User talk:Grunt/archive8

Tkorrovi et al - wrongly categorised ref in proposed decision
I refer you to this. For your attention, thanks. Paul Beardsell 21:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NO RESPONSE. Paul Beardsell 02:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * -- Grunt 🇪🇺 05:00, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Thank you. But you seem to have made the smallest possible change to the finding of fact. A better change would have been to reflect that Tkorrovi has attacked/insulted more than just me. I am not accused of issuing personal attacks/insults at anybody else. I note that you have also changed your view on the period of my suggesting banning from the article. That this is coincidental is true for both meanings of the word, I hope, as I suggest that as the facts unfold, some of the extreme positions taken before perusal of the evidence by memebers of the ArbCom should fade away. I think it should be becoming obvious that it is in Tkorrovi's character to take offense too easily and inappropriately. Paul Beardsell 20:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Then, where is this hidden place, where are all my not yet found personal attacks against you?Tkorrovi 20:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are going to openly insult each other, please keep it off of my talk page. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:05, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

As per above large font admonishment, continued at end of page. Paul Beardsell 09:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calgary Wikipedian Meet Invite
I'm inviting all the Wikipedians who are listed as Calgarians to get together for a casual, in-person, chat about Wikipedia and whatever else strikes our fancy.

I've got a Meetup.com group set up that we can use to organize local meets. (the fees are covered for a while by my Meetup+ membership carrying over into the new fee regime.) Please sign up for that group, or post a message to my talk letting me know if/when you might be available for a Wikipedian meet. --GrantNeufeld 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on RfAr
Grunt, on WP:RfAr you state that Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004 has seen "rapid fire revert warring by both parties". Please note that the reversions between myself and (logged-in) Argyrosargyrou complied with the 3RR on my side but reached at least 7 reverts in a 24 hour period for Argyrosargyrou. This resulted in a 24 hr block for Argyrosargyrou, his second for violating the 3RR. The subsequent reverts by Argyrosargyrou were made through open proxies in an attempt to get around his block. As such, these edits were outside the scope of the 3RR ("Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit" - WP:3RR) and thus could legitimately be reverted without invoking the 3RR. You might want to reconsider your implication that both parties need enjoining. I should also add that the reason why there are so many different IP addresses involved is because I was blocking each open proxy as Argyrosargyrou exposed it - he was actually doing quite a useful job of identifying proxies to block. (That's why I didn't simply protect the article.) -- ChrisO 20:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There are other ways you could have dealt with this situation - revert warring is an utterly unacceptable answer whatever the circumstances. It would not be difficult to call community attention to the issue and have others either revert on your behalf or have the page protected such that anonymous users cannot revert the page. I would be tempted to suggest that all of the pages involved in the dispute should be protected immediately such that there can be no amount of revert warring at all until the dispute is resolved. I understand your desire to block abusive proxy addresses, but revert warring is not the way to find out what they are. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:59, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)


 * It's only "revert warring" if the 3RR applies. If an article is being repeatedly reverted from ordinary vandalism, calling it a "revert war" isn't appropriate and the 3RR clearly doesn't apply. Nor does it appear to apply to reverting sockpuppet attempts to evade the 3RR or edits by legitimately blocked users - "Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit" and "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this" (WP:3RR and WP:SOCK respectively). The wording makes clear that such edits are thus illegitimate, and the 3RR cannot apply to illegitimate edits. If you disagree you might want to consider a different form of words for the policies that I just cited.


 * As for resolving the dispute, let's face it - Argyrosargyrou has already demonstrated that he's willing to use open proxies to avoid any action you or I or the ArbCom might take. We can't protect pages indefinitely from abusive users. The only alternative is to flush open proxies into the open, ban them as they appear and revert any damage they might have done - which is exactly what's happened in this instance. -- ChrisO 21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * (Added): In addition to the above, I think this settles it: "Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." (Banning policy) -- ChrisO 22:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just want to add that Chris O was supported by myself and Snchduer in the reverts. I believe once Argyrosargyrou crossed the line by using open proxies, Chris O was completely right to revert and block each proxy Argyrosargyrou was using. Anyone who has come across Argyrosargyrou will know he gives complete disregard to anything which stops him spreading his nationalist articles. I have emailed and left messages with other admins with either no response or a token gesture. I commend Chris O for taking any possible preventative action without giving Argyrosargyrou the space to breathe. Its the only way to deal with users like him. --E.A 23:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi et al: Drowning the witch
Grunt, you have asserted above that Tkorrovi and I insult each other on your Talk page and you ask us to stop. Similarly you find in the proposed decision that me arguing my case is evidence of the "crime" of which I am accused.

These following questions lead directly to the heart of the matter: (1) In what way is my above comment an "insult" to Tkorrovi? (2) And, if it is, could you please suggest a form of words that would let me express the above sentiment in a way which would not be "insulting"? (3) If I am accused of personal insult/attack, how am I supposed to defend myself without discussing the character and behaviour of my accuser if, in so doing, as you find here and in the proposed decision, it leads me to be accused, Catch 22 style, of the very crime I am trying to discuss? Paul Beardsell 09:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to defend myself against Tkorrovi's accusations when so doing causes me to commit the same "crime" again. This is like the old Middle Ages drowning the witch test. Paul Beardsell 09:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal attack is stating a supposed flaw in person.Tkorrovi 13:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that the definition in use? If so why is it not simply defined somewhere on Wikipedia?  Or am I missing something obvious?  Paul Beardsell 21:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * But, if that is the correct definition, I am still between a rock and a hard place. What if a "supposed flaw" in a person leads that person to shout "personal attack" too often and also inappropriately.  I am suggesting, Tk, that this is a flaw you have.  Am I now, once again in this paragraph, guilty of "personal attack"?  How do I defend myself against your false and vexatious accusations except by saying you make false and vexatious accusations?  By saying that you habitually do so.  By saying, every time you misrepresent what happened to the ArbCom and in so doing cast me in a bad light, that you lie!  By pointing out it is not only me you take exception to in this way.  Oops, is that a second, third or maybe even a fourth personal attack in this very paragraph!?!?  Paul Beardsell 21:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grunt has not responded so far possibly because he thinks this is being discussed in the wrong place. I raise the issue here becuase it is he, primarily, (it seems), who is deciding what constitutes "personal attack", he who has drafted that part of the proposed decision. And he who recently switched his vote on this issue because (I think) he sees my defence against Tkorrovi vexatious and flase accusations as being evidence of "personal attack/insult" by me of Tkorrovi. Although he does not say why he switched his vote. Grunt, why? Paul Beardsell 21:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly frank and honest, I am changing my votes because I can see that Tkorrovi is not engaging in commentary on my talk page that could be percieved as attempts to harass and intimidate the arbitrators. I have heard complaints from my fellow arbitrators that you, Paul, are engaging in such acts. There are ways to make critical comments that do not appear to be directly insulting, as I feel much of your commentary appears to be. (And just for the record, I am not online 24/7 and was away from a computer for the duration of the time when both of your comments were made). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:55, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your frankness and honesty. But it shows you in a very bad light.  My guilt / blameworthiness / accountability for actions that I took in the period March to May 2004 cannot be changed by my actions now.  It is fundamentally unjust to do what you now do.  It is vindictive to decide the issues in Tkorrovi et al by my demeanour in what looks more and more like a kangaroo court.  And it is self-defeating.  Because the more unjust you are the less likely anyone is going to take you and the ArbCom seriously.  AND such poor decision making leaves you open to external and critical review by bodies outside Wikipedia.  You and some of your fellow jurors violate some of the very same principles you have identified as pertaining to this case.  It is a disgrace.  If anybody can bring Wikipedia into disrepute it is the ArbCom.  You do so.  Paul Beardsell 02:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * But to the accusations you make: They are too vague to be answered.  Specify them.  Provide references.  Charge me, raise an RfA.  Paul Beardsell 02:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There already is an RfAr in progress, demonstrating to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of my peers apparently poor conduct with respect to Tkorrovi. Further, your actions in the here and now appear to be indicative of a similar pattern of behaviour. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:10, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)


 * "Appear". Make your charges explicit.  Or don't uber-wikipedians need to do that.  Paul Beardsell 08:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'''No response. You make unsubstantiated allegations about me. In particular (but not only) I am concerned as to your allegation that I am attempting to intimidate members of the ArbCom.''' Paul Beardsell 21:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'''Well? Paul Beardsell 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)'''


 * I believe your last two comments speak for themselves. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:50, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

All I do is attempt to hold you to account. Your belief is wrong. You have accused me. Falsely. From a priveleged position. You have used this false accusation to justify an injustice you commit against me. You refuse to back it up. As a member of the ArbCom you are a disgrace to Wikipedia. What do you suggest, that I file a RfAr against you? Paul Beardsell 02:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your commentary is merely further adding to the behaviour which is getting you into trouble in the first place. Calling someone "a disgrace to Wikipedia" is an unacceptable personal attack under any circumstances, and I see no evidence that such behaviour on your part is going to improve at any point in time in the future. Wikipedia editors are expected to be calm and collected at all times and to do their best to remain so even when under hostile provocation.
 * Further, if you wish to file an RfAr against me you yourself are going to have to compile evidence of the allegations you are leveling at me. I find in the case that is already ongoing that there is already more than enough evidence to go around that proves to me the allegations that are being leveled at you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:16, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

All I do is attempt to hold you to account. Your belief is wrong. You have accused me. Falsely. From a priveleged position. You have used this false accusation to justify an injustice you commit against me. You refuse to back it up. As a member of the ArbCom you are a disgrace to Wikipedia. Paul Beardsell 02:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Continued at end of page as per large type admonishment at top of page.

IRC
I hear you never come around IRC anymore. Well, I really never do either. I barely come around here! In any case, one for the old days:

* ~ blankfaze tnurgs

Request
Hello. If you have, or any admin has the chance, please replace the link to the EU flag from its current location to Image:European_flag.png. The later is an image on the Wikimedia Commons, and the former is being replaced by the later image. The fomrer image will eventually be deleted by the WP:IFD process. If you have any questions, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response
I have to inform you that you've made a mistake. You've suggested that I might be practising sockpuppetry with Libertas/Ollieplatt. That's completely unfounded and ridiculous, I don't even know who those people are. And I don't know what you mean by my user page being similar to their's. Many people have an American flag on their userpage. -- OldRight 19:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Wiki
Hey there. I have noticed your contributions to Star Wars articles, and I thought you might be interested in the Star Wars Wiki project. We could use new Star Wars contribs like yourself helping the cause. Take a look, and I hope to see you there. Cheers! --SparqMan 15:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber case
I am not aware of any mediation between me and Yuber, could you please eleborate?

Guy Montag 03:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Talk to Inter - I'm not aware of the details of the mediation effort. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:03, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Whatever mediation was there has failed; you should change your vote on the RFAr back to "Accept".

Please review the ruling you made to look into POV on the on both sides on the 6th, and change it in light of new evidence against Yuber. Thanks,

Guy Montag 00:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo page
Hello, as a Wikipedia arbitrator, I would like your input on the Iglesia ni Cristo page, which is currently caught in a revert war from members who claim this article is biased and other Wikipedians who claim the article is in adherence to the religion and NPOV standards.--Onlytofind 09:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFA: cl ch: objecting to remedies
You have voted to close this case. I object: the remedy aginst me is still unsupported by FoF, and my questions remain unanswered. I asked this question of Raul, and he said, don't ask me, I voted against. So I'm asking you instead - User:William M. Connolley

Neto
Out of curiosity - is Neto's mentoring lifted? I've seen no activity on the mentoring page, and quite some WikiSpace activity by him. I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, but people were recently discussing whether mentoring actually works, so I was wondering if this was resolved, abandoned or still active. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Neto - this is getting out of hand
Since Neto is accusing me of stalking anyway, I took the liberty of looking over his contribs log. What I saw was not good. About 80% of his edits of the past couple days are part of several edit and revert wars; one to deprecate a spoiler template, one other about layout of a series of templates, and a third about an external link at Magic: The Gathering, for which he broke the 3RR today. Apart from that, his behavior towards others is incivil at best, he's made several WP:POINTs recently, has directly contravened TFD consensus and has been biting a newbie. All in all, if he hadn't been under mentorship, I would have blocked him for these disruptions for at least a day. Please look into this. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; June 28, 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Netoholic has continued to remove the spoiler-other template from each and every article into which it's placed. When another user reverts the page back, he responds in kind.

To be fair, some of these articles should not contain spoiler-other. Others, meanwhile, are precisely the type of article for which the template is intended. When another user points this out, he labels his subsequent edit summary as "fmt" (instead of explicitly acknowledging or attempting to justify another revert).

Netoholic nominated this template for deletion, and the consensus was to keep it. Despite this fact, he's going out of his way to block its use. I don't want to fuel an edit war (despite his claims to the contrary), so I'm asking you to intervene. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 29 June 2005 11:58 (UTC)


 * Raul has had a conversation with him, but since then, Netoholic has continued revert warring on eight different pages, and not discussed any of those. For that reason, I've blocked him for twelve hours. As a side point, you're probably aware that Kim is no longer mentoring him ? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; June 30, 2005 09:08 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I was getting concerned because nobody was answering it earlier; a simple affirmation that you and Raul are still mentoring is all I asked for. Since I have that now, I wish you best of luck with the mentoring. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 6, 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Netoholic's conduct at Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal
Hi, Grunt. You might want to look into Netoholic's behavior at Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal, including repeated accusations of vote-tampering and unilaterally "closing" the vote due to "irregularities":. Raul654 has just protected the page. [ +t, +c, +m ] July 7, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Njyoder
User:Njyoder is getting into a rather large "discussion war" on. One of his more recent comments was: ''Then feel free to cite some instead of making a blind accusation. I've noticed you have a tendency to try to undermine my credibility and contribute nothing of value to the discussion. I won't be suprised if you can't cite any, because you know they'd easily get shot down.''

I noticed that there was an arbitration request that went against him, and wanted to know what should be done (I'm involved, so I probably shouldn't take any action). At the very least you might want to keep an eye on the page, as it is getting out of control fast. --brian0918  00:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings
A page that you joined to help with associate with other members of the Wikipedia community is on VfD. Please see Votes for deletion/Wikipedian citizens of the world, and the related page Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 09:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Peace Dove
To all participants of the WikiProject Kindness Campaign: There is a proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kindness Campaign for the Peace Dove. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks, Sango  123  16:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reqimage
reqimage has been that "monstrous piece of ugliness" for over a month. Why does Netoholic need to get into an revert war over that template when he has not participated at all in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template locations, nor has he participated at all in the discussion at Template talk:Reqimage until today. I HATE revert wars, and to have Netoholic paraphrase me as the justification for this most resent revert war has me doubly pissed off. Revert wars are a pox upon the Wikipedia and Netoholic is the prime warrior. Blank Verse  ∅ 08:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegation
Some time back you falsely accused me of intimidating the ArbCom. I demanded you substantiate the allegation. You refused to do so. I say (not for the first time) this is disgraceful behaviour from a member of the ArbCom and, as such, calls Wikipedia into disrepute. It is also highly unfair to me: You still have refused to substantiate your false allegation. The time to withdraw it is now. Please do so. Paul Beardsell 01:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Where's Grunt?
I don't get it, where's Grunt gone? Is this the real Grunt, the grunt, the Grunt with two computers who lives in Canada and is fond of the EU? Grunt born 1987 or likes Texas Calculators? What happened to Grunt and his page? Please explain! --203.173.8.18 05:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt has left the project. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 16:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? That's terrible! Any particular reason? --203.173.8.18 02:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, Grunt. Come visit us on IRC some time. &mdash; Dan | Talk 05:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia?
Dear Wikipedia administrator

I am writting you about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

Arbitration for User:Theathenae
A petition for Arbitration has been brought against User:Theathenae because of his behavior in the Talk:Arvanites dispute. You can add evidence if you wish here. REX 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Visual Basic Classic Wikibook
I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 08:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Alberta. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Alberta for instructions.--Rmky87 22:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal
Please take a look at the edit history for Accountable 1135. Please help if you can. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 01:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Your criticism
You criticised editing by someone at 165.228.129.12

Please keep in mind that "Such an IP address can be shared by several users". If you have a complaint, it might be wise to indicate which article you are complaining about, so there is some relevance to your comment.

Arbitration re-opened
Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. (SEWilco 03:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

User categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians by alma mater page. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by alma mater for instructions. --Cooksey 21:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

World Citizen userbox,
Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)