User talk:Ams80

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In response to your message on my talk page, thanks, I actually was totally unaware of the "Related Changes" tab (is it new?). It actually is pretty useful, so I'll have to revise my opinion on the homepage links. Thanks a lot! DropDeadGorgias 19:55, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I couldn't figure out which order your comments go in your talk page, so I just put this at the top. Just remove this if it's in the wrong place. Thanks again!

---

hello KF and Andrew ! I'd wamt to know if Andrew is from Hong Kong ( are you the guy Andrew Li ? ) . And I found you 2 and LittleDan was talking about the user Michael , Who does this Michael stand for ? ( Michael Janich ? or ? ) Who is he ? what has he done to you all ? I 'd really want to know it urgently ! Please tell me assp. Thanks. ( Not a user of wikipedia )

Hello CKY, I'm not Andrew Li and I'm not from Hong Kong either I'm afraid. I'm from England. The user User:Michael is nothing to do with User:MichaelJanich. Michael consistently added incorrect information to articles and was very offensive to certain people. You can find more at User:Michael, User_talk:Michael and User_talk:Michael/ban. Hope this helps -- Ams80 09:30, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hey, thanks for currently changing all the references to Manila to point to Manila, Philippines, but don't you agree that it wouldn't be needed if Manila was about the capital itself and the other uses placed in a Manila (disambiguation) page? This is essentially a "primary topic" disambiguation (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). —seav

Hi Seav, I absolutely agree, I think in all the changes I made only one pointed to anything other than the obvious. I haven't been here long enough to give an authorative opinion of the best solution but I think that having Manila as the page for Manila, Philippines with a note at the top of it pointing to Manila (disambiguation) would probably work OK. I think it would need a link to the other meanings because occasionally people will want information about the other meanings. I don't think changing it would cause many problems. I see from your Contributions that you've done quite a lot regarding the Philippines, are you from there or is it just an interest? -- Ams80 13:14 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
Yep, I'm from the country. Anyway, the original situation was that Manila was about the capital and there was a note at the top pointing to a disambiguating page. Pages were moved around recently sometime ago and I'm questioning that change since Manila fits perfectly with Wikipedia's "primary topic" disambiguation. That, and the fact that all the links to the capital needs to be updated if the new form is the one agreed upon. So now I'm wondering if it should be changed back to what it was given the fact that you already updated the links. Right now it's fine the way it is, and the only minor problem I can see is that creating new links to the article about the capital would be a little harder since I'm guessing that most contributors would expect Manila to be enough. Related to that is that typing Manila, Philippines would be prone to error since many people usually misspell the country's name. —seav
Hello again, to be honest it would make sense to me to have Manila as being about the capital with a note at the top. If we made Manila, Philippines point to Manila then the changes I recently made wouldn't really matter (and if my degree keeps me sufficiently bored I could change them again!). London, Paris, Washington and Sydney all point to their primary use and I'm sure 99% of people would only know Manila in one context so perhaps we should change it. - Ams80
Ok, I'm changing it back. Thanks! :) —seav

--- Your spelling corrections to my work are greatfully recieved. -- User:GWO

Not a problem! -- Ams80
Thank you for your contribution to the debate about football. I felt outgunned and needed all the support I could muster. Thanks. Mintguy

Thank you for your comments about disambiguating pages. I read the page on them, and now realize why they are important. MB 01:42 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)


Hello Ams!

I think you are wrong. I am just doing what other people do here.

I wrote new articles about me and my religion and they just deleted it! There were no discussion, no questions, no answers...
They just deleted my work and treated me as an idiot and not as the creator of a new religion. I do not care whether they assume i am a new prophet from god. But this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, so a magazine for information. And those who keep deleting my work, spoil the whole ideal of free and open web encyclopedia.

I do not know how to delete a whole article, but if they can just delete someone else's work, you or i can open their articles and delete their work, just because it is about some other stupid religion that they believe in...

I came here with quite other hopes and intentions.
But experienced editors of this encyclopedia showed me just this way of behavior.

Thank you very much because you are the only person to react somehow positively. Thank you for editing my text, but now there is nothing to read, because the hostile editors deleted all of my articles including that edited by you...

I am very surprised by their arrogance and hate.

If no one helps me here agaist them, i will not edit more. There is no sense in writing just for deletion...

If you could, please help me find a way how to appeal to some supervisor of them .

I send you many good wishes!

AlbertJacherHolyProphet 03:37 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'm doing the Atlas Shrugged work by hand. Not changing anything (other than the odd spelling error) -- just consolidating all the Character stubs into one place, and then using "What Links Here" from each stub to send links to the main Characters in Atlas Shrugged page. Right now that means I'm ending up with links like [[Characters in Atlas Shrugged|Dagny Taggart]], which aren't pretty, but I'll figure out what to do about that when I (or someone else) gets around to working on the chapters themselves.
Thanks for the offer of help! Maybe you could pick a separate topic from the list on Atlas Shrugged (Companies, Concepts, Conflicts, Places, Structure, Symbolism, Technology, Things, Topics of note) and do the same? Just assemble stubs into a list form for now; we can discuss how else to organize/consolidate later. Cheers! Catherine 04:44 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Ams- not sure how you've done it, but you've managed to split the merged 'never mind the bollocks' pages into 2 sepearte articles again, both as they were before merging... quercus robur 11:34 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Apologies- no you havn't- it's my browser not refereshing properly and showing older versions of these pages...quercus robur

Thanks for your feedback on my articles. I still am unclear on the formatting requirements of Wiki and rely on folks like you to help me out. Also, of course, help on the information content is welcome. tracheomalaciastatkit1 21:46 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, not a problem, I can't promise to be of much use on the content side of the medical issues as I'm no expert on medicine but if I have any structural suggestions then I'll let you know. Happy editing -- Ams80 22:18 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

"Anonymous" comments should not be removed. It is not a Wikipedia requirement for anyone to log in. Thanks. User:Black Widow

Is it better now? Susan Mason

Hey - I suggest you don't bother wasting your time wikifying articles on imaginary albums by an imaginary band =). They'll be deleted soon anyway, better use your time on something more productive. --AW

thanks again for all your help with Atlas Shrugged...good work! Catherine

I am puzzled by your "fixing" of the recursion formula at Bell numbers. Why do you consider it important to put Bk before rather than after the binomial coefficient? Michael Hardy 23:49 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Andrew, you may wish to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_for_offensive_slogans and cast your vote. Very much related to the "we don't want your fucking war" article

Thank you, Andrew, for the welcome, and for the info about the tildes. I'll use it in future. Susanth 21:23 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I've been reverting a series of articles that you have quite honestly and in good faith deleted from Wiktionary for silliness. Yes they are silly! The problem is that these were real quotes from a 1904 publication called The Foolish Dictionary. It was a parody of dictionaries. This stuff has started to appear out of context on the net, and people are reading these things as real definitions. The proper approach appears to be to include them while identifying just what they are. ☮ Eclecticology 05:08 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Re: Sonya L: [1] & [2]. 'Nuf said? -- John Owens 18:31 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

No problem. Communist state is a political science definition of the theoretical basis of the system. Put simply, in liberal democracies, political elites emerge from political parties but while they remain in the party and run it, if they get to govern they govern through the constitutionally-created institutions of the state. So, for example in the case of Ireland (where I am) Bertie Ahern emerged through the ranks of the Fianna Fáil party to its leadership, but governs as Taoiseach, not a leader of Fianna Fáil. Ditto with Blair, who governs as prime minister not as leader of the Labour Party in Britain. A Communist state refers to a different system, based on the theory of power of Marxism-Leninism. One of its central characteristics is that unlike in liberal democracies the dividing line between party through which the political elite and the institutions of the state are completely blurred. For example, Gorbachev initially exercised power simply as general secretary of the Communist party. He was neither president nor prime minister and in fact held no state office. (Later he removed Andre Gromyko from the presidency and took it himself, but still called the shots as General Secretary not as president.)

Wiki like most source books does not put a detailed analysis of the longterm workings and practicalities of a system of government into a spot generally defining that system's theory. For example, we don't discuss the detailed policies of the United States (what was right, what was wrong, etc) when defining a federal system. We keep the discussion of the practicalities of a federal system to the individual countries, with links to enable the reader, having understood the theory behind the system, to go to a linked page (whether the US, the Federal Republic of Germany, etc) where the detail of how it worked in practice in 'a' or 'b' countries. Similiarly, in Constitutional Monarchy we stick largely to definitions (with a section on how a particular constitutional monarchy works in a constitutional sense). Details of how constitutional monarchiess work in practice, questions to do with whether it is inherently undemocratic, discussion on the marital woes of some royal families, a discussion of the Prince of Liechtenstein's threat to leave if he didn't get through a constitutional amendment he wanted, a detailed analysis of the behaviour of Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Constantine II of Greece don't feature on the main page but on their own biographical pages and/on pages on their country's history.

Communist government (its is an alkward title but I can't think of a better one) is concerned with what communist governments did, not the constitutional theory that produced the structures. Just as we don't produce a critique of monarchy on the page on constitutional monarchy, or a critique on American federal government and its policies, on a page on federalism, so a critique on the workings of communism should be on a page specifically on that, not put on a page that is simply describing the theoretical structures of government. There is of course an overlap, as their is on federal state or constitutional monarchy, but that is best handled on the main page by saying see such and such a page.

The debate is further complicated on wiki because some of those who want to write a critique on communISM in practice that is deeply hostile to communism. That may or may not be fair and accurate, but it would have the effect on Communist state of moving the debate from a simple discussion of the constitutional system to a whole scale controversial analysis of a far broader subject than simply the definition of a constitutional system. Just as discussing Prince Charles' marital woes, the Prince of Liechtenstein's constitutional demands or Constantine II's behaviour belongs on wiki but not all piled in together in a page on constitutional monarchy that is simply describing in constitutional terms what is a constitutional monarchy, so a detailed analysis of communism should be in a separate linked page, to allow the reader to get a specific grasp of what the theoretical system of government is before moving on in linked pages to detailed analysis of the far broader issue of how communist governments worked in practice.

Some of the people in this debate have been following a rather heavy-handed POV agenda. They insisted on putting POV stuff into pages on communist states, and kept removing the dictionary definition of 'Communist state' from the page on China, for example. The 'Communist state' page was created simply to allow a reader know the theoretical framework behind how communist governments worked. They could then go to China, the USSR or other pages (like Communist government) and see a long, detailed practical discussion on the reality of communist government. But having tried to put heavily anti-communist stuff on China and been blocked, and tried to block and mention of Communist state, one person then went to Communist state and tried to plant the same stuff on that page too, in the process moving the page away from what it was purely designed to do. 'Communist government' was created to give that individual a chance to write a detailed analysis of communism in practice. While he seems happy to do his page there, another person has now decided to merge them back together and preproduce the mess on Communist state that we are trying to avoid.

I hope that clears it all up. Sorry for taking up so much of your page. lol ÉÍREman 19:48 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

As the "another person" that Jtdirl seems afraid to name, let me write that I have a different perspective on the issue. I think that it is foolish and somewhat dangerous to discuss theory without discussing what happens when it's put into practice. It's a classic failure of political theorists and philosophers to make a distinction between theory and practice--one which scientists try to avoid. The scientific method is based on having experiment--empirical data--to test hypotheses. (Note that the scientific term "theory" has a different meaning from the sociopolitical term). Not only that, Jtdirl grossly mischaracterized the constitutional monarchy entry. The entry in fact does contain "details of how constitutional monarchies work in practice, questions to do with whether it is inherently undemocratic," and a long (imho too long) section detailing a constitutional monarchy in practice.
Finally, I want to stress that Jtdirl and 172 have been operating under a misapprehension of how Wikipedia works. Namely, noone has the authority to define the bounds of appropriate subject matter for an entry ex officio. Those bounds are developed by consensus, common sense, and mutual respect, through the editing of the entry.
To borrow a phrase, I hope that clears it all up. --The Cunctator
  1. The Cunctator is not the other person I was supposedly afraid to name. I did not name him because I do not want to personalise the debate, but the person in question in Fred Bauder. (The Cunctator turned up at the end, ignored all that had been said and all that has been agreed and demands his is best.
  2. I will ignore the arrogant and illinformed misrepresentation of political theory and science. As someone knowledgeable in the area you know the facts. The Cunctator patently obviously doesn't.

This whole debate boils down to a simple fact. Most of the people involved in the debate want the article to follow basic academic standards of relevance, accuracy and clarity. The vast majority of people who have contibuted to the page agree. You yourself pointed out how the page helped you understand the definition clearly, and enabled you to grasp what is unique in the governmental and constitutional system that is Communist state. That is all the page was ever intended to do, help people understand what the term means. A small minority seem to dislike applying rigid standards of relevance to a page like this and want to turn it into a broad discussion on a related topic, communism. As is the standard elsewhere on wiki, that is not featured in depth on a definition page but on linked pages where more depth can be provided, depending on whether the issue is seen in terms of a leader, a leadership or state policy. As The Cunctator showed obove, his problem is not with the page, it is with the underlining elementary academic principles applied which he has a chip on his shoulder about and wants for his on agenda reasons to undermine. Fred spent ages following his agenda on the Cs page and on China. The issue boils down clearly to their agenda which runs contrary to standard wiki policy and normal academic standards. They want to force it onto that page and others. Most of the rest don't, and want the page to follow normal wiki and academic rules. It helped you understand what the term meant. It has helped others. Tannin has praised the page highly. As someone who knows about political science, you know why it important to follow these standards, that they work, and why encyclopædias invariably follows those standards.

And again, sorry for taking up space but given what The Cunctator wrote above and what it revealed about his real motivation it is worth clarifying. lol ÉÍREman 22:48 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

If you can understand what Jtdirl just wrote, I commend you. He used vague generalities ("elementary academic principles", "it has helped others", "most of the rest don't"), random smears ("chip on his shoulder", "what it revealed about his real motivation"), needless repetition ("the page helped you understand the definition clearly", "it helped you understand what the term meant") and other rhetorical fallacies ("Tannin has praised the page highly")--all of which should be anathema to someone who wants to communicate clearly, concisely, and unemotionally.

Finally, I'd like to point out that Jtdirl's assertion that I am not the "another person" is bizarre. He wrote:

one person then went to Communist state and tried to plant the same stuff on that page too, in the process moving the page away from what it was purely designed to do. 'Communist government' was created to give that individual a chance to write a detailed analysis of communism in practice. While he seems happy to do his page there, another person has now decided to merge them back together and preproduce the mess on Communist state that we are trying to avoid.

The "one person" is clearly Fred Bauder, and I am clearly the "another person" who "decided to merge them back together". They can't both be Fred Bauder. The only reason I can think that Jtdirl refuted my statement was that he believes that every statement I make must be incorrect. --The Cunctator

Hi guys, perhaps I could have been clearer. What I meant to say was that I understood why Jtdirl thought there should be two articles, not that I agreed that there should be two articles. I'm still undecided as to what should and shouldn't be in the Communist state article, I'm just a bit surprised that this dispute, which seems to be going essentially nowhere, hasn't been sorted out yet. I'm trying to stay out of it all as I don't know nearly enough about the details to add anything useful. And I'm sulking because my beloved West Ham have just been relegated from the Premier league. Woe is me -- Ams80 18:24 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

There was a solution which Fred was OK with, until The Cunctator decided unilaterally to undo it. *sigh* And so his nonsense continues. ÉÍREman 18:49 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Re years in sports: Nobody had done a thing on sports so I wrote on the Village Pump that I was creating a template. Please don't touch anything just yet until I get it all in order. I'll let you know in a few days, then if you have an particular area you want to help with, please let me know because this is a very tiring, huge job. Thanks Jacques Delson

You're right: the statement that said only that Coxeter was "a geometer" was far too weak. If you look at the stubby original version of the article, which I created, you will see that it said Coxeter was the greatest geometer of the 20th century, but someone later decided that was not NPOV and changed it. Michael Hardy 20:18 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

we must love wikipedia for the same reasons. stumbling on connections. maybe you could write something in the family guy area about mean joe green. :) glad my comment linked you to more knowledge :) Kingturtle 23:22 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I just have to say, about your recommendation of http://www.mathworld.wolfram.com/ , shortly after I went looking for info on orbital mechanics to expand both Wikipedia's knowledge and my own, I started this page, which ought to tell you that I pretty well agree with your assessment, though I haven't gotten around to exploring the rest of the site yet. :) -- John Owens 13:28 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Generally, new pages he creates himself, blank or delete. I've been tempted to blank and protect, since that way he couldn't just re-create it or re-edit it, but I'm sure there would be objections to that, so it's mostly just been blanking. -- John Owens 22:29 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, why are you reverting all contributions by 24.130.213.242? It doesn't look like vandalism to me. at least not everything. --KF 22:43 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I do check all of Michael's edits, and the vast majority, these days, are factual. If you don't have any time' to check the accuracy of Michael's edits, perhaps you shouldn't revert his edits at all. LittleDan 23:16 31 May 2003 (UTC)

No, I only revert the edits I've checked LittleDan 13:24 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in the opinion poll going on now at Talk:Clitoris. MB 18:00 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Simple English

Hi, I noticed you have contributed to the Simple English Wikipedia in the past. I am trying to revive it a bit as it hasn't been edited very much lately, so this is just a reminder that it's still there and you are very welcome to come and help! Yours views on what to call the "village pump" are also requested. See [3]. Thanks. Angela 11:57, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion

See Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Optim 11:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] wanli et al

Assuming jimbo sanctioned the banning of the first incarnation, I think we can dispense with the VfD formalities. I don't see any reason not to ban the other two accounts you mention (which are obviously reincarnations), redirect their homepages to the first one, and delete all those personal subpages. All legal and above board, methinks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading link on home page

Hi Andrew, the "My Watchlist" link on your homepage is misleading cuz its not really your watchlist but the watchlist of anyone who has logged in. Jay 08:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sphenic

Now I understand where you're coming from and I agree with you. PrimeFan 17:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Anrew, Just a quick thank you for restoring the link to my serps site in googlebombing. Someone is constantly vandalizing it. Despite the fact many people restore it, he still comes back everyday and re-edits. Thank you. Serps

Andrew, why did you delete the finkbiner article? --Stinkoman K 21:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Okaw Valley Council

Well, I've put the "(twenty-two)" in every other council in List of BSA local councils and districts in Illinois. Perhaps you want me to link to 22 (number)? --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 21:28, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] 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

[edit] Saw that you edited the Pop punk article

Saw that you had editied the pop punk article, we're currently working alot of stuff out so if you want check out Talk:Pop punk. Also if you are not already, you might be interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music. Thanx! P.S. you might want to organize your talk page. Xsxex 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/s/User_talk%7EAms80_865e.html"