Misplaced Pages

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:17, 6 October 2008 view sourceHectorian (talk | contribs)9,081 edits →Map thing← Previous edit Revision as of 14:29, 6 October 2008 view source Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,195 edits →Map thing: snipNext edit →
Line 149: Line 149:
: I've said before that I would like to have such maps for other countries - whether on their main page or in detail articles depends on article structure, of course. What would happen if we did that? Well, you'd be surprised: in the case of Germany or Austria, I'm pretty sure, nothing much. I cannot for the life of me imagine German editors making a fuss like the Greeks have. You know, we really are a bit more relaxed about these matters. (The German map would be a bit boring though, because the minority areas are just so small: Polabian has been extinct like forever, Polish isn't spoken on today's German territory at least as far as I'm aware (except by recent immigrants, of course), Limburgish is typically perceived as just a local dialect; Turkish is of course also just a recent immigrant community (those are typically treated separately from autochthonous minorities in linguistic geography.) Leaves us with just Frisian, Sorbian, Danish, to the best of my knowledge. – As for "why so much interest in Greece"?, part of that is possibly Misplaced Pages-internal. Since every attempt at treating minorities in Greece meets with extreme amounts of debating, the result is, like so often in Misplaced Pages, that the overall quantity of treatment grows far beyond what we'd have if everybody just went easy about them. But there's also something inherently special and interesting and unique about Greece: the very fact that these groups are so invisible. There can hardly be many more European countries that have gone from very substantial ethnic heterogeneity to this extreme amount of perceived homogeneity in such a short time. ] ] 11:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC) : I've said before that I would like to have such maps for other countries - whether on their main page or in detail articles depends on article structure, of course. What would happen if we did that? Well, you'd be surprised: in the case of Germany or Austria, I'm pretty sure, nothing much. I cannot for the life of me imagine German editors making a fuss like the Greeks have. You know, we really are a bit more relaxed about these matters. (The German map would be a bit boring though, because the minority areas are just so small: Polabian has been extinct like forever, Polish isn't spoken on today's German territory at least as far as I'm aware (except by recent immigrants, of course), Limburgish is typically perceived as just a local dialect; Turkish is of course also just a recent immigrant community (those are typically treated separately from autochthonous minorities in linguistic geography.) Leaves us with just Frisian, Sorbian, Danish, to the best of my knowledge. – As for "why so much interest in Greece"?, part of that is possibly Misplaced Pages-internal. Since every attempt at treating minorities in Greece meets with extreme amounts of debating, the result is, like so often in Misplaced Pages, that the overall quantity of treatment grows far beyond what we'd have if everybody just went easy about them. But there's also something inherently special and interesting and unique about Greece: the very fact that these groups are so invisible. There can hardly be many more European countries that have gone from very substantial ethnic heterogeneity to this extreme amount of perceived homogeneity in such a short time. ] ] 11:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Sorry for interfearing, '''' --] (]) 14:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for interfearing, but I could not help myself after what I've read. Btw, ], I saw your new version of the map and comments will follow shortly in ]. Here you say: ''"that all these areas are areas with minority languages even now" is not a false implication'': Really? ''certainly not publicly visible when you travel through those areas'': Do I see an implication of intolerance? I have heard numerous people talking in Aromanian (in most of the cases, a mixture of Aromanian and Greek-a sentence half in Aromanian and half in Greek-a dialogue where one person speaks in Aromanian and the other in Greek-and any other compination possible, most of which I have used myself) and others speaking in Slavic (of course I cannot understand whether it is Serbian or Bulgarian, Russian or Ukrainian, and certainly I would never be able to realize if it is Bulgarian or "Macedonian"-for it's the same). ''The article text legitimately has a reference to Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavs, Pomaks and Turks; the reader has the natural question: "where are those guys?"'': you mean the speakers, I suppose; remember it is a linguistic not an ethnic map. In addition the question should be ''"where '''were''' those guys?"''. Also, ''has a reference to (...) Slavs'' or "Macedonians" as you name them? ''The German map would be a bit boring though, because the minority areas are just so small'': not so. Remember, that such a map would refear to "traditionally non-German speaking areas". This "traditionally" has no chronological limitations. So, I suppose ] would be Sorbian, ] largely Polish, ] Dutch and Frisian and ] Danish. ''there's also something inherently special and interesting and unique about Greece: the very fact that these groups are so invisible'': maybe because their speakers are so few. ''There can hardly be many more European countries that have gone from very substantial ethnic heterogeneity to this extreme amount of perceived homogeneity in such a short time'': hmmm, tough (?) to answer? Lets see: UK, Romania, Croatia, Italy, France, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Germany and many more countries increased their linguistic, ethnic and religious homogeinity in larger percentanges and much faster (just an example: Poland achieved this in just 6 years, with the annihilation of the Jews by the Nazis, the expulsion of the Germans and the assimilation of the Kashubians, Sorbs, Silesians, etc; thus Poland for years appeared to be almost 99% Polish-but this doesn't matter, of course, 'cause only the case of Greece is ''unique''... --] (]) 14:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Sigh. And here was me thinking I could, just once, hold a reasonable discussion undisturbed with a person who actually understands what you tell them. To everybody else: come back to my talkpage when you've organised your thoughts into something remotely coherent and can meaningfully participate in a constructive talk between adults. ] ] 14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:29, 6 October 2008

Archive
Archives
  1. – July 2006
  2. – October 2006
  3. – November 2006
  4. – January 2007
  5. – 12 March 2007
  6. – 5 May 2007
  7. – 8 Sept 2007
  8. – Dec 2007
  9. – Feb 2008
  10. – March 2008
  11. – 12 May 2008
  12. – 20 July 2008
  13. – 31 August 2008
  14. –
  15. –
  16. –
  17. –
  18. –
  19. –


Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Image:KOE US Embassy Athens 2006.jpg

Just FYI, I've undeleted this one, as I've actually got the license confirmed after all, supposing you wouldn't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me. All the best - Peripitus (Talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece situates partially in Asia

The source, which shows that Greece situates partially in Asia: Around the world: Countries that exist wholly or partially within geographical Europe, inter alia From the Black Sea coast, the geographical border of Europe passes through the deepest parts of the Black Sea to the mouth of the Bosphorus; on through the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea; through the deepest parts of the Aegean Sea to the Mediterranean and around to the Straits of Gibraltar. The line through the Aegean Sea divides the Greek Islands between continental Europe and continental Asia.
--WPK (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Warning"?

Before "warning" me, don't You and others dispute the information Around the world: Countries that exist wholly or partially within geographical Europe about the article Greece, please.
--WPK (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A little work for you

Take a look here and give opinion! danke --Raso mk (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping!

Hi!

Did you have a moment to maybe take a look this issue? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


Calm down

I am currently working on an image upgrade for those images with more detail and better color patterns. I don't appreciate the fact that you don't see his agenda - uploading an image that does not contain the all-around language solution that was agreed upon (and these guys push POV for years now). He isn't an image creator, but he is using MY image to play games.

I will replace ALL those images with better quality - today or tomorrow.

Thanks. Rarelibra (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FPaS - you just stated, on my talk page, the exact reason why my image exists! After all the turmoil, the most logical input from neutral admins and such was to make one that had all the names for everyone to be happy. Only now, after some time, is Supparluca restarting the POV push. The image existed for a long time without any protest until this.
I am finishing the new image - which will have border country labels, border province labels, and the municipalities outlined. This detail should trump the old image and will hopefully be accepted - and it will have all the names, like before. If you could please explain that this new image will be more than worthy to the article, I would appreciate it. Rarelibra (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
New image is now uploaded. Would appreciate feedback. Rarelibra (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alphabet

Dear FPS, why did you erase information from Alphabet? I think it is wrong to erase information without any discussion. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are an admin, so there must be some reason behind that edit! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for calling your edit "vandalism". :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, no prob. It was obviously unencyclopedic material. Nothing to do with me being an admin though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You are an admin and admins can revert edits by banned/blocked users. So I thought that may have been the case. You are right: they were unencyclopedic material. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

At first glance, it appears that you removed constructive talk about an article - specifically what is missing - in this edit. What's up with that? Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing constructive in that section. It's just the usual "OMGZ evil FYROMian history thiefs" off-topic rants. From a person who has never done anything more constructive than that during his whole career on this project. The assertion that these topics are something that is "missing in the article" is tenuous at best; even if they were, he isn't discussing how to constructively integrate them; he is arguing (for the millionth time) why his side is right and why everybody else is evil propagandists. Which is the only thing this person is interested in doing here. If you don't believe me, just check : he wants his posts to be read as evidence that "what I am saying about FYROM irredentism/propaganda has truth to it." Also look at this. As far as I'm concerned, this person is one step away from an indef-block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As usual he's dismissive of the importance of the points in question. All I ask for is some of common sense here. Is the President of FYROM admitting he isn't related to ancient Macedonians, an image of their current PM laying a wreath where a map of a Macedonia Greece as belonging to FYROM is directly in front of him, and US Congress introducing bills condemning FYROM for propaganda (one co-sponsored by Obama)...not rather important to an article that also relates to the alleged cultural identity of FYROM citizens?

Instead Futper turns it into the newb-is-trolling meme. And this is exactly why I've had to come to you Todd (and Mark.. and more admins as required). I haven't lied to yet Todd. He constantly edits against Greek positions. All you need to is to continue going through his diffs that relate to Greece. I've provided a few already --Crossthets (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossthets, you are now half a step away from an indef block. The next time you feel you have to spew out the same rant again, against me or the FYROMians or a mixture of both, on whatever page, make sure you have previously at least done something, for once, to actually improve this encyclopedia. Because that's why we're here, and that's why those of us who actually try to improve the encyclopedia have no time to listen to your endless repetitions. So now go away and edit an article, and for chrissake try to make it not yet another piece of stupid POV-pushing. Until you have shown you actually want to do encyclopedic work here, please stay away from my talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Out, I said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know what the heck is going on here. Fut, as one admin to another, I'd recommend getting another admin to do any further blocking on Crossthets to avoid any RFCs. You two definitely have history and I've been in your shoes before (but free advice can be worth less than you pay for it.)
Just a point of clarification, I'm not sure who the "he" was above, but I can assure any readers that I neither edit for nor against greek issues.
I'll let you two sort it out from here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the truth...

I know why you are being sieged by all those editors.... You are a mortal enemy of us... Kapnisma ? 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hush! An outing attempt! Where's oversight when you need it?
I know you only did that because I got Mr Liakopoulos deleted the other day... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of discussions from talk pages

Hi, I know you are an admin, and I don't know who else to ask about this issue. I want to ask you what's the WP policy in the case of talk pages, please see Talk:Hungary and the reverts done there. I've been putting back comments that are removed from that page -- BTW, I don't agree with the comments and they are kind of trollish, but at the same time we don't remove content from talk pages only because we don't like those opinions, I consider this a matter of principle. Tell me if I'm wrong and I will stop re-adding the comments back, but again, I think this is a matter of principle, if you don't like what other people say in the talk page you are free to rebuke or ignore the comments, but removing them is censorship. Thanks. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia

I think that the article about the geographical and historical region Aegean Macedonia is way too politicized by tags as "irredentistic term" and similar. They are literally killing this article. Its so badly written that it will take a general rewriting and a massive editing/deletion even of quoted reference information. Since the editing of that kind can be easily taken for vandalism im looking for arbitration, tnx Alex Makedon (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Sub Arturo plebs, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Map thing

First of all I do not accept at all those accusations against you and I do consider you as a well respected editor. Now about the map...I strongly believe that its place should be at the article about minorities, or about the slavic dialects, but not at the central article for Greece. And a proposal: why don't you replace the vertical lines in the map with different coloured circles to show the area of each language? You will avoid making the reader think that all these areas are areas with minority languages even now. Let's avoid as I said before useless accussations and work together.Example:

Kapnisma ? 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. This would introduce an additional level of intentional vagueness, thus (perhaps, hopefully) reducing the danger that the less perceptive among our readers would read those false implications into it that everybody seems so afraid of. At the cost of losing some information detail that (to a large part) actually happens to be precise and reliable. There's an upside and a downside to that.
By the way, "that all these areas are areas with minority languages even now" is not a false implication. That's what's actually meant. In most of these areas the minorities are severely reduced, marginal, perhaps close on extinction, certainly not publicly visible when you travel through those areas – but my understanding on the basis of the literature is they are still there. Even if it's only on the level of the oldest rural generation or only semi-competence with most remaining speakers.
Anyway, I guess I could agree to your suggestion for use in the main Greece article, but keeping the more detailed version at the detail article(s). It's true that this vague level of information is pretty much enough for the main article, if you come to think of it. The article text legitimately has a reference to Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavs, Pomaks and Turks; the reader has the natural question: "where are those guys?", and at that point it might actually be sufficient to give an answer along the lines of: "somewhere around Athens", "somewhere in northern central Greece", "somewhere around the corner with Albania and RoM", et cetera. I don't really see why we need to dumb down our treatment in this way, but if that's what people want so badly, I could live with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I really mean what I said above about you being a well respected editor with good faith and I do not question your motives at all, as others might do thus I find your comment The article text legitimately has a reference to Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavs, Pomaks and Turks; the reader has the natural question: "where are those guys?" , as exactly what this project must do: create questions and giving informations. From that point of view, I support the keep of the map in the central article of Greece, but allow me to try to explain you what not all admins and editors think like you...Imagine what will happen if someone starts adding let's say in Austria's main article, maps with Slovenian, Crotian and Italian vertical lines, or to Germany's, lines with Frisian, Sorbian, Danish, Limburgisch, Polish, Polabian, etc (not to mention various dots of Turkish).... So some of my fellow Greeks, in a rather harsh way I must admit, say, Hey! why so much interest on Greece only?Why don't you add similar maps in other articles too, what's so special about Greece? (And of course, a response like Here we talk about Greece is not enough) Thank you for your time. Kapnisma ? 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And a correction, I was trying to say that all these areas are areas in which most people speak minority languages even now, you have to excuse my English, but I can speak French better, if you like! Kapnisma ? 11:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've said before that I would like to have such maps for other countries - whether on their main page or in detail articles depends on article structure, of course. What would happen if we did that? Well, you'd be surprised: in the case of Germany or Austria, I'm pretty sure, nothing much. I cannot for the life of me imagine German editors making a fuss like the Greeks have. You know, we really are a bit more relaxed about these matters. (The German map would be a bit boring though, because the minority areas are just so small: Polabian has been extinct like forever, Polish isn't spoken on today's German territory at least as far as I'm aware (except by recent immigrants, of course), Limburgish is typically perceived as just a local dialect; Turkish is of course also just a recent immigrant community (those are typically treated separately from autochthonous minorities in linguistic geography.) Leaves us with just Frisian, Sorbian, Danish, to the best of my knowledge. – As for "why so much interest in Greece"?, part of that is possibly Misplaced Pages-internal. Since every attempt at treating minorities in Greece meets with extreme amounts of debating, the result is, like so often in Misplaced Pages, that the overall quantity of treatment grows far beyond what we'd have if everybody just went easy about them. But there's also something inherently special and interesting and unique about Greece: the very fact that these groups are so invisible. There can hardly be many more European countries that have gone from very substantial ethnic heterogeneity to this extreme amount of perceived homogeneity in such a short time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for interfearing, --Hectorian (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. And here was me thinking I could, just once, hold a reasonable discussion undisturbed with a person who actually understands what you tell them. To everybody else: come back to my talkpage when you've organised your thoughts into something remotely coherent and can meaningfully participate in a constructive talk between adults. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)