User talk:157.228.x.x

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

Wait, so you created an actual user account with a name based on your IP addresses? Genius. :D

Here's the routine:

Welcome!

Hello, 157.228.x.x, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! BalkanFever 01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Greece! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Greece.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Interested in working on a more complete article? The peer review department of the project would welcome your help!
  • Interested in a particular area of Greek history, geography, culture etc. ? There are already two task forces, and you could initiate the creation of more focusing on specific topics or periods.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Greece related article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Welcome to the project! Looking forward to your ideas and active participation! I hope you'll enjoy editing for Wikipedia!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

You know, you can do other things on wikipedia, for example try to improve the Greek articles rather than vandalise articles about MACEDONIAN people and events. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. I already warned the administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isavevski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Γελοίος ο τύπος (λιγουλάκι κολλημένος και 'συ μπρε) αλλά έχει ένα δίκιο. ;) Γιατί δε γράφεις περί της "εθνότητας" των Μακεδόνων και πώς οι Ελληνικές αντιλήψεις άλλαξαν, στο Ancient Macedonians; Βλέπω ότι έχεις υλικό. Thanks for the info btw. I had seen Malkin's book before; looks interesting. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

Please remember this rule when your third edit today of Constantinople is, as I expect reverted. Breaking it could see you prevented from editing again. - Galloglass 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is thoroughly explained in the talk page of the said article here. As I said, it was you who had removed long standing and cited (by highly reliable sources) pertinent material, therefore you carried the burden of proof and to build consensus in the talk page. Dispite that I have tried to accomodate you and provide clear and verifiable sources from reliable publishers/authors and to explain that we have a duty to report that "Constantinople" was the capital of the Ottoman Sultanate (Ottoman Empire). And by that name it was treated, in the English language (and not only) in academia, popular culture, media and elsewhere during the 16th up to 19th century, also widely during the best part of the 20th century, even up to the historical treatment of present-day historians and other published authors (21st century). --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually upon closer inspection I must say that it was User:Deipnosophista who was the first to remove the reference of Constantinople as the capital of the Ottoman Empire here. Nevertheless, you have removed that text yourself too, eventhough it was reintroduced by a spurious user. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300 edits[edit]

My apologies if I was unclear in my comments. When you are making a point likely to inspire dissent, it is usually best to take the time to proceed tot he article discussion and resolve any issues beforehand. This is even more important in the case of FA articles, as they are supposed to be more stable than normal articles (they usually serve as templates for other articles seeking to emulate FA anf GA standards). t would be very helpful if you could take the time to seek a consensus in the article discussion before proceeding with an edit that has already been reverted by others. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, I really do. But I have followed that particular issue for some time now and I am engaging in the talk pages of pertinent articles. I do not have to repeat everything in every article, for the same "issue". An accurate summary, directing to the relevant sections and discussions, in the ...'edit summary box' is most sufficient, I think. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I am surmising that not all of the articles where these discussions are occurring are not GA or FA articles. If you are ironing the issue out in those places, could I impose upon you to perhaps wait until some conclusion is reached in those other places before posting a summary of that conclusion in the article discussion for 300? That way, we know that the matter has been hashed out in other venues, and there is consensus for a different view. I am concerned with the practice of reverting the article to look one way when others revert it back or otherwise, which de-stabilizes the article. I am not saying your view is wrong, but I am saying that changes in the face of dissent require discussion. Wait until that issue has substantial consensus before presenting it in a FA article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that you are coming pretty close to 3RR. You might wish to self-revert this, so as to avoid the appearance of edit-warring. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from and to be quite honest that was exactly the reason why I chose to engage in another talk page (not 300's). Plus, many interested editors where involved in that other article, so the chances to get some input were much higher. I was the one who edited out yesterday all that nonsense about plagiarism. The way it was worded implied that Warner and Bates did acknowledged copyright issues on par with Elliot Goldenthal's score "Titus". This is far from true. On that basis alone I had the "right" (in fact the obligation) to remove every single line, ignoring even the intext citations. Anyway there were no given sources for that with the exception of that non-english article/commend, published somewhere on the web, possibly talking about similarities, and that's that. I also knew (from day one, some 14 months ago) every single reference put forward regarding this "issue" in wikipedia and elsewhere. (Yes, I am fully aware about your efforts and long, frustating and often bitter discussions you had in this article). Mind you, there was some minor-edit-war going on between Bulgarian and Slav-Macedonian editors about the origins of a song, affecting the article. Now this and any other issues will be addressed elsewhere, leaving this FA "alone". If, in the near future pertinent, reliable and credible sources surface, then, simply we are going to address any issues in a NPOV way. As it stands though this plagiarism claim is just a non-issue. --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. (re 3RR) I do not wish to sound harsh but 'you choose a somewhat "polemic" way which, in fact, could affect the stability of the article. A simple click on my link and a few minutes to investigate my contributions and edit summaries would had spared us this minor-drama...
Fair enough. If my way of bringing the matter to your attention was unfriendly, please accept my apology, for none was intended. I don't want you to leave the article "alone"; I just want to make sure the major issues are resolved fully before they are introduced in, thereby avoiding the nationalistic, petty nonsense that cluttered up the article last summer. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. My initial intention anyway, a couple of days back, was to move the discussion in the song's article so the stability of this FA would not be affected. That's what I've meant by leaving this FA "alone". I also like to apologize for not making myself clear earlier on and for any misunderstanding(s) I may have caused. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slav-Macedonians? :S --Hegumen (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not you Arcayne, he refers to my choice of words, I suppose. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008[edit]

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".


What misuse of vandalism-template are you referring to? And please sign your posts in my talk page. --157.228.x.x (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one on Isavevski's talk page. BTW you're about to break 3RR. Calm down a bit. BalkanFever 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very calm, and I do mean it. I would suggest the same to you. Please do not revert reliably sourced material which naming convention and presentation is in accordance of our policies and guidelines. As for the warnings to User:Isavevski, please watch his talk page. I am preparing a hopefully thorough analysis on how and why his actions constitute to "Sneaky Vandalism". --157.228.x.x (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately due to your recent actions, I can not assume good faith. Your reverts constitute also vandalism (removing reliable sources) and unconstructive, hostile editing (edit-warring). --157.228.x.x (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to bother any more. Your incivility is beyond help. BalkanFever 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR - 24h[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

157.228.x.x (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request an unblock since I was not given the opportunity to respond to these accusations. User:BalkanFever have been following me around removing sourced material from reliable sources, cited in accordance of our WP:Verifiability policy. He claims in his accusations that I do not use edit summaries, when in fact the exact opposite is true. I have repeatedly explained my edits through the use of talk pages and edit summaries and if anything else my edit summaries can be considered lengthy, if not too accurate and detailed. Numerous explanations and referrals to policies and proposed guidelines (e.g. WP:MOSMAC) have been given, unfortunately to no availability. Therefore I would kindly request to temporarily lift my ban so I can argue my case. I will not make any edits in the WP's mainspace until everything is cleared out, hopefully within the proposed duration of this ban (24 hours). Thank you

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block: edit warring. —  Sandstein  22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since no administrator have reviewed my request yet, I will try to briefly present some specifics regarding this case In response to the User:BalkanFever accusations here, actual diff.. This user has been following me around, removing sourced material (cited by reliable sources per WP:Verifiability) and treated in accordance of other policies and/or proposed guidelines (e.g. WP:MOSMAC) as seen here, here, here or here.

An indicative incident might be the following. He begins his peculiar aggressive editing by reverting my contribution with a personal attack ("problems problems problems") in direct violation of WP:NPA or WP:Civility. He then again reverts the same article claiming that I have not provided an explanation, even though just a couple of lines below my extensive (relevant and informative IMHO) edit summary reads as this. (citing current ongoing discussions and WP:NCGN).

Therefore, in contrast to the claims I did try to provide adequate explanations of my edits (other examples [1], [2], [3]). It was he who in turn did not provide adequate edit summaries , embroiled in sterile edit-warring tactics by systematically removing material treated in accordance of WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:NAME and specific-for-the-purpose guidelines as WP:NCGN or WP:MOSMAC. --157.228.x.x (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent cases[edit]

In effect he and some other editors (e.g. User:Isavevski, User:Kobra85) and a cohort of "anonymous" users - IP addresses are wikistalking me. Some very recent examples can be seen here or here (quote "odi si" which roughly translates to 'Go Away') and numerous abuses by various IP addresses (e.g. Special:Contributions/85.18.136.96 or Special:Contributions/89.205.12.164, amongst others) regarding more or less the same articles. --157.228.x.x (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here they are on their spree again: Special:Contributions/Isavevski. --157.228.x.x (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not begin my editing with "problems problems problems", I made other contributions before then. It's less confusing than you using "ditto" in edit summaries. Let me explain something: we got into an editorial dispute. My edits to the Eurovision articles have been solely to improve the leads, so that they are less-cluttered. No offence, but you make the intros look ugly. Having "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" immediately followed by "FYR Macedonia" when it can simply be "FYR Macedonia" does not look good. And the fact that "FYR Macedonia" is linked to the article which perfectly explains the "FYR" etc. makes having them in the artist and song articles redundant. The fact that the material was sourced is irrelevant here, I don't dispute the material, or the sourcing. I dispute the material's relevance in the specific articles you placed it in. I told you you were about to break 3RR, and you did it anyway. Then I reported it. You refuse to acknowledge you were edit-warring, and portray me as a vandal. And you've been edit-warring in these articles with other users for a long time, so maybe you should look at WP:OWN. Please don't accuse me of sockpuppetry again. I am not Isavevski. Just because others disagree with you it doesn't make them the same person. You've accused me of sockpuppetry before, and I'd like you to stop. BalkanFever 12:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not accused you for sock-puppetry, now or ever. All I know is that there are some highly suspicious looking (coordinated?) efforts by the aforementioned users, including yourself. As for the rest I stand by them. You have entered the editing of Gevgelija (history) article by using this personal attack [4] ("problems problems problems"). Not to mention other instances of incivility and outright profanity in other articles (see [5]). Removing legitimate content, cited reliably according to our policies, especially in the way you went about it, can be considered "Sneaky vandalism" (see Types of Vandalism). The rest are just content interpretations-disputes-choices. --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the spree goes on. With outright no respect of the sources (e.g. [6], [7], [8]), with outright falsification of the references ([9]) and no other consideration (e.g. WP:NAME, WP:MOSMAC) what-so-ever. --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with you. It's Republic of Macedonia's national basketball team not FYROM. It also says that it competes in FIBA tournaments as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYR Macedonia). The basic name of FYR Macedonia is Macedonia so it will be sorted on M not F, FYR is just adding as Republic of Ireland is sorted on I. Marek Jankulovski's father Pando IS from Macedonia and DID imigrated to Czech Republic and I found page that confirms that and you say that it's 'falsification of the references'. I'm sorry that you think we don't have our history and culture but you're wrong. And don't give that 'I never said so' crap because we all know what you think of us. Regards, Isavevski (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm game but it is extremely hard to assume good faith. You have (maliciously?) altered the reference from Fibaeurope to the acronym FYROM to read as "Macedonia" [10]. Every single international organization (including Fiba, Uefa et al.) are alphabetizing your country under "F" and more specifically under "former" (not under "FYR" even though I have run into some rare instances where some webmasters got it wrong by alphabetizing as "F-Y-R Macedonia" after "France".) The snippet provided for Jankulovski reads "His father, Pando Jankulovski, emigrated to Czechoslovakia from Macedonia." There is no clarification what-so-ever about which "Macedonia" guardian.co.uk is referring to (I presume it refers to your country but I may be wrong) and no mention of "Aegean refugee from the Greek Civil War". I do not claim that he wasn't. I just don't know, that's why I have requested some reliable and verifiable English-language sources. I know that you [your people with which you identify with] have your perceptions of history and culture. Please try to see beyond the superfluous nonsense, I really do. --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, twice) Well here's the dispute; I don't think there is a legitimate reason to include that content in the Mojot Svet article when another article that (legitimately) contains that content is linked to. I'm not going to continue this discussion any longer, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't turn this to an attack page against me (BalkanFever). BalkanFever 13:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never attacked you personally or otherwise. Ever. I commend on the content and the circumstances (as suspicious as they may be) in a civil manner, only. --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I had that in mind but thanks a lot for reminding me!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I do not claim (or remotely imply) to include myself in that "we" (i.e. "we the historians"), it's always nice to have some sense of "moral relativism". Sto diatayta twra! Since it was a genuine offer, I have activated my email so please contact me to arrange the details; hope by tommorow or Saturday morning to be on its way home. Thank you very much for your custom. For any other enquires please call us on the toll-free number 0800-157-228-X-X, or email our customers support team at Wiki-4-Books ©. --157.228.x.x (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

Too much of it. From you. All over the place. I might see some revert limitation somewhere around the corner. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "edit-warring" is that? I always try to thorougly explain and support with reliable sources most (if not every) edit or proposal I make. --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't stop it from being edit warring. And in the present instance, you failed to understand my point. First, get that stupid over-linking out, that's just an issue of style policy. One link per line, not more. Second, I'm not saying the ethnicity is wrong, it's irrelevant. Irrelevant here. (Plus, yes, it happens to be disputed, very much so, by people as mainstream as Borza and Badian, as you very well know.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t like that uncivil and authoritative tone (se WP:CIVIL) of yours. By the looks of it, I would think that other people are on an "edit-warring" mode here, not me. Why is it "irrelevant" here? Or is it irrelevant to attribute 'Old English' to Beowolf in its disambiguation page? Borza and Badian mostly study the people as a whole (especially Borza who concentrate somewhat in the early kingdom) not Alexander (as you might know). Plus, that link to Macedon is explained in my edit summary. We already have, in that particular page, three other instances where more links are used in a single line. One of them directs to East Macedonia, Greece and the other to the Republic of Macedonia. I followed suit in so to clearly differentiate between "Macedonias". You are very welcome to get rid of it, if you think that it creates more (substantial) problems than solutions. --157.228.x.x (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know there were more links. That's why I removed them, see? In accordance with policy. And you reinserted them all, contrary to policy. Twice. And without discussing. And after being pointed to the relevant policy. That's disruptive edit warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did discuss it; in my edit summary, in its talk page and (still I am duscussing it) here! OK my bad, you did removed some of them (you have left the links to the years) but what this have got to do with my proposed phrasing? Is this some short of WP:GAMING with the WP:MOSDAB policy here? OK let's leave every second link out, eventhough I think that that "except where common sense and the occasional exception (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) will improve an article" applies for very good (and some even say, quite obvious) reasons. --157.228.x.x (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Per WP:ARBMAC I am limiting you to one revert per page per day for 3 months. This is due to your recent edit-warring. Given that your talk page is full of nothing but "Please stop edit-warring", you can hardly have any complaints. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter nonsense. Opportunistic attitudes like this, undermines the usefulness of valuable tools like the WP:ArbReq, making cases like WP:ARBMAC open to mockery or direct (and justified at that) ridicule. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???[edit]

Seriously, what the heck is going on here? Is this an abuse of power, or what? --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 19:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Greece August 2008 newsletter[edit]

The August 2008 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian[edit]

Very lame edit-warring there. 1RR per page per week for 6 weeks. I've also sanctioned the other one. Moreschi (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Google Books in sources[edit]

in Alexander the Great, i cited existing books. i mentioned their name and authors. i also put their google book entry only to make it easy for the reader to find them, not question their existence, even read them or the relevant part without having to do the search himself. then you come and delete the sources both URLs to google books and the name of the books and authors. what is exactly the rationale of such move? does the existence of the entry of the books in google books, make the names of the books and their authors invalid for citing? cause my logic says the opposite way around would be more sensible. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you've cited existing publications using google books but your citations were and -sorry to say- still are looking as a pile of useless junk. Authors, titles, publishers (when mentioned), ISBNs (when mentioned and omitted page numbers), are piled together without any short of order or purpose. Their usability, clarity or functionality are close to zero, not to mention their cosmetics. As for a URL, well that's good to have (accounting even for its ephemerality) but preferably when a proper published reference, cited properly is given. Granted that in this particular article there are other references pointing to various websites, still we should strive for an article that could may well stand on its own i.e. without the need to refer to any external links. As an exercise, I would suggest to have a read about "Internet's" or websites' ephemerality and how to WP:CITE and use Wikipedia:Citation templates. As a pointer, it is perfectly viable to cite a printed source providing also a URL, either manually or by the use a template. HTH --157.228.x.x (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk#Inappropriate user name?[edit]

Just so you know, your username is getting discussed at the help desk. Darkspots (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name is fine, if you ever need some help on Wikipedia feel free in contacting me on my talk page.--intraining Jack In 16:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Slavic[edit]

What is your problem with Macedonian Slavic? This is the language which these people speak, not some pseudo-language known as "local Slavic". PMK1 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? Both are merely geographic qualifiers. Local Slavic simply means the Slavic dialect peculiar to that part of Macedonia. The piped article discusses the linguistic classification, what's your problem? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the slavic dialects peculiar to Macedonia, are a language. The Macedonian language. What is my problem, the bullshit which is "local Slavic". When you are happy with local Hellenic, i will be happy with Local Slavic. You are obviously so ignorant and stubborn, because you yourself know that they speak Macedonian. But i guess someone has to push forward the Greek POV. My problem is that "linguistically" these people speak MACEDONIAN, get over it and move on. PMK1 (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The situation isn't so simple, and you know it. The language is simply not called "Macedonian" in Greece, and we are talking about places in Greece. I have no problem with local Hellenic, but it seems your side has a problem with giving any prominence to the Greek names of places in the FYROM. So while Lerin is right up the top of Florina, Μοναστήρι isn't over at Bitola. Why? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why you ask? Because Greeks have never been a majority or large minority in the town in modern history. In total their are like 500 Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia, i dont really care if it is posted but their are other languages spoken in Bitola and other minority groups more prominent than greeks in Bitola. Thus Greek should go after names such as Albanian, Turkish, Rom, Aromanian and even Serbian. They are not a prominent enough group in Bitola. Whereas for a place such as Malovista or Magarevo where the population had pro-Greek sentiment earlier this century, it wouldnt be such as problem. A paralel would be having the Macedonian name in the title in a place such as Kozani, or the bulgarian name for Drama, where neither are a large minority or even present at all. The situation isn't so simple but it isnt so complicated. Some people call the language Macedonian, many call it SlavoMacedonian (Slavic Macedonian), some nasi (ours) and some dopia. Linguists call it Macedonian, would it really be that bad to have Slavic Macedonian? Especially in places such as Agios Germanos, and Meliti and Perasma where it is well known that a majority speak the Macedonian language and many identify as Macedonians (ethnically). Would it really be that bad if "Slavic Macedonian:" were to be added? PMK1 (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were going around changing names when there was an established consensus on the matter and you were, clearly, made aware of it. I've seen the discussions in the talk page of FPS and elsewhere but still I have not seen a clear-cut new consensus on the issue. It seems to me that if "Macedonian Slavic" is to be used, in some cases (not all Slavic toponyms justify such a name) then this need to be directed to the Slavic dialects of Greece and not a sub-section of another article. On the other hand, I think that probably [[Slavic Dialects of Greece|local Slavic]] remains the better choice. --157.228.x.x (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case[edit]

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.

You're about ==>|this|<== close currently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd slander. When someone disagrees with your edits he/she automatically becomes disruptive. I am increasingly having concerns about certain editing patterns, administrative "choices" and most importantly about gaming tactics (perhaps for imposing some short of political hegemony over Balkan related articles ?) demonstrated by you. I'm sorry but I can not see how one can act as an administrator, an enforcer, or even a close "counsellor" to other administrators/arbitrators when s/he is so actively involved in certain articles, at times with a partisan or even edit-warring mentality. --157.228.x.x (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that I was going to enforce the sanctions in this case? Obviously, I won't. But it is a simple fact that other administrators tend to listen to me when I request sanctions. They know what my role in this field is, and they trust my judgment not despite that but because of it. You have been moving more and more towards the role of a single-purpose account pursuing your ethnic agenda through persistent slow edit-warring (instead of, for instance, turning your attention to tidying up your old plagiarism skeletons in the closet, as maybe you should). This is easily demonstrable and will certainly have its effect should your name come up at the relevant notice boards. Fair warning given. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter[edit]

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:157.228.x.x&oldid=1138929418"