but you guys (the other side) seem to make a big fuss about the opposers political standpoints. It is the objective evidence that should matter. So, just asking - don't answer if you don't want to, what does PMK stand for? Shadowmorph (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! This is very funny. I think i might leave a response in the evidence section. dont worry there are no hard feelings. :-) This is actually very comical. PMK1 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Google organic traffic for keyword macedonia.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Google timeline about citations of the word Macedonia in books sources.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Google organic traffic for keyword macedonia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) Please, read this. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a warning from ChrisO for 'Original Research.' I was editing the list in the Macedonia Name Dispute page and I had just removed a reference used fort he Dutch position as it was a dead link. Then I noticed the two GOVT references on this page: [[2]] both point to Denmark using FYROM or FYR Macedonia yet Denmark was in the list under 'List of countries to be sorted.' I moved Denmark to countries which use FYROM, ChrisO immediately reverted stating you need a source that states how Denmark uses the name, not infer it yourself from a random document. I then informed him, the 'random document were two Danish Govt Pages that were already there as references concerning Denmark and reverted. ChrisO then proceeded to revert and dish me out with an 'Original Research Warning.' This time he changed his story and stated: you are inferring Denmark's position, but the documents you cite do not say anything about whether Denmark recognises the constitutional name or not. This is interesting. Most of the list is made up of Embassy pages using the word Macedonia, and immediately they are on the list, under countries who recognise the Republic of Macedonia. I wonder how many of those editors received warnings from ChrisO? I am going to make this action of ChrisO stick as his behaviour in general has downgraded the neutrality Administrators are supposed to have. Any help on how to make him come to account for this action would be most appreciated. He has put the case down here:[[3]] Reaper7 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow, what I don't like about those legend boxes is that they force the eye to move up and down several times before you can understand how the legends are supposed to link up with the areas, and that means considerable reading effort for very little information gain. Your latest version is slightly better than the last, but still too confusing for my taste. (Yes, even I myself, who know by heart what the map shows, feel visually disoriented simply looking at it now. My eyes have no clear point of orientation to look to.)

Is it so important to have the literal string "Greek Macedonia" or "Macedonia (Greece)" somewhere there? The region is right next to the big large string "GREECE". I found that perfectly easy to understand. Okay, I originally would have wanted to put a legend for Greek Macedonia in too, or to make the "GREECE" string go across the region, but there's visual complications: it just won't fit easily. I'd have to remove the periphery boundaries witin Greece, and/or move the city name of Thessaloniki, and/or make it too small to read at this thumb size, and/or make labels go across boundary lines, which would make them harder to read too. Your preferences? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off, I didn't think the map was a good idea in the first place. That's because we have like two dozen of these maps or more scattered around the other pages and not all of them agree with each other. It is difficult to pick one as correct. I appreciate your effort and since you have the original vector image maybe you could embed the title Macedonia in the image. I feel that the wikilinks are more helpful than the text you have in the image and associate with the correct dab listing better. Because the descriptive text should follow that in the page because any changes in that will create confusion. E.g. you say "modern geographical Macedonia" when the dab page now reads "wider geographic region". That is not so easy on the reader. What if you deleted the image legend and we put small texts by each line with the same colour of the line and using the current titles of the articles? (and maybe no cities too)

Anyway I'll think more about a solution in a while. Shadowmorph (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the existence of two dozen other (ugly) maps an argument against having this one here? I don't understand what you mean by "small texts by each line". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think what you are talking about is not already covered here: Ethnic appellations used to describe the group vary along with political orientation. The term "Aegean Macedonians" (Macedonian: Егејски Македонци, Egejski Makedonci) is associated with the large part of the population with an ethnic Maceodnian identity. Speakers who identify as Greeks often speak of themselves simply as "locals" (Greek: dopii), to distinguish themselves from native Greek-speaking settlers who entered the area in the 1920s and after. Such speakers will also use the term "Macedonians", though in a regional sense like the other Bulgarian inhabitants of Macedonia. Those of Greek persuasions are sometimes called by the pejorative term "Grecomans" by the other side. Greek sources, which usually avoid the identification of the group with the nation of the Republic of Macedonia, and also reject the use of the name "Macedonian" for the latter, will most often refer only to so called "Slavophones" or "Slavophone Greeks". "Slavic-speakers" or "Slavophones" is also used in international academic discourse as a cover term for people across the different ethnic orientations.???

It is clear that they are "Maceodnian Slavs/Slavomacedonians" etc and the Greeks are "Greek Macedonians"! What is your point? The issue is already covered. PMK1 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added this bit (also here). You might find it interesting. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that about Library of Congress. Thanks Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing? I go downtown, find a library with LOC's volumes (the famous huge red tomes), make librarians go out of their way for A3 photocopies (strangely, only A4 is permitted), come back, scan the pages, log in and while pausing for a last googling, I see this: "On May 1st the id.loc.gov service was announced to the public. The service's first offering is the Library of Congress Subject Headings...". Copy to OO.org's Calc, save as html, paste the table, the end. Someone above is playing games with me :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, response to your comment posted on my talk page. Apcbg (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that some of your proposals in Workshop are overlapping with previous proposals by other users? Not an issue of substance, but it crossed my mind and I felt the need to tell it to you! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I mean is that for instance your proposals concerning ChrisO and Avg's have certain similarities. Anyway, this is just an example, and it is not a big deal.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The famous Macedonians (Greeks) MUST BE OF MACEDONIAN ORIGIN (even by one branch) and NOT descentants of refugees of 1922. Otherwise there's no need of the existance of the article. Please remove the Macedonians of NON Macedonian origin. This is an article about a tribe and not about a place. Pyraechmes (talk)Chrusts 16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had issues with the "Famous Macedonians" section. It's true that the sample can not be representative but I had to pick someones. It can never be complete but we do have the main list link. Remove anyone you want, I am considering removing the whole section "Famous Macedonians" which cannot be complete and might not be relevant to the scope of the article. And please any more additions should be done only in list of Macedonians (Greek), it's just a sample, the main list covers them all. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are better off removing it because there is already a seperate page for it. Perhaps provide a link to the page in the "See Also" section. PMK1 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, thanks.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, However the term "Greek Macedonian" never refers to the ethnic Macedonians from Greece, they are known as "Aegean Macedonians". "Macedonian Australian", is at its current location because it is the primary topic. "Greek Macedonian Australian"; is covered in Greek Australians. You cannot just come up with theories or other reasons behind why, "Greek Macedonian" is unacceptable. Ask yourself is the primary term used to refer to them simply "Macedonians" or "Greek Macedonians"; you will find that it is the latter. PMK1 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there was a technical glitch in one posting of yours on one of the Arbcom pages, where you had used the string "{{person}} of Macedon", and then somebody by chance went and actually created a template {{person}} with some unrelated (and technically botched-up) text in it. I've replaced your string with "[person] of Macedon" [4]. Hope you don't mind my tinkering with your posting. (Somebody else first tried it in a different way, pasting in the unrelated text that happened to be in the template, which led to the rather funny result "Elliott Anaya of Macedon". LOL.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, i would never imagine. No problem. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders, of course, who "Elliott of Macedon" would have been. Probably something analogous to Brian of Nazareth but in a Macedonian phalanx? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or a maybe a chapter of a sinister conspiracy theory involving T. S. Eliot and the tomb of Alexander the Great in a King in the mountain monomyth manner. It may be good material for those funny WP: articles :) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A state motto is used to describe the intent or motivation of the state in a short phrase". There is no need for e.g. presidential decrees, to recognise a national motto, widely known and understood by the citizens of a state. I don't have much time now, but I collected these for you. The intent of the revolution was to create an independent state and the motivation to keep an independent state, is always described by "Freedom or Death". SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gathered some sources, see them here. Will continue this at a later time probably. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive imagery that gallery. Have they been photographed by yourself? If so, could they be uploaded without licensing issues? I have worked on the Filiki Eteria article a bit and one of them would go great there. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 15:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No licensing issues. Crop and post :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to use Special:Upload and upload them yourself; release them to public domain or whatever licenses applies, you know better. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens of the United States, and indeed most English speakers, refer to people who live in the United States as "Americans", but even in the United States, it is rare for people to refer to the country as "America". Normally it is simply "the US" or "the USA" or "the United States". Your continued use of it as an analogue to the Macedonia issue is not helpful, and will likely serve only to undermine your position. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 08:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange what you say about America, here is from CNN: "America Under Attack" and "America Remembers". {Disclaimer: the previous is not an emotional appeal but just to indicate common short form}. Nevertheless in an encyclopedia America should target to its generic meaning. Same thing for Macedonia.

The States don't redirect to United States either.

P.S. I gave the same exact answer to Horologium at the evidence talk page once; I received no reply by him)Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides even if you are right about how Americans commonly refer to their country, how do Australians, New-Zealanders, people from UK, and other English speakers that live in other parts of the world refer to "America"? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer both of your questions, I turn to Google. Searching English language pages for "america" returns 818 million results. Searching English language pages for the exact phrase "United States" returns just under 1500 million results. So not even taking into account "US" and "USA", there are already nearly twice as many results for "United States" than "America". In May 2009 so far, United States was viewed 1,253,099 times. In the same period, United States (disambiguation) was viewed 4341 times, so don't tell me "Oh, but there are other uses for 'United States'". Back on Google, "US" is far too ambiguous to be of any possible use. "USA" is not so, and it has 1,070 million results in English. I rest my case. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 08:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got me wrong, I didn't say that "United States" is ambiguous. Of course United States would gather the hits and not the dab page. What I say is that America (continent) has few hits compared to United States but still we don't redirect America to United States (even though millions of Google results about "America" would refer to USA) because it would be encyclopedic to do so. That's my case. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One has to try hard to find a news report that speaks of the continent, just like it is hard to find a news report that speaks of the ancient kingdom. That doesn't mean that the name is not used to refer to it. Besides the disambiguation of Macedonia is for a quadruple, not a double meaning. Anyway, thank you for pointing out that me using this argument might undermine my position - which I doubt. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I am trying to tell you that your comparison is invalid. If you do not believe me, that is your prerogative - and your loss, if I am correct. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regulary meet people from the other side of the pond. To this day, the vast majority of them use "America", in reference to their homeland. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sense of humour or no sense of humour, but your addition to the "Fool's Guide" page can in fact be read as insinuating that somebody has been acting insincerely in the case, so I would recommend you remove that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was talking about my self, my own case of being sincere and where it has led me. But Ok, you have a point. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I appreciate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my other addition ("be a robot") was just justified a bit more hehe :) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, already done that! GK1973 (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Care to post the references for this [5] yourself? I am leaving tomorrow, so I don't have much time in my hands today. --Radjenef (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You might be interested in having a look at this by the way, as I've seen a couple of fringe theories and misquotes popping up lately. --Radjenef (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're actually right about removing the hatnotes from the minor articles (wasn't aware of it, but it's actually what Wikipedia:Hatnotes and WP:DAB recommend). However, I'd leave the "This article is about..." summary in the country article in. Reason is, people may well recognise that the article is primarily about a modern country, but they may not realise at first sight that it is only about that, unlike many other country articles, like Greece or Bulgaria, which deal both with the modern states and all their perceived pre-history and predecessor states. The guideline (Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Summarize or not?) says that using the "This article" summary or not using it is a matter of taste and should be decided on a per-article basis; I think this one is a good example where it's useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, didn't know that part about the summary intro, I will self revert it. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now that I think of it, it was more confusing without the intro.... It is very difficult to arrive at a shorter hat I guess, since your "not to be confused" that I supported is not supported by consensus... whatever. I don't want to venture in that place again. By the way we may have a bad start but we can still cooperate. Hope that Star-Wars training thing will help you out :)

The mood (or mentality) of us all is not fixed someplace, well at least mine isn't.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I would call them articles with lesser (not minor) online readership ;) I stick to Google's analysis of the demographics of internet searchers of Macedonia. It figures that the republic would be top. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you are still on about those google figures? Oh boy. Look, explain once more this to you I will, young Skywalker. The google figures at [6] are relative to total net traffic from each location. Macedonians make up for about 0.04% of the world's population, and the R.o.M. makes up for about 0.06% of the world's internet connections [7]. Even if every Macedonian were to search for "M." 100 times more often than the average person elsewhere, that would still acount for a maximum of a few percents of the total search traffic. And even if we assumed that these, maybe, maximally, 5 percent translated directly into the same percentage of Wikipedia hits, and those hits were all directed at the country article, and we discounted all of them, that would still not make a significant change to the overall finding that the country article has about three times more readers than all the other articles put together. But I doubt even that assumption is warranted anyway. Note that the search statistics on Google are composite of all searches for the term either alone or in combination with other search terms. I find it extremely unlikely that "M." searches from the region itself would typically be searches for the term in isolation, and therefore likely to end up at our Wikipedia article. When is the last time you googled for "Greece", to find out what Greece is? I'm sure I never googled for "Germany", not once in my life. People don't look up their own countries in Google: they already know where they are. People in Macedonia will be using the term as a qualifier to narrow down searches when they look for specific things in their country, but why would they want to look up the country as such? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gees, senator Palpatine, let's see.

LIFO, about the last, I don't know if you are right. Check out Google Zeitgeist 2008; look at the most popular searches in Argentina, Chile, Colombia... the search term of the name of the country is at the top places. In Germany not so, I guess it depends. Also see ego surfing. However even so, once one national reader is led into Wikipedia and lands on a variety of articles like Music of the Republic of Macedonia or Army of the Republic of Macedonia there is a probability that they will click on the related link about the country too. Such a high volume of traffic is transferred from article to article, probably following some power law, leading to an increase of the country article. Seriously, the alternate routes to the country article are much much more than the ones to the ancient kingdom because people's interest are about recent and trivial stuff.

About the second part, the Fermi problem, you do not scale those properly. At first glance can you explain me how with your reasoning the 9000 people living in Macedonia, Ohio together with a the rest of Ohio people, managed to make the "macedonia ohio" search term rank 5th[8],(help) in the whole world? Does the whole world search for "macedonia ohio"? I guess because Cleveland is #3 at the "regional interest" go (click on "city"). Skopje is the first by far.

Also don't think that so many people would use Wikipedia's shitty search box. I prefer searching on Google to find Wikipedia articles, sometimes without even adding "wiki" if I think the wikipedia article will surely pop-up. for one thing I prefer writing 5 words than pressing shift twice to add "(" and ")". You know what else I do??? I type Macedonia in the search box and then click on "talk". And just so you know, have you looked at the stats for the ARBCOM pages? With that readership they should deserve a link at the hat link :) (remember the stats are pageviews not unique visitors).Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your scaling error is that when you say they search for M. 100 times more often then you go on and apply that to the number of unrelated users, not the number of searchers of "M". Think about it. Purely mathematically, if a certain part of a population (0.1%) has a property that is 10 times more than some other part (e.g. a 10 times deadlier substance in a solution) that part would definately affect greatly the property of the whole (e.g. a drop of cyanide in a glass of water). Now imagine with 100 times multiplier!! That's unrealistic by the way. I would put the regional users at having 10-20 times the frequency of searching for the term than the rest of Macedonia searchers. The only thing that compensates for the high volume of regional searchers is that true, like you said they might use more specialized searches than the non-regional searchers. But that's as far. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a given month a typical user from group A (internationals) will search for "Macedonia" once in a month (he was assigned a paper, saw something in the news etc.)

A typical user from group B (nationals) will search for "Macedonia football", "Macedonia music", "Macedonia eurovision" and "Macedonia"(alone, why not?). He would do that 20 times in a month. That means that each user from group B, counts as 20.

If all the national searchers have a specific focus and are lead to the country article following a power law, that will show up on the hits. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally as proof, check out these stats for Military of the Republic of Macedonia — vs — the stats for army of Macedon

It's 10 times more in favor of the country even after the redirect. Just as expected. That can only be explained if all Macedonia-related articles are being read by readers from a national interest. The rest of the world is outranked. I doubt whether international readers would not like to know about the ancient army.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFO. First issue: I don't think you got my point. I don't think Macedonian people would google for the Wikipedia articles on Macedonian music or the Macedonian army either, in any particularly noteworthy numbers. They will be googling for companies that sell CDs in Macedonia, that offer airline tickets to Macedonia, the address of a company's branch offices in Macedonia, street maps of Macedonia, news reports about Macedonia. What could Wikipedia teach them that they don't already know? – Second point: No idea what you are on about. Of course the search results for "Macedonia, Ohio" are not created exclusively by people from that town. Same goes for them as for the Macedonians: They don't need Wikipedia to learn where their town is. The relatively high status of "Macedonia Ohio" just reflects the fact that those two words together form a statistically significant collocation somewhat more prominent than the myriad other things (flight tickets, books, addresses, whatever) people might look for in connection with the country. About the "regional interest" figures, you apparently have still not grasped the concept of relative frequencies. Having Skopje listed up there on top means that Skopje people use the term in their searches more often than other people. But with people from Skopje being still such a tiny drop in the ocean of all people elsewhere, that will still not register in any significant way on the total distribution of our article hits. And even if it did, so what? Are people from Skopje second-class users, whose interests are less important to us than other people? You can wiggle as much as you want, the fact remains: The country has five times as much reader interest as the ancient kingdom, ten times as much as the Greek region, and twenty times as much as the geographical region, and that worldwide and with rock-solid figures, and that's all we need to know. – Oh, and, if people were coming in through Google more than they do through the search box, we'd expect more of an effect on our readership figures in reaction to the changes in Google presentation. We are not seeing any of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reconsideration, I have revised my opinion about the hat links in the "secondary" M. topics (e.g. Macedonia (region), Macedonia (Greece) and so on). Even though the guideline, as I found out yesterday, deprecates the hatlinks in such cases, I believe we should continue to use them. The reason is that we must accommodate those readers who click on a link in some other article where the text says plain "Macedonia", end up say at the (Greece) article, and then think, "huh? I thought M. was something different? Since when is it no longer a country?" So all the secondary articles should have the standard hatlink, preferably in its simplest form: "For other uses, see ... (disambiguation)". No need to further mess with these. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

let me know when you get an email address added to your account :) --Radjenef (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added an email adress to my account yet. I am afraid that I can only do it after Macedonia related discussion is closed since only by adding an email I fear that it might give a wrong impression. We can talk later (after all that) if you still wish to contact me. It's summertime, no pressure :) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not repeat your alterations to citations on the Macedonia pages - the alterations are unnecessary given the nature of the pages, and can only evoke conflict. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And further disruption of the Centralized discussion page will result in an immediate block. Shell ^babelfish 20:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I am not violating 1RR, I am not removing sentences or links and I will not re-add any wording I added because I thought that was the appropriate thing to do. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope others will follow the same course and not do this:[9].Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps choose some form of presentation of your new "Proposal B" for the "other articles" that makes it a bit more evident to the reader what is different from Proposal A? I just skimmed over it and it looks so similar to A it's really hard to spot the details that differ. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's because it was initially going to be A.1, I thought it is different enough so that it is B. I am going to try do that now.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the offer. What I find is seriously missing from your "B" is the clause about subsequent mentioning after previous disambiguation. For me, that's just a central demand of good writing. Nobody in their right mind would use a disambiguator more often than needed if their goal was really just to ensure unambiguous understanding; insisting that we should use the longer phrase mechanically even in repeated cases would just send the message to the reader that it's being used not for disambiguation but to make a point for some POV agenda. This would also force us to re-insert "Republic of" in a large number of cases where plain "Macedonia" has been in use uncontroversially for a long time, for instance in subsequent occurrences in the body of the main Macedonia (country) article itself and its many sub-articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but why put all that in the proposal. It is clearly standard practice, however in cases you had to disambiguate it the first time then it might be that you'd have to disambiguate it in some other part too. It is difficult to include a wording about that in the proposal but since common sense can be applied it is not needed. In that sense proposal B is more direct. The proposal nowhere says that Rpublic of Macedonia needs to be mechanically repeated. It leaves that to the editor. I don't see any edit wars about that uncontroversial cases you mentioned.

For the record proposal C is not my first choice.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, but I'd strongly prefer to have it mentioned somewhere, because we've seen some excesses of formalistic "but the guideline says so!" against such common sense applications in the past. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, another aspect I didn't discuss yet in that proposal is: contexts where the difference between the various "Macedonias" doesn't really matter. For instance, "X was born in Ohrid, Macedonia" is true no matter how ambiguous "Macedonia" is – Ohrid is still in Macedonia even when you're not thinking of the country but of the wider region. Would you agree that might be a relevant consideration in some cases? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added "in articles where the context is the country itself" to satisfy the common sense naming.

about the other thing you say I would agree but it is too weird to include it. Why would someone want to insert a vague statement that can be read in two ways (unless he is Pythia). Anyway taking a wikibrake now. Cannot continue writing right now. Feel free to add your criticisms in the pages. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24-June-09: Hello, Shadowmorph. I'm sorry you have been facing so many difficult users in the articles about Macedonia. That is one of the dangers of Wikipedia: that a group of people begin bullying others to drive them away, but that happens from time to time. If the various people edit-war too much, then they all risk being banned from any Macedonia edits for, perhaps, 6 months, so that is even worse. Instead, try working on some other articles for a few weeks. There is little else you can do, and admins cannot easily protect you from the others.

An infamous case of fact-bullying occurred for articles about "Hurricane Katrina" (August 2005), where editors became obsessed with only New Orleans, while, actually, the damage was much worse in Mississippi: text about deaths/floods there was continually removed or censored, even though the flooding/damage was perhaps 500x times worse: all coastal cities in Mississippi flooded over 90% within hours (up to 10m or 32ft deep), while New Orleans slowly flooded only 70% and usually less than 1.5m or about 5ft deep. Hundreds of edits/discussions occurred, and the result: the text remained to sustain the lie: "the worse damage occurred in New Orleans" (wrong: flooded only a few feet) while 3-story buildings in Mississippi were flattened or gutted by ships or barges washed ashore, with debris driven 12 miles inland. Hence, Wikipedia could not tell the truth about "Hurricane Katrina".

Wikipedia is based on a very-open concept of edit-freedom, which, unfortunately, allows some groups of people to concentrate, in a bullying manner, to slant articles. The alternate approach, of trusted user-names, used in other websites, might be where Wikipedia is headed, someday, to reduce wasted rewrites by perhaps 90%. Restricting edits to trusted-names appears to be 10x faster and easier to work with people in trusted-name websites. However, the danger in those exclusive groups is that, rather than bullying others, some groups become uppity or too-superior, and then they begin restricting the rules and prevent other people from becoming "trusted". It could become just as bad due to the, resulting, lack of people: there are not enough hurricane-info people, so Mississippi damage still would not get true descriptions, because there just weren't enough people to write all the hurricane facts in a trusted-name website.

On balance, many other subjects in Wikipedia are, still, wide-open to add large amounts of true information. For example, many people probably do not realize that all those famous Greek temples (now in ruins), and at Edfu, had still existed, with spectacular statues and artwork, circa 270 CE. People are needed to edit dozens of articles about the old temples and cities, and explain how many centuries they had remained, and list all the major artwork they once contained. Typically, the necessary detailed information is simply not added, even though no one would edit-war to prevent including all those artefacts. Similarly, the Greek islands need much more detail to explain the history, economy, and landscape of those islands. For that reason, I see a lot of potential for many people to work together, happily, as long as they avoid some of the more controversial articles, such as some about Macedonia or Hurricane Katrina. I hope you'll consider working on such other articles, as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind remarks; I will consider your helpful advices and I see myself going in that direction you suggested. Besides my work at Macedonians (Greeks), I have already created some other Greece-related articles like the ones of two important Greeks of the Filiki Eteria. I also tried to do something at Psara and on other articles too. On a totally unrelated area, I have one unfinished project at User:Shadowmorph/Super Solar Flare which I intend to pursuit some time soon. I now know where to turn to in case I need some help or advice :) Take care Wikid77. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you VERY much for your message on my user page. I was busy in real life, therefore the delay. Now, because of your provided links, I don't have to read and check all diffs since I was gone and can just jump to the point. Thank you, Dc76\^talk 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus. It will perhaps take some time now for them to draft the "resolution" in one place. But after that may I ask/suggest the following. I note that while for "Other articles", resp. "Other article titles" the choices were A, resp. C, you drafted B, resp. B (which for example I supported), which (if I am correct) are very close in meaning to A, resp. C. You seem to know very well the topic, and I am confused as to the extent B, resp. B is practically different from A, resp. C. I would like to see a short test-proposal that would mention what exactly would have to be changed hypothetically from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus that would take to B, resp. B on those 2 questions. Would you be able to test-draft such a hypothetical proposal? No rush. I understand that the main reason against B was "unwierdy" character. I want to understand to what practical extent it really is, and what are the pluses/minuses in comparison not to what existed until today, but to what Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus says.

As for the proposals to use the name FYROM in Greece-related articles and articles of some Int'l organizations, you could make a second proposal that would mandate as opposed to make it optional (as it is in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus) to include this name in the brackets, e.g. "Republic of Macedonia (under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)". I believe there is no harm in starting a RfC to discuss these two minor proposals. I am not suggesting to actually propose them (I have no opinion about that), but to discuss and analyse them, see pluses and minuses. Dc76\^talk 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I have the time now to work on that and consider also the fatigue because of all this; thanks for caring though. You are right that the other pages (OP) and other article titles (OAT) are close in meaning to my drafts. Actually the C in OAT was drafted after I drafted B so as to consider some of my points. I am willing of course to respect the outcome of this consensus and I doubt that any tweeking on those is likely to occur now after the closure.

Practically A about OP leaves room for more discussions about naming rather than fixing the use to one name in some articles: I would hope that we won't get too problematic about that

Proposal C about OAT is mainly different regarding the part with the clear policy negation of assuming a primary topic by means of an arbitrary date. I can envision users objecting to that and more primary topic discussions to begin. However there are already multiple Macedonia-related articles out there and it is unlikely any new one will be created now. I would be more favourable to redirecting to the primary topic . A redirect to an article with a full name will be less likely to cause any trouble as an article situated in the common name will. It would also be more consistent.

Those are more or less the main differences but there are a few more issues. Anyway I wouldn't worry so much now: since the most contentious of the issues were decided in one way or another I would expect common sense to prevail now. Let me remind you that quite many of the page titles did not pose so much of a problem for years. Of course the occasional changes of RoM to FYROM would not cease whatever we do and it is only natural since there is a large community of Greek users who consider that term to be an accurate and NPOV description of the country. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer. I can definitively understand the fatigue. Please, do not be bothered by this because I asked you. Only if it is of interest to you and you find it useful, you might at some point of time in the future, say in a year, to think more about it, once you also know the developments. In fact, your answer explains me the key points, and I am starting to understand more now (I had to have someone to spell things for me to make sure I read correctly the meaning of the decision). I meet with the name Macedonia on WP quite rarely, but occasionally I do, and it was frustrating to me personally not to understand what usage is best and when. Most of the places I meet with the term are in-text. Again, thank you very much for your explanations and everything. Dc76\^talk 06:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love your satirical cartoon about wiki. Who said humor and satire were dead? :-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadowmorph. Sorry for disturbing you. When you have a minute can you please give me a link to proposal A1? I went to the main article page and I could only find proposal A. Thanks. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

[10] hahahaha... oh man, you really do have a wild imagination! :-) --Radjenef (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, the shockpuppets are out to getcha! Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please, just for a day or two, try assuming good faith? It may be a struggle for you, but please just try it for once. The world will be a better place if you do. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said you acted in bad faith. You believe your opinion on this issue is the best want to help Wikipedia by suggesting people to read your comments and rationale in support of one proposal. (The one you have emplaced yourself and has been the status quo for months)

I can hardly say the same for you assuming my good faith though (because of previous issues in those talks).

The reasons I asked the questions in the Macedonia cent. talk is because I am pretty convinced that if I did the exact same thing someone would have called me as canvassing. So I wanted to be sure. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadow, thanks, I'll fix the link. BTW, does anyone know what the OED usage is? (Oddly, the Concise OED avoids the issue altogether). The dictionaries at my library all list the ancient kingdom or region first; do you think that's worth mentioning? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "evidence" section (see navbox) of the discussion there is a survey titled MOSMAC2 in Fut.Perf.'s user page. In there it seems that the opposite of what you say is mentioned, although it acknowledges that many dictionaries list the region/kingdom first. If you can cite specific dictionaries you could add your own "evidence" section. We had a discussion about dictionaries prior to the RFC (see main articles talk archives) and I have concluded that the microstructure (i.e. arrangement) of the entries cannot be used consistenly to infer primary topic. The reason is that some dictionaries use alphabetical order, others including the Oxford English use chronological ordering (thus placing the kingdom first). However there are some dictionaries that use some relative "prevalence" criteria and those don't seem to always list the country first (unless they have a topic-restricted bias to modern countries)

In my opinion most reliable generic sources (i.e. not dealing only with countries) give inconsistent indications about primacy and almost always give an indication of a strong ambiguity and not of any overwhelming prevalence of any particular meaning. You can also check out the Loring Danforth source in the references which gave an accurate description of the situation of English usage was in 1997 (the country was just emerging as a meaning). I have not been able to find a more recent citation that assess what is the situation now. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadow - if you get this before your break starts, have a good one. We're about to have a major nationalistic holiday here ourselves. I'm a little surprised to hear that about primacy in dictionaries; had always understood that the numbering system reflected the compilers' findings in that regard, and the front matter in at least one of the dictionaries I looked at mentions primacy. But lexicographers in this Guardian article mention primacy as varying by dictionary type, live and learn. (They also mention a feeling of power and responsibility) [11] One of the dictionaries I consulted, the New Oxford American Dictionary, gave the historic/region meanings first. But I didn't check their front matter to see what their primacy policy was. In any case, there are enough reliable sources that do either disambiguate M. or list historic/region first to demonstrate the case for a disambig. I might end up putting the NOAD in my statement, but worry that I should recheck their primacy policy. Anyway, have a nice break. Novickas (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God! You finally decided it! Did any oven collapse (Greek expression!)? I have abandoned Helen a bit, but this weekend you'll see miracles in the article. I intend to be back soon to the FAC page! Hi! Hi!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, thanks for adding the Thessalia article. Note though, that it is no longer a valid genus, but has become a synonym. If you plan on making more genera articles (which would be great), I suggest you use Funet (http://www.nic.funet.fi/) instead of zipcodezoo for taxonomic references. Zipcode Zoo isn't any good (they list tons of synonyms as valid species. Just trying to help you out. Keep up the great work! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it is, I added the species and tweaked it a bit. By the way: funet is only usefull for butterflies and moths. I guess you would encounter genera for all kinds of life-forms if you are filling in red links in disambiguation pages. Cheers and thanks again. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to ask u or to plead to check the article Macedonia Timeless. You shouldnt just give what's "wrong" and shut up later... come on the discussion page! 1111tomica (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but please be polite. All interested editors have all the time they need to fix the article since I gave a lengthy description of the issues and I didn't just tag it and leave. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 04:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, but u can see that I am quite nervous... I spent 1 week on writing and defining the article and now it just like everything fail in water (i mean been deleted) ... btw don't be mad but are u Greek??? 1111tomica (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Newsweek reference. I have found an earlier, on the record, mention. It was in a Bulgarian book published in Sofia in the 1930s. My line of thinking is that the source of the term goes back to the Drang Nach Ost of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to gain an outlet in the Aegean. The term Aegaen gained widespread popularity in Bulgaria after WWI, when Sofia desired an Aegean outlet, specifically Aegean Thrace. Then, a 1930s map of 'geographic' Macedonia showed 'Aegean Macedonia' as a sub-division comprising today's Greek province of Central Macedonia. There may have been a German mention of Aegean Macedonia in 1943. But the term came alive with Tito and Tempo. It is basically a harmless term, exept for its usage in the VMRO-DPMNE circles of Skopje and in some members of its diaspora, who give it an irredentist allure. Of course this is mostly POV for Wikipedia and I will not be writing it up in the article. Politis (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok I agree with you there need's a lot of work too, but trust me that all the archeological sites that are in video were found on Macedonian territory ... really ... And I don't know, but you know that for the ethnic Macedonians Ancient, Macedonians are a connection with today's one... I don't know how, but I will try to make the article more neutral... btw what about the source, what to do with it? Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the talk page about the sources. About the sites, it's not a matter of me trusting you, I usually "trust no one". It isn't for wikipedia to decide who is right, there was controversy specifically with Greece, that has to be presented. The organisation's answer to the Greek reactions are not to be presented as the truth. To the wiki, any organisation like "Macedonia Timeless" could be lying (that goes to the Greek media too) as far as the wiki knows. Don't forget: "The truth is out there" :)

Oh and you may have noticed I removed the POV tag. Neutrality is somewhat better than when the article was first written. A word of advice, try to focus your energy on the article that are really important to you and your interests. Aside from tourist video enthusiasts, who would read that article? Think about it, I suspect your interest is not in the video itself but in what it represents. You joined Wikipedia to write about what you are interested in. I suggest you redirect your efforts and provide the wiki with writing that you are knowledgeable of while others may not be interested in... see below:

I checked out some of the articles about the archeological sites: Govrlevo, Vardarski Rid. Why not focus your energy there? They need a lot of work!!! Be sure to add third party reliable sources. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah maybe you are right about this things, but you know... when I saw those videos, I couldn't just write about them, they are just adorable, great they represent my country in great light, so I want to write about them... ok I will listen to your advice and make some other useful articles, but I don't want this to be deleted because, I spent a lot of energy and enthusiasm on it :) ... Greetings! 1111tomica (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bakirtzis-May-1944.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, now I will have to track that magazine to read the whole content. Happy Xmas and New year! Politis (talk)

I would like to wish you Happy and Productive New Year full of health and joy. Feel free to contact me for anything I can help. --Factuarius (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadowmorph, I'm changing back some of the edits you made to conform with the discussion page. Specifically the changes to the wording of the International reaction in the Lead. Feel free to join the discussion and suggest changes, but wait for consensus before making them Zuchinni one (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly message! Yes, I'll have a look at those two pages. My interest in Benakis was because I was writing (outside Wikipedia) about Venizelos -- but also I have visited the Benakis museum and have read some of Penelope Delta's memoirs. I sometimes use the Latin Wikipedia as a kind of notepad. I didn't know anything about Ioannis Papafis, very interesting ... All the best Andrew Dalby 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me to do some work on the Penelope Delta article. The best to you to. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that purely because Macedonian's see their nation and refer to their nation as 'Macedonia' wiki has to follow suit on how it names the article. I am fine with that. My question is this. Alexander the Great, his father Philip II and many of their forefathers referred to themselves as Greek, in letters/speeches and commonly and openly claimed Greek descent from the Argead dynastic house of Argos. they often went out of their way to state their Greek ancestry due to aggressive enemies within the Greek world who sought to devalue their Greek credentials. Is it then fair to mention that they were 'Greek' kings on the introduction pages of their respective articles as that is what they self identified as. This 'Greek' label was unceremoniously removed years ago by the famous army of editors that redefined these pages for ever. As far as logic goes, would it be acceptable to mention these kings were as Greek as they referred to themselves. As it stands, the reader has no indication these kings were Greek unless he scans the 1800 line article and notices under culture that these kings shared the same religion/language etc as 'Greeks.' I would be really interested to hear your opinion on the matter. Reaper7 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:6th pillar of Wikipedia.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I have noticed since 2009 you have dedicated much of your time to defending the principles of Wikipedia in the face of many sockpuppets and fraudulent pseudo history. Well done. Reaper7 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. I checked if you are still around and was sorry to see you were topic-banned. I looked it up and was especially worried about your "bad-faith assumptions (ascribing editors' motivations to their nationality)". Curious enough, everybody called me names when I was campaigning against the exact same kind of behaviour against Greek editors. So I am sorry, but your block was deserving. For your information however, I don't think that the block of editors you describe, whatever their motivations may be, have any of the ethnic affiliations you think. And it shouldn't be relevant regardless. Unless I am mistaken, the list of self-identifications of ethnicities of editors was fortunately deleted. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shadowmorph. Yes indeed my ban was warranted. Firstly because I assumed Taivo and Futperf have south Slavic roots simply because they supported Luxure (the editor of 'Macedonia had no kings' and 'The Greekness of Macedonia is a myth') and secondly because even though I never actually edited any Macedonia related article in my 8 years as a editor, I only edited in the talk pages, sometimes vote against any 'proposals' of the above users as I found their proposals more in line with the politics of the Republic of Macedonia than modern academia. What I did was beyond reproach and far worse than accusing new users of being sockpuppets with no evidence like we just saw on the Ancient Macedonia talk page yesterday which you highlighted but did not call for action. Indeed I was accused of being Greek many times in a negative fashion even though I am not, but those accusers never got any lifetime bans either - or even warnings, but I am sure that that is a separate matter and not important or relevant. I have learnt my lesson and will be far more submissive to personal attacks against myself and NEVER respond if ever I am allowed back to edit any talk page on anything relating to Ancient Macedon in my life time. I will also not question why certain editors affiliate themselves with certain members like luxure or if I suspect there is an organised editing pattern towards ancient Macedonia pages. I think the ban for the rest of my life is deserved as you stated, so really I have no complaints and as stated above, I realise the mistakes I have made. I realise that to question what I questioned should result in nothing less than a lifetime ban and am humble that I am still allowed to edit wiki after such vile act that I committed. I suppose I have calmed a lot since then. Keep up the good fight anyway and good luck! You especially will need it more than anyone! Reaper7 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was i banned from talking in that page by someone? If so why? I noticed that i cannot add anything in case i want to. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made a powerful enemy maybe? Reaper7 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Autoconfirmed. There wasn't any action specifically against you. The pages were protected to be edited by new or IP editors by an admin, because of the disruptive edits by an IP editor which was nothing like you. Be patient and contribute somewhere else until this is resolved. I believe that if your account is confirmed, after some time and several contributions, you can soonly begin to edit in Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed i was notified that my account needed to be confirmed because of a certain user who harasses the talk page constantly. Pity this user and i agree on the matter but he/she seemed hellbent on making their own changes to the article. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is not actually correct. That is like saying Darwin later went on to dominate ideas about Natural Selection. Darwin invented ideas on Natural Selection. Thus, any historian will tell you, Macedonia and Alexander the Great ushered in the age of Hellenistic Greece. Hellenistic Greece is a direct consequence of Macedonian conquest. Not something previously invented and then dominated by Macedon as your edit implies and which may suit an idea that Macedonians were separate conquerors of Hellenistic Greece rather than the founders of the age. Hope this makes sense. Reaper7 (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know and perfectly understand what you are saying. Keep in mind that while I was working on the lead, hell broke loose again and it was reverted to my first draft. I too believe there should be a better combination of words to describe that. Still on the next paragraph the word "inaugurated" is used in respect to that, so there you go. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Check also my arguments on another talk page.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a start - a beachhead if you will. I think an improvement would be and initiated the Hellenistic period of Greece. Baby steps. Reaper7 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macedonia (ancient kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could chip in with an opinion before a conflict goes to arbitration, which it is about to as the Wikipedia policies clearly state all avenues must be exhausted before arbitration as a last resort. The page is the Golden Dawn Party page. Currently there are two logos/party flags in the infobox. Usually there should be just one party logo per party per infobox. The reason there is two is one editor refuses to remove the red and black logo that Golden Dawn used to use before they added a laurel and change of colour to their logo. What is worse is that this older red and black logo (which is not used by the official party website or the TV stations in election results) already exists further down the article. So we have two identical images in the same article. I was wondering if you could read the debate which is not very long with the editor who reverts all deleting of this duplicated image and weigh in with a comment on whichever side you feel is appropriate, if any. We are one revert away from the 3 revert rule. Here is the debate : Golden Dawn flag. thanks for your time. Zenostar (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know nothing or care for that matter. From what I get it is just an infobox debate? The only advice I can give you is to focus your creative time to something useful. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macedonia (ancient kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aigai. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have cleaned up the Ancient Macedonia article very well (well done), I would just like to bring up with you the wording of the Alexander the Great article. It says that Macedon was an 'Ancient Greek Kingdom'. How would you propose to change it? 'Ancient Kingdom' is good by me. TB me when you reply. Cheers, Luxure Σ 05:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why change it?

Look, I think you got some things wrong. Macedonia was indeed an ancient Greek kingdom. While some discussions have been made about some notions pertaining to 800 years before Alexander the Great, in his time he was - of course - king of a Greek kingdom. And loudly self-declaring himself and his kingdom as such on any given occasion. My edits on Macedonia article lead, besides serving a purpose to improve it as a whole, was a compromise wording to achieve stability without sacrifice of meaning. What is your justification of wanting to change the Alexander article? Think about it and hold that thought.

If you read Macedonia (ancient kingdom) closely you will see that if I had to summarize that lead it would write as "Macedonia was a Hellenic kingdom, starting off small in ancient Northern Greece to become synonymous to Greece entirely". To not start the first sentence there with that piece of information does not make it invalid nor up for removal to all other articles in the wiki. Is your only concern to make all the articles remove the adjective "Greek" from next to Macedonia? How will that satisfy you in the end? Will someway the ancient kingdom cease to be considered Greek if the wiki doesn't say it in the beginning of all articles? In the Alexander the Great article the lead is much better written than what we used to have in Macedonia article. No actual need to mess with it. Also in that article's lead, since it is all about Alexander and less about his country, there is no better and compact way to convey the crucial information that Macedonia was a Greek kingdom than by using that adjective next to the first mention of the kingdom. Anything else would be a futile endeavor to remove sourced and truthful material like some people do according to an agenda of well-known origin. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shadowmorph, 135 countries in UN had recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. [12] Since there is no political solution between Macedonia and Greece, one can conclude that Macedonian strategy is related to the busting number of member - states that will recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. It is Apparent that Macedonia will try to implement the strategy of Igor Janev that basically suggest Macedonia in one moment will bring issue to the UN General Assembly for vote on establishing its constitutional name Republic of Macedonia in the UN, replacing FYROM. It is my opinion that future article should concentrate on that strategy too, as well as on the process of collecting recognitions. As for sources, these daily and weekly (or similar) media are the only sources in Macedonia, since all process relating to negotiations and/or recognitions is kept top secret. I will here just quote the one opinion of diplomat dealing with strategy of Macedonian name in the UN. Macedonian international law prof. Igor Janev, stated that there is no solution to the name issue through negotiations with Athens. - A diplomatic solution is impossible here. The exit strategy should be a Resolution, passed by the UN General Assembly, to replace the reference "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" with the constitutional name - the Republic of Macedonia. An alternative would be to request an Advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice for the imposition of additional conditions on Macedonia before its UN membership. Once this is done, the General Assembly should replace the illegal reference used now with the constitutional name - the Republic of Macedonia. There are similar statements by Amb. Risto Nikovski, prof. Biljana Vankovska and President of the World Macedonian Congress Todor Petrov. Same position was taken by Macedonian Minister of Foreign Affairs Slobodan Casule. Recently, we have similar statement by current Minister of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia Nikola Poposki. 178.221.103.201 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political Macedonia 3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[13] [14] Resapp (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:A 1924 Greek medal commemorating the Psara holocaust of 1824.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]