User talk:ChrisO/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Green Park - thanks

Thanks for sorting out the Green Park article ChrisO. Was a bit boggled to see what had been done to it, and was about to tackle it myself, then double-checked the history page and found that you'd finished your edit just a few seconds earlier - close shave there! :) -- DMS 22:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please do something about Theathenae

Chris, please do something about Theathenae. He keeps pushing a POV that has no support by any source. He keeps putting refference that "the Bulgarian and Greek minorities are not recognized in Republic of Macedonia". You gave him a chanse to give his sources, but he didn't (of course when he had non).

It is a fact that all minorities have all the rights in this country. Theathenae is only trying to put dirt over the name of the country and get the attention away from the poor (or non-existant) minority rights in Greece.

Because of you beeing an administrator who already got involved in the Macedonia issue, I am begging you to do something about it. It is not fair all of us to waste time on POV pushers like Theathenae is. The same user was already banned for lifetime in the Swedish Wikipedia. Why he is never sanctioned here, when there is great ammount of his edits that are clearly POV push or extremely offensive. Macedonian(talk) 03:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've challenged him on his user page to provide his sources and have warned him about his conduct. We'll see if he takes the hint. -- ChrisO 08:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I think "User:Macedonian"'s exploits as User:I sterbinski are well-known to everybody involved. His attempt to erase any reference to the Bulgarian and Greek minorities of the FYROM are wholly unjustifiable and morally repugnant. As for your message on my talk page, you obviously didn't see my reply. Again I urge you to take a look at http://www.stat.gov.mk/pdf/kniga_13.pdf and see if you find any mention of the Bulgarians or Greeks living in the country. I don't understand your edit here,[1] where you have reverted to an edit removing the references to the Bulgarian and Greek languages/minorities. Also, I ask you to take a look at the behaviour of User:Kastrioti, who has already been reported for violating the 3RR on Greeks and is on the verge of doing so on five other articles, where he has persistently vandalised the reference to the Greek minority: Devoll District, Kolonjë District, Korçë District, Përmet District and Vlorë District. I trust that you do not support the virtual ethnic cleansing on Wikipedia of the Greek minorities living in neighbouring countries.--Theathenae 08:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I did see it, but I'm afraid it doesn't constitute evidence to support your claim. I don't doubt that there are Greeks and Bulgarians in the RoM but the only conclusion you can draw from the census that you cite is that their numbers are not separately recorded. I see no reason not to believe that they're lumped together in the "other" column, particularly if they aren't very numerous.
When you say "Are we seriously to believe that the Bulgarians, Greeks, and all other ethnic groups combined amount to the mere 1% of the population classified under the Other category?" it's clear that you're using an argument from personal disbelief, a classic logical fallacy. However, I think there is a form of words that we can use as a compromise - I've added this to the article.
Thanks for letting me known about the other articles, by the way. I certainly don't approve of "virtual ethnic cleansing" and will have a look at them to see what's going on. -- ChrisO 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Is your intention to somehow draw attention from some other, more tangible disputes, such as the existence of a Macedonian minority in Greece, confirmed by the Greek Helsinki, Ethnologue, and other respected sources? I mean, how could I assume that you act in good faith when you repeatedly break Wikipedia policies when it comes to all articles regarding Macedonia? Why do you defend "Arvanites will not do labeled against their will", and seem to ignore Macedonians' will not to be labeled against their will (despite of the fact that 95% of the sources refer to them as "Macedonians", and clearly ignoring Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy)?--FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia? Yes, there is a such minority, and nobody is trying to deny it, as all individuals are free to declare their ethnic affiliation (that is not the case in Greece). There are people who identify themselves as Greeks, Bulgarians, Croatians, Egyptians, Germans, Poles - and they altogether form 1% of the population of the republic. They are listed, and they exist. You can see their composition here [2]. Unfortunately, the Statictics Bureau didn't present their exact numbers by ethnic afillation in the summarized on-line report of the 2002 census, but I'm sure that there is a detailed offline book on this matter. The number of the Greek minority is no more than 1000 persons that declare themselves as Greek, and the number of all persons that declare themselves as Ruthenian is no more than 50 persons. --FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the Macedonian government is an evil post-communistic state that is cleansing Greeks for fun. That is a possiblity. But then, how come:
  • There isn't any Greek political party, organisation (legal, or illegal) in the Republic of Macedonia or abroad, that will stop this or at least lament ethnic cleansing of Greeks, as you put it?--FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • FlavrSavr is an evil post-communist brainwashed child that's been taught to kill Greeks and eat them for breakfast, but mind if you explain him how come there is not a single international organisation, human rights group etc. to even mention that there is a Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia?--FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Theathenae, it is about time to learn that Wikipedia is not going to mould according to your fantasy. You should be grateful that you didn't get permanently banned for your template proposal, which is (although deleted) still refused with loathing here, and your arbitrary decision to move Macedonian denar to FYROM denar. --FlavrSavr 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
If your venom against against me is any indication, one can only imagine how you really treat Greeks over there. I don't understand why Skopjans are so touchy on this issue, especially considering your obsession with promoting "Macedonian" minorities in neighbouring states. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too. It is a well-known fact that many ethnic Bulgarians and Greeks were forcibly baptised "Macedonians" under Tito's Yugoslavia. I personally know people in the FYROM who can vouch for this, but that is irrelevant here. Your expectation that we should take for granted that the Bulgarians, Greeks, and all other ethnic groups combined account for only 1% of the population would be laughable if it weren't so serious. And even if they do, that is no justification for removing any reference to the Bulgarian and Greek languages/minorities, as your compatriots have persistently done without even a whimper of protest from you. So please don't lecture me on "good faith".--Theathenae 15:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Your pathetic tactic of "They are evil" is not going to work unless you provide sources to support your claim. I have asked you two logical questions, as well. The tiny Greek minority (of 500 individuals) in Macedonia is respected, and some of them are public personas such as the owner of the Cosmofon branch. There are Veropoulos stores, as well. You have a chance to provide sources, for a change. If you dispute the official figures of the Macedonian census, please provide us with links of Greek organisations (in the RoM, or abroad), or preferably, international organisations that, at least claim the same as you do. --FlavrSavr 16:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I will ignore your vitriol.--Theathenae 16:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please...

...watch over the current discussion at the Macedonians (ethnic group) talk page? I've made a proposal for a step by step joint review of the articles contents. The logic behind it is, because the whole article is more or less disputed at some point, to start with more tangible disputes, and continue with more complex disputes. For example, somebody removed the figure for the Macedonians in the United States, despite the fact that there is a verifiable source for that [3]--FlavrSavr 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the point is to focus on solving specifing disputes in the article, because there is a tendency of some of the participants to indulge in general discussions of metaphysical questions: Do Macedonians exist or not, do they have the right to call themselves Macedonians etc. --FlavrSavr 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your, uhm, role in this would be to stop deviations of facts, and deliberate attempts to ignore facts and consensus from both sides... so what do you say? --FlavrSavr 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine oblast maps in vector format

Hey ChrisO. Would you be willing to release your maps of Ukrainian oblasts in a vector format like SVG, for use at the WP commons? User:Steschke, who created the location maps here and at German Wikipedia would be interested in using them. (see also commons:Maps of Ukraine) —Michael Z. 2005-11-9 19:14 Z

I'm afraid they're not "my" maps - they're all derived from a single map of Ukraine by the United Nations' Cartographic Section, which you can find at http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/ukraine.pdf . -- ChrisO 20:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. —Michael Z. 2005-11-9 20:33 Z

[edit] two changes and a revert

I've made two changes yesterday - 1 and 2 - and I did one revert today. I think they are ok (that includes the small f), but please check them. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 16:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wow

You must be interested in Talk:Arvanites#reverts. Thanks in advance. +MATIA ☎ 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed text

I proposed a text concerning the number of Greeks and Bulgarians in the relevant discussion page. So here it is:

There is a small Bulgarian and Greek minority in the country but the numbers of each of these two groups are not given separately in the 2002 census. [4]. According to the 1994 census [5] 1682 persons have identified themselves as Bulgarians, while 368 persons have identified themselves as Greeks. These two groups, along with the other minorities such as the Egyptians, Montenegrins, Croatians, Slovenes and others are listed under the category "Other ethnicities" who constitute 1% of the population (2002 census).--FlavrSavr 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've explained the reasons in the talk page in greater detail. In short, I've added the other small minorites (who are actually more numerous than Greeks and Bulgarians), and I've added the links to the 1994 census. There is no special discrimination against Greeks in the contemporary Republic of Macedonia, and I am waiting Theathenae to provide sources (international or Greek) that will dispute this. --FlavrSavr 16:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm feeling a bit ignored... is it because I'm a "nationalist", or is it because the text wasn't clear enough? I have nothing against Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia, nor Greeks in general. However, I believe that in this case, Theathenae acted in bad faith - (s)he knew that someone would remove the figure of Greeks, and that would make room for accusations of "virtual ethnic cleansing". And that is something unnaceptable from a person who constantly refers to ethnic Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs" or "Skopjans" (although I have provided him/her enough links to show that these terms are indeed loathed by the Macedonian community), puts "FYRO" or "Former Yugoslav" after every Republic of Macedonia that (s)he sees in articles, etc. Now, there isn't a numerous Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia, and there isn't a campaign against them. I'm waiting for Theathenae to provide sources to dispute this (Greek or international, regardless). Meanwhile, could you please tell me your opinion on the proposed text? --FlavrSavr 13:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] it's me

Category talk:Macedonian newspapers +MATIA ☎ 13:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And Category:Macedonian people. I think Velidis was a Macedonian too, if he was a greek macedonian, those people need a similar disambiguation term. I do hope they'll suggest something eventually. +MATIA ☎ 17:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Risnjak

How u find the article:)? Just wanted to ask u why u have erased that Kupa source is Vaucluse type of source? Luka Jačov 10:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cliona ni riain

Thank you Chris. And he is a she, if we go by the name. Cheers. Fergananim 12:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for admin support

I'd like to bring to your attention the acts of User:Kastrioti who is making edit wars and violates 3RR every day in articles such as Molossians, Epirus, Greeks etc. Regards. Miskin 14:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of my edits on Narconon.

Dear Chris,

Recently you removed my edits to your version of Narconon. I work for Narconon and nothing was put of the Edits as a copy right violation. The works were added with permission of my Issue Athority at Narconon. I find it rather interesting that you removed my own success story and that of my wife from your site, stating it was copy right. Knowing that you are an administrator and have the ability to keep the site free of pro narconon information shows me that this is not a Free Encyclopedia, rather it is a racist and biased "front" for you to natter and spread hate towards betterment groups. I challange you to come to one of the centers, see a student graduation, hear the wins and gains, and see for yourself what is really happening at a Narconon. Please stop erassing my Edits and allow freedom of speach which you declare so rightfully in your site.

JGB

Wikipedia is not about free speech, it's about creating a useful encyclopedia with articles written from a neutral point of view. Thuresson 20:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
As Thuresson says! There were a number of problems with your contribution. A lot of it was, frankly, PR blurb which might be appropriate for an advertisement but not for an encyclopedic article. It was not compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It repeated some of the information already given in the article. Some of the facts were also wrong: you said that ABLE isn't part of the Church of Scientology. It's a separate corporation but it's certainly part of the Scientology management structure - ask your Issue Authority for a copy of "The Command Channels of Scientology" (a CSI Int document of 1988) and look for ABLE. Finally, success stories aren't appropriate for an article - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO 21:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] responce

Thank you for the comment back, however the article you print on the Narconon site is different than mine in that you violate the Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". neutral point of viewYour artical is complete bias and there is no room for others to add information of a positive nature. This is what I was trying to make known. The "fairly and without bias" is what you are lacking. Your article is also PR and propaganda horse crap and it is under the guise that you are knowledgable of Narconon and its past, however it is just propaganda, where is the neutral and truth.

JGB

[edit] Risnjak

How u find the article:)? Just wanted to ask u why u have erased that Kupa source is Vaucluse type of source? Luka Jačov 10:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Luka! I found the article on Special:Newpages and thought it was good, so I did a bit of work to fix the language in it. I'm not sure what you meant by "Kupa source is Vaucluse type of source" so I took it out, rather than leave it in and possibly cause confusion. Do you mean that the source of the river Kupa is similar to that of the river Vaucluse? -- ChrisO 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chicxulub crater gravity map.gif

I've just received the following on helpdesk-l:

Dear Helpdesk,

With reference to the/our image of the Chicxulub crater at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chicxulub_crater_gravity_map.gif#filelinks

What is the basis for the claim that we no longer hold the copyright of this image?

<snip>

Cheers,
Alan
Alan R. Hildebrand
Canada Research Chair in Planetary Science
Coordinator of the Canadian Fireball Reporting Centre
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2N 1N4
<phone and email removed>
www.geo.ucalgary.ca
www.geo.ucalgary.ca/PMSearch/

Can you explain where you got the image and why you thought it was PD? Alphax τεχ 09:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, it was on a USGS website and covered by the usual disclaimer of copyright. See e.g. http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2003/05/meetings.html, where the image is included and the disclaimer states: "Information presented on this website is considered public information (unless otherwise noted) and may be distributed or copied." So it may have been that the image was incorrectly marked by the USGS. -- ChrisO 10:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that. Time for the obligatory:

[edit] Image:Chicxulub crater gravity map.gif has been listed as a possibly unfree image

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chicxulub crater gravity map.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Alphax τεχ 13:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name: Macedonian Slavs<>Macedonians

Please don't make extravagant claims like this - the name "Macedonians" is relatively new in its use regarding the majority ethnic group in RoM. Until approximately the 1950s, the only name in use was "Macedonian Slavs" (when they were not called Bulgarians or simply "Slavs", of course). I can refer you to the 1911 encyclopedia on the net, to Wilkinson's Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia which describes the evolution of the term in western scholarship, to Brailsford's Macedonia, its races and their future or to any book dealing with the Balkans or Macedonia in particular issued before the 1940s. Considering that even people with pro-Macedonian publication and self-proclaimed Macedonian national consciousness (f.ex. Misirkov) use the term "Macedonian Slavs" (македонските словени), your claims are, leniently said, puzzling. VMORO 10:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed had reverted the article to a random version. If you check this diff, for example the paragraph about Greece, I believe you'll agree that it is better than the random rollback-ed version (the macedonia* related articles give me wikistress and I haven't noticed the wrong version before). The 31-31 straw poll had some agreed facts (before the poll). Most of those facts are still not in the article, making the article inacurate. The 7-2 poll is ... well it is not a poll. The new naming policy doesn't mean that we should not analyse the big poll, I still believe that the poll and the talk page of the naming policy, are two of the most interesting places for neutrals (but patience is highly required to read and analyse everything). At some point the article should include the information that at .mk domains there are "historical content" self-identifications as Macedonian*Slav*something, and that their politicians use that term too, after 1992.
One other thing is the ethnologue figure of 180000, you were part of the first discussion, and I think the paragraph about Greece that I've mentioned above analyses it properly. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is the ultimate goal and the means by which is should be achieved are Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). From "naming conflict", it emerges that 'Macedonians' should be used as that is their self-identifying name today, I doubt that many, if any, call themselves anything else (Macedonian Slavs, Bulgarians). What is past, is not important. I see this dispute like the Arvanites, who became a seperate nation from the Albanians overnight, sometime in Feb 1930. Before that they identified as Albanians; they don't anymore. Now they identify as Arvanites (the overwhelming majority) just in the same way that the Macedonians do. Also, a yahoo search for 'Macedonian Slavs' yields 12,600 results [6], whereas a rearch for 'Macedonians', but omitting the words 'Greece' and 'Bulgaria' yields 368,000 results, which is more than ten times as many. Therefore, according to 'common names' the name 'Macedonians' should be used. Rex(talk) 11:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe ChrisO will assure you that the historical past is an important part of wikipedia (and every encyclopedia). Arvanites prooved their feelings regarding their self-identity during 1821, first and second world war and of course the balkan wars. I've avoided expanding these in the past, but I'll do it in the future. There are also Venetian and other historical records about Arvanites, Greeks and Albanians. I don't have any idea where you got the 1930 number. Self-identification is a very important thing, and it's one of the reasons I've tried to help and co-operate with FlavrSavr after the big poll. It's the first thing wp should have taken in mind, even before the change in naming policy. But historical accuracy and NPOV must not be sacrificed and I trust that all the macedonia related articles will find their way to NPOV soon (there are too many people involved and I'm glad about that). Someday there'll be an international treaty that will solve the political name-dispute between RoM and Greece, when that day comes will we erase any mention in wikipedia of what happened since 1992? I doubt that. As for using plain vanilla Macedonians, I'd suggest to anyone interested to read the policies about disambiguation. +MATIA ☎ 12:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Did I say 1930? I meant 1830. According to the (in)famous Helsinki Report they were and identified as Albanians until the application of a state backed hellenization policy once the Greek state was established. Historical past is indeed an important part of any encyclopaedia. But what people call themselves now is the difinite criterion (as interpreted by policy - see my comments above). Why do we say Ancient Greeks, Anciant Greece and Ancient Greek? That was not their self-identifying name. It is what they are called now "backdated" to then. This kind of thing shuld apply everywhere. The name "Macedonian Slavs" is unacceptable and is found offensive by the vast majority of the people it refers to and is relatively rarely used in English as the Yahoo! search proved. Wikipedias naming conventions appy and that is why the article is where it is. Didn't you say: You cannot name people the way you want to against their will and/or against the facts? You did, that AND Wikipedia's policies apply and that is why they should be calles Macedonians. You failed to realise that when you had the chance and instead insisted on 'Macedonian Slavs'. Only now, when the article has actually been moved you care about disabmiguation. When it was at 'Macedonian Slavs' you (plural) didn't care about Wikipedias policies and guidelines. There is a qualifyer, the (ethnic group). How many ethnic groups do you know that call themselves Macedonians? I had suggested "Ethnic Macedonians", you (pl) refused and instead insisted on the name which is widely found offensive. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and the MATIA principle) require that they be called 'Macedonians'. The qualifier is still subject to debate. if you are really interested in NPOV, you would have some idea of where it should be. And your proposal would be? Rex(talk) 13:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The facts REX, are in favor of Mac*Slav* or Slav*Mac* until 1992. Is this written in the article? Arvanites have chosen a unique name ;) And it will take you a lifetime to prove that I insisted (when talking with FlavrSavr) on Mac*Slav*, or before (and much more harder to proove that I "didn't care about policies"). Please avoid "putting words in my mouth". Those people should suggest a fair "qualifier" (I understand you mean a disambiguation term). Bye-bye I'm taking my wikibreak. +MATIA ☎ 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence please? You say that you told FlavrSavr something, but that is not necessarily true. A fair qualifier is something that is not found offensive by the people in question, Macedonian Slavs is. How do you explain the fact that Britannica, CIA - The World Factbook,The Columbia Encyclopedia ,The Harvard Dictionary of Music, Philip's Encyclopedia, The Macmillan Encyclopedia, Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, Penguin Encyclopedia of Places The Companion to British History, the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia and Ethnologue call these people Macedonians without any qualifier? How do you explain the fact that the Yahoo! search returned almost ten times as many results for "Macedonians" than "Macedonian Slavs". Don't Wikipedia policies apply anymore? Why are so so dogmatically obsessed with naming these people against their will? They now call themselves "Macedonians", case closed! They are an ethnic group in their own right and have a right to choose what to call themselves without requesting permission from MATIA. There is an adequate qualifier which avoids confusion (as opposed to Britannica etc who don't use any qualifier). That should be sufficient for you. You say you want a "fair" qualifier, what would that be, Macedonians (Skopje)? The qualifier should not be deregotary, nor offensive, nor racist Macedonians (Slavs), you see unlike the Greeks who believe that they are the pure descendents of the Ancient Greeks, it's possible that not all ethnic Macedonians are Slavs, in fact some of them claim relation with the Ancient Macedonians. I'm not saying that that is true or false, but you are. Macedonians (ethnic group), Ethnic Macedonians are the best qualifiers I can thnk of (genetic POV should stay out of this). Earlier I asked you for a suggestion. You cunningly evaded the question. I ask you again, what do you propose as the article name? Rex(talk) 13:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] T-38

Hi, I have problem with T-38. IMHO on Picture is not T-38, because T-38 had turnet on left side, on right side was turnet of T-37. Cinik 11:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please lock Macedonians (ethnic group)

Chris, during the last 4 days about 80 edits were made on the Macedonians (ethnic group) page. This is a clear edit war.

I would like to ask you to lock the Macedonians (ethnic group) page on my last version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_%28ethnic_group%29&oldid=28727026. Please do this as soon as posible, before another round of the edit war starts.

You would ask me why on that version? Let me explain.

The previous version of the page was a clear descriptive of the several propagandas around the Macedonians. It was not describing the Macedonians, it was describing the ways how they are denied.

I edited several things and I think that for the first time since I am on Wikipedia the page is not offensive towards the Macedonians. And I beleive that is quite NPOV.

Also, I added several things supported by relevant documents, things that were ignored so far.

The biggest reason why you should lock it to this version is because I am sure that this is a change that will cause several reactions. Theredore, if the page is locked, the users will put their reactions on the talk page. So, we will finally get a chanse to talk about every single reaction and sort the argued things.

If someone gives proofs of what I wrote is wrong, I will be more than glad to accept any change, anything that is in favor of NPOV.

Please react soon, so we can finaly get this over.

I would also ask you to play the role of a mediator during this period. Also you can ask any other administrator/user that knows little more about the region to join you. Neutral side can always help. If neutral sides were little more interested about this issue in the past, we (Wikipedians) would not have to be in this situation now.

Also, please comment any of my edits, so I can explain why I made some decision or why I changed somethin.

I really want to get this over with. I am already getting critics from my wife because I spend too much time here. Please help. Thanks. Macedonian(talk) 04:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to add that in my oppinion, you should change "Macedonian Slavs" in the "watching" part of your ures page. I am aware of your neutrality, but some other users can think that you are taking anti-Macedonian side because of using the name "Macedonian Slavs"
Just a tought, hope you don't mind. Macedonian(talk) 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking of 213.157.0.0/16

Hi Chris. I received an e-mail from User:Vrykolaka, an innocent party who was blocked from editing when this IP address was blocked. I have unblocked the IP. It looks like one of those cases where one IP is shared by many. Future blocks on this IP, therefore, need to be short (Wikipedia rules say 15 minutes maximum), unless you can isolate User:Levzur in a block. (I know, this is a pain when dealing with habitual vandals. My IP gets flagged frequently too and being a registered user seems to make no difference. Cheers! 23skidoo 16:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block Levzur

ChrisO, Levzur, immediately upon his release from blockage, went about double-redirecting the Bagrationi page. It is now located at Sheuracxadta brbo and needs to be moved back to its regular location. I already reverted the page to the status it belongs because he also completely erased the information. I fear he is planning to do so again, and this time permenantly.
–Whaleyland 22:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline

Hi Chris,

Are you the author of the 'Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline' page? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline)

I've very slightly modified the text to indicate that the pipeline preferences suit Western allied interests in particular -- it was only implicit in the article, and somewhat ethnocentric. Also, I dispute the question of the US's dependence on Middle Eastern, and, more broadly, OPEC sources -- I have figures which place Middle Eastern imports a little higher (12%) from less 'colloquial' sources than an on-air interview with an oil exec. It seems that you supplied the 8-9% figure. (I'm still very new to this, tohugh, apolog

ies if it was someone else -- I'm not sure how to locate original authors in wiki.)

This is my discussion text below:

I've added some explicit 'Western interests' phrases as there was (is) too much Western and US ethnocentrism in the article - these pipeline routes have been chosen to favour Western allied interests in particular. Emerging industrial giants like Russia, China and India have an interest in direct oil routes and pipelines also. I don't really like this article, it's too 'cosy' and 'oily' (no pun intended) around Western interests and 'oil panic', and political and commercial power plays. I dispute the 8-9% of Middle Eastern oil export to US figure supplied, it could be more like 12% - ~20% of ~60% imports - hence the increasing role of unsavoury geopolitics in the region, the desire to get around OPEC countries in general (40% of US imports), not to mention profits made by infrastructure (pipeline) companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

--Sean01 00:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xenu in popular culture

I've added a new section: Xenu#Xenu_in_popular_culture. The Marvel villain Xemnu probably deserves a mention as well - David Gerard 14:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republika Srpska

Chris. I noted your edits on Republika Srpska article but they were once again reverted by this User:Nikola Smolenski. I reverted the article to the original version but I doubt that this edit war will end anytime soon. Your continued interest would be greatly appriciated. See also talk page Thanks --Dado 04:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High-Res of Daruma dolls

Hi christO,

we'd like to use your picture of the Daruma dolls. But for printing it in our magazine "Kontinente" (missionary magazine of the catholic chruch in germany) we need a highres. Can you provide it? Please leave me a message as early as convenient: veronika.buter@missio-aachen.de Sincerely yours

Veronika Buter

[edit] Re:

Hi, I have seen your message. I have tried everything to improve the articles, but there are some vandals that keeps reverting my edits. I base my edits on a relevant documents, I try to discuss but they dont act according to discussion. For instance User:Nikola Smolenski keeps destroying articles that are related to Albanians, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Croats and Kosovo etc. I was adviced by User:GeneralPatton to start a ban process (AMA request) because he is also aware of a Serb nationalists, but it is very slow process. And I didnt make a personal attacks. Otherwise Nikola called me a crazy for a few times...Emir Arven 14:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map

.

Morwen - Talk 14:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, but the full version is not antialiased so floodfill should work. Morwen - Talk 07:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who are you to find yourself intiled to "change" the history

Even when main history books state different then your oppinion

[edit] Article protection

I left the article Epirus unattended for some 10 days to see what happens, and as expected, teamed-up editors such as User:Kastrioti and User:REX had their way with it by pushing ridiculous, irrelevant and unsupported POVs. The dispute is on an Albanian-Ethnic post-WW2 which has nothing to do with the article. They refuse to start a new article on the topic and they have failed to provide any sources (except some POV college coursework of a most likely Albanian student), and yet they have edited every single section of the article. As they don't seem to be willing to stop edit-warring, I have no choice but to ask for your help. Regards. Miskin 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Epirus

I just saw what you did with Epirus, Epirus (region) and Epirus (Greece)
Woooowwwoooww!!!
--FocalPoint 07:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

i wonder why this hasn't been reported on any television network since the bombing?

[edit] Barnstar

ChrisO is hereby awarded this pile of Barnstars as late recognition for all his contributions, in the form of writing articles or otherwise, to Wikipedia. !מזל טוב from Izehar
ChrisO is hereby awarded this pile of Barnstars as late recognition for all his contributions, in the form of writing articles or otherwise, to Wikipedia.

!מזל טוב

from Izehar

Hi, I've noticed how long you've been here, how helpful you are and how few awards you have; please, accept this pile of barnstars as late recognition for all the aforementioned qualities. Izehar 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Cake does it occur naturally?

Thanks.

No, it doesn't. It has to be created by milling uranium ore. See Yellowcake for more. -- ChrisO 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia-related vandalism

My strong suspicion is that commented-out advice is not going to be particularly effective, because the agenda involved is not to write good articles but to, um, "correct propaganda" (or generate it, for that matter). The current situation is not ideal; the amount of disruption impacts any attempt at improving the articles and contributes to an environment of suspicion and assumptions of bad faith. I don't, however, have much of an idea about an effective way to change that. Having more users watchlist the entire set of articles might be a small help. Your attention has, I am quite sure, improved the situation dramatically, and is appreciated. Jkelly 01:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian (disambiguation)

Can I ask u for administrative assistance with regard to the actions of User:Bomac in Macedonian (disamibuation) ([7]) where he is trying to present an allegation as a widely-recognised fact. I have done 3 reverts already and am pulling back. VMORO 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to present an allegation as a widely-recognised fact. In fact, VMORO's widely-recognised fact is a bit of relative. There are also widely-recognised reserches which confirm what I've wrote there. Regards, Bomac 17:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VMORO's intentions

And from this:

Our little friend Bomac...

See the newest invention of our little friend Bomac: [4]. VMORO 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

which you can find in user MATIA's talk-page, you'll see that VMORO "mission" here is to make quarrels and edit wars between users on "talkative" issues. Regards, Bomac 17:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for feedback

Hi. It is not clear to me that my contributions at Macedonia (Greece) are helping the situation (see the Talk page). Since you've been looking at this constellation of articles longer than I have, I'd like to ask for some advice on going forward. Jkelly 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aryan War Front

Hi,

You speedied this AfD subject, which I nom.'ed, as non-notable. Please note that, although I don't really object, there is no such CSD ground for internet events. A7 non-notability applies to people only. I nom.'ed the thing for a reason. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] persians

I think you'll find livius.org/persia.html interesting. +MATIA ☎ 01:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a very useful resource! -- ChrisO 00:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia (Greece)

I've tried to fix IPA that was broken by JKelly and it seems I also reverted you. I would revert myself, back to your version, but then I saw it's Makedon45's version that's missing many paragraphs. I don't know what to do. (by the way, what is good about diacritics?) +MATIA ☎ 00:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Makedon45's extra paragraphs are redundant, frankly. The history of Greek Macedonia is already covered in Macedonia (region) - we should direct people there, rather than having two possibly conflicting or duplicate histories. As for the diacritics, I think it's preferable to leave them in... -- ChrisO 00:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
And I thought I had seen them somewhere before. Macedonia (region) is a pretty good article. Maybe we should focus to the present time at Macedonia (Greece)? +MATIA ☎ 00:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:85.18.14.9 at it again

More commercial link spam; since I'm not an admin and you are, plus you just recently had him briefly blocked and that did no good — your ball, alas. Support the move (see Village Pump, perennial questions) to require registration, with e-mail, to edit! Bill 18:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers

Not a great article, but being handled by AFD in the usual hamfisted consensus manner. Please add an opinion - David Gerard 14:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Möðruvallabók

Thanks for the Möðruvallabók expansion! Don't remember seeing you before on Old Norse literature pages but that was a very good edit. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burn in hell

hi chris. you're stupid. you deleted my article. i hate you. you're a bitch. burn in hell.

I just deleted your other spam article too - happy to help. Please see WP:SPAM for the rules on this sort of article (i.e. they're not a good idea). -- ChrisO 20:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: the Wiki Scientology Article

Dear Sir,

The Scientology article should have an accurate introduction. It is completely false and can not be documented that Scientology was ever introduced, established or practiced as a therapy. In Wichita, Kansas on March the third, 1952, Mr. Hubbard introduced Scientology. His words were recorded and may be reviewed by anyone listening to Scientology's lectures. That lecture's title is: "Scientology: Milestone One". I proved this information because it is documentable information. The references to Scientology being a therapy are not documentable. Dianetics was a therapy, Scientology has never been a therapy. The Church of Scientology as we know of it today was then established in 1954, so says the COS at [8].

Why accept rumors and opinions in an intorduction when documented evidence is available?

I have that audio recording. I have its transcript. May I be helpful about accuracy?

ChrisO, I am pretty new on Wiki and I'm still learning my way around. I try to fit in but I hope to present accurately those things I know of. Scientology, Dianetics, how Dianetics defines "engram" and Scientology's auditing are things I know about.

Have a good one, Terry Olsen Terryeo 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

You may not even realize it, but you did something quite impressive today. Thank you. Danny 02:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't realise it. :-) What was it? -- ChrisO 07:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth images

This is regarding Lake Ohrid and Lake Prespa images. I see many satellite images for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_image_of_Greece.jpg Is only Google Earth that are prohibited or any kind of satellite image? Will edititn the existing Gogle Earth snapshot with the logo removed be sufficient for copy right problems? Thanks --Cigor 14:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If the images come from NASA (or possibly ESA), then they are generally OK to use. However, images from Google Earth come from commercial satellites and the copyright is held by companies such as DigitalGlobe. See this on Google Earth's FAQ, which effectively rules out Wikipedia's use of Google Earth images. Cropping out the Google Earth logo wouldn't do any good because copyright attribution data is actually embedded in the image itself. You might want to look at NASA World Wind as a copyright-friendly alternative. -- ChrisO 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the FAQs is WikiPedia considered commercial product? But anyway, I admit knowing not much of copyright violation. Thanks for the NASA tip, I’ll have a look.--Cigor 18:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself isn't, but bear in mind that it's supposed to be a free content encyclopedia and that its content is scraped by a lot of other websites, which may well have a commercial objective. The Google Earth copyright issue has come up before and the consensus was definitely that images from there shouldn't be used here. -- ChrisO 18:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chersonesos

I just wanted to thank you for mending the mess I made with Chersonesos. Thanks :-) Aldux 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem! I made a trip out there in August, so I can claim to know a bit about it... ;-) -- ChrisO 17:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double image

The image you just uploaded to wikipedia exists on commons... [9] --Dijxtra 19:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I knew I should have checked there first... -- ChrisO 19:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bomac

I can't stand this anymore. Is there any WP:policy which protects against "stalking"? User:Bomac follows me around and starts edit-warring on every single article I'm editing or disputing. For example I'm discussing something with other editors in Talk:St Cyril, he follows me there and starts reverting to the version that I don't agree with and then he adds more POV into it, something which according to WP:vandalism (Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism). is regarded as Vandalism, and therefore I have the right to revert as many times as it takes. Is there a WP:policy to protect from such kind of harrassment from editors start edit-wars? Miskin 19:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, but it is edit-warring and he's clearly violated the 3 revert rule; I've given him a 24 hour block to calm down. I have to say that you're getting very close to the line as well, so please try to discuss changes with people rather than reverting. -- ChrisO 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, although sometimes it's really unclear on whether such an act is actual vandalism or not. I always try to avoid edit-warring and sort it out in discussion first. I only went on with the 4th edit because at that point I was sure that he was performing vandalism and because if I hadn't, the article would remain on his version for the rest of the week. Anyway thanks for locking, it was really getting annoying. I'll try to make sure that it's an act of vandalism from now on. Miskin 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeap, Miskin's word rules! Cheers, Bomac 22:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedon and Macedonia disambiguation

Macedon was usually called Macedonia, and Macedon was not only the kingdom of Philip II and Alexander III. Please check the talk page, I left a link with an animated map (it covers BC and AD, Macedon was aproximately for all the BC period - something like 800 BC to 100 BC). +MATIA ☎ 19:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Scientology and disambiguation of "Christian Science"

Hi Christ, My name is Terry. About the placement of that disambiguation in the Scientology article. Don't you think it would better go later in the article than in its introduction? An introduction is meant to introduce a topic, tell when it happened, what brought it into existence and so on. A disambiguation is additional information which might apply, but its placement in an article's introduction is a negative information about it as in: "Pluots are not apples, but a combination of plums and apricots" which provides a negative information. Which tends to diffuse and confuse rather than to clarify and make easy to read.Terryeo 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Opps, Mispelled your name Chris, sorry.

It's standard Wikipedia practice to put the disambiguation on the top of the article - see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links, which states: "a friendly link to the alternative article is placed at the top." For examples of how it works in other articles, see Albania and Macedon, to pick two random examples. -- ChrisO 23:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragoljub Draža Mihailović

I'm having some trouble with User: Bosniaco's approach to editing the article on Draža Mihailović. He waded in, changing the article back to his last version after almost two months (October 20 - December 13). I changed it back to generally accepted version three times(Edit History), but unfortunately as User: Bosniaco changed it back to his version of October 7 a fourth time in 24 hours, my hands are now tied and anyway, I don't have the time or inclination to get into a long running edit war. I offered to discuss his problems with the article each time but (as you can see in the edit history), but he just compared Mihailović to Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot and Ante Pavelić, not to mention that he insinuated I was a Fascist. I am NOT asking for him to be blocked for violating the 3 revert rule (although he has), just for it to be brought to his attention that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable when working on a collaborative project. I'd really appreciate it, thanks in advance. --estavisti 07:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I've also sent this message to User: Chris 73 & User: Darwinek

[edit] advice needed

1, 2, 3. If a greek editor adds the fYRoM instead of the RoM link (or even as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), in an article he will be either reverted or blocked. And, while I think that RoM and fYRoM are practicaly the same thing, they are both valid terms and are used today. Not to mention that the RoM related articles avoid any analysis of the usage of the term Macedonian Slav, despite the fact that their politicians and their scholars also use that term (even during the last 10 years), nor the names of RoM before 1992. What can I do about these? +MATIA ☎ 10:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Makedonas took to photos that show the blue flag. +MATIA ☎ 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a line at the buttom of that article to satisfy GFDL, please copyedit my english. Thanks! +MATIA ☎ 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You had changed that instance to Slavic Macedonians (compare with Macedonians Greeks or whatever they are called at WP). See also the talk page and the edits by makedon45, please. +MATIA ☎ 23:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul H. Smith (remote_viewer)

I noticed that you speedied this article under A7. It seems to me that being one of those recruited to the remote viewing program, writing the manual on remote viewing, training several other remote viewers, and being author of the book which is the main citation on the Ingo Swann article, are all assertions of notability. What do you think? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let me guess

"brought" isn't clear. :)

Ah, don't worry, I rarely bleed over what I make, since what I make isn't for me to judge.

But let me try to rationalize "brought". Adverbs aren't good. Even in encyclopedia articles. They get in the way and make the wrong impression.

So, instead of "brought", how about "taken by force"? --VKokielov 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonians (ethnic group)

ChrisO, sorry, but that was not agreed between me and Miskin. That version which you reverted is the reason for the latest developments of the situation. So, please revert back the last version by me. Cheers, Bomac 19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert it - please see the talk page. -- ChrisO 19:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Male and female pheasant.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Male and female pheasant.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Problem user on Scientology articles

I see now that you're already aware of this user, but I'd appreciate if you could take a look at User talk:David Gerard#Terryeo. A lot of work has gone into making those articles as NPOV as anything so controversial can be and it shouldn't be wasted because a problem user can quote policy inconsistently and glibly to mask the wrongness of his edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the difficulties over Dianetics, and I agree that the revisions are problematic. I'm working on an alternative version of the article - to be honest, I think both your version and his are lacking some important details. I won't be able to play a full part in the debate until I get back from holiday next week, though. -- ChrisO 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking a socket puppet

Hi, there Herostratus and I suspect some users are sock puppets (see here for evidence). I tried to figure out what action we should take, but only guideline I found (this one) says I should present the case to ArbCom. Now, did I get that right or you as an admin can evaluate our evidence and block the users if you find them beeing sock puppets? --Dijxtra 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About my copyright violation

Sorry, but I don’t know what are you talking about. My only bigger adds to the Republic of Macedonia article are these: [10], [11]. I added very little text and 3 pictures made by myself. I also did another edits after that, but that was done in order to incorporate the pictures in the article (these edits are marked with bolded “m” because are minor edits).My last edit was on 08:57, 28 December 2005 [12]. Since then, I didn’t make any single new edit to the page! I know that the same day someone made a large input to the page using the following anonymous address:212.110.79.199 (If you doubt that I anonymously made these adds, please make any neccessary checks in order to verify that the anonymous address is different from the one I used before). I also noticed the large input to the page but I decided not to involve in the edit war. I just added the following observation on the article talk page:[13] --Bitola 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Etna 2002 eruption.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Etna 2002 eruption.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

dbenbenn | talk 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

Hi, ChrisO, I want to inform you that Miskin has violated the 3RR in this article. Many regards, Bomac 10:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for free usage of your picture

Dear Chris, We are considering using your image of the Westminster Abbey for the front cover of the manual for a course Teaching The Westminister Confession of Faith taught at our school, Biblical Graduate School of Theology.

Please let us know if there are any usage restriction.

We look forward to your kind consent to use this free of charge.

Regards, Mr. Leong Kok Weng Librarian Biblical Graduate School of Theology Library 31 #01-01 Tanjong Pagar Road Singapore 088454. Tel: 62276815 Fax: 62249897 http://www.bgst.edu.sg/lib leongkw@bgst.edu.sg

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/User_talk%7EChrisO_Archive_9_55df.html"