Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the notice board for Macedonian Wikipedians and Wikipedians interested in Macedonia, a region in southeastern Europe spanning five countries: Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia.

Contents 1 Slavic language (Greece) 2 The most exciting topic (you guessed it) 3 Irredentist and inflammatory user pages 4 Dual nationality 5 Some issues 6 Use of notice board 7 Stan Lazaridis 8 Pomaks 9 ME 10 Common history 11 Bitola article again 12 POLL 13 Pictures of ethnic Macedonians 14 Prlichev & Miladinov brothers 15 United Macedonia 16 Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia 17 FK Makedonija Gorce Petrov 18 Official language 19 Macedonia (terminology) 20 I've got the mop 21 Socks 22 Breaking news 23 Haha 24 Turkification 25 Talk:Macedonia (terminology)#Poll 26 Renewal efforts of the Ohrid Archbishopric 26.1 Continuation 27 Renewal_efforts_of_the_Ohrid_Archbishopric 28 Moved from my talk 29 Notification 30 Some quotations

[edit] Slavic language (Greece)

Great work Telex, and thanks for the noticeboard. Perchance my page will be a quieter place with its inception :)) - FrancisTyers 18:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The most exciting topic (you guessed it)

It has been drawn to my attention that there are a few articles that could do with some improvement; Jane Sandanski, Goce Delchev, and Pitu Guli. - FrancisTyers 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they are missing those two images. We should add them, because we all undoubtedly know they are relevant.

  /FunkyFly.talk_   19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As funny as Macedonian irredentism is, cool your jets. - FrancisTyers 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue deserves a decent final solution, because it will be met in all relevant articles for persons or places or whatever. Since it is impossible for our fellow Slavomacedonians to find sources for people self-identifying to ethnicities that hadn't been considered officially autonomus yet. Now we are all aware that the problem would have been solved if they were regarded Macedonians rather than Macedonians (mouse-over to understand what I mean...)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. But I will not the inclusion of the Macedonian ethnic group.   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be simply Macedonians, which does not redirect to Macedonian or Macedonians (ethnic group) for that matter, and which explains in great detail the situation, clearly presenting the regional nature of this term.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a tad inconsistent with the doctrine? --Telex 16:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares :).   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what is the proposal - to say that they were Macedonians, rather than ethnic Bulgarians and Macedonians? --FlavrSavr 09:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Naaah, it was just another unnecessary spike I made to stress my (possibly dumb) opinion that I think you're monopolizing the name. The proposal is two sections below (by Funky).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And why possibly dumb you may ask? Well, maybe because I am starting to realise two things:

• Most friends I have in real life from RoM/fYRoM show true admiration for the Hellenic history and love to self-identify as an ethnic group that has partly mixed with the Greek descendands of Ancient Macedonians, not disputing they were of Greek stock. Greeks should consider this an honor, rather than an attempt for theft and relevant BS, and
• Greece has nothing to be afraid of by external influences or even admixtures, since it has had an undisputed assimilating force in the past (most of which was voluntary to my opinion). See Arvanites (Albanian origin), Vlachs (Romanian origin) and to our point Grkomani (Slavic origin). I mean, most of them appear to me as more defensive for the national Greek interests than the rest un-Fallmerayer-ed true descendants of Pericles are! Check User:Makedonas (speaks dopia-Slavic), check User:Hectorian (speaks Vlach), and User:Telex (speaks Arvanitic and dopia). I seem to be an exception (for being... purer[?])among Greek-identifying users who partly support national Greek positions!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Um... Niko, I don't speak local (dopia) Slavic, I know a few words of Bulgarian, and even less grammar (for a trip to Bulgaria). Don't forget that before the late seventies, no one's mother tongue was officially recognized. The katharevusa dialect was the official language of state in all affairs, and everyone had to know it. Then there were the local unofficial languages, dimotiki, arvanitika, vlachika, dopia, tzakonika etc. The blow is that only dimotiki became official in 1976, under the pretext that only that was the "language of the people". Indeed it was the most widespread, but there are more languages of the people than just that. Dimotiki is the modern form of the Koine (Attic Greek), tzakonika on the other hand is a modern form of Doric Greek, and according to Herodotus, Ancient Macedonian ;-) --Telex 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure and whatever. Everybody knows your self-id. It is the rest that matters to me... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion seems very interesting to me... Firstly, Katharevousa and Dimotiki are both coming from Koine (attic) greek. Katharevousa was 'cleansed' of loanwords and foreign influences, making it more to look like ancient greek (apart from the greek intellectuals who got involved in this process, the Bavarian dynasty of Otto, had also taken part in this really stupid and unecessary plan, id est to force people speak a past form of their language...). But demotiki was the mother tangue of the Greeks, cause it is the up tp date form of the greek language. the other languages spoken by greeks (aromanian, arvanitic, dopia) and the distinct dialects (tsakonic-doric derived-, pontian, cypriot, cretan, etc) were used by specific groups, along with demotiki (to a lesser extend for some of them). Demotiki was the only form of greek that was widespread and used by the whole population (with the Peloponese dialect playing an important role in standardising modern grammar and syntax).
• Nikola, as far as i know, the Arvanites are part of the same population stock from which Albanians were evolved as well... so, they are not of Albanian origin. Furthermore (according to what i have read at least) the term 'Arvanites' is older than the term 'Albanian', so maybe things happened vice-versa... As far as the Vlachs are concerned, believe me that i have searched for that matter as much as very few have done!:). I have not found a contemporary source saying that the Aromanians came from northern of the Dunabe. only a medieval chronographer says that they are descendants of the Bessi (a thracian tribe which lived in what is today the triangle greece-bulgaria-turkey). if u also think that the medieval historians mentioned every single ethnic group or tribe that stayed or passed from europe or within europe (weather these groups still exist-Magyars, Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Turks, Roma, etc- or have long ago dissapeared-Pecenegs, Avars, Ostrogoths, etc) it makes no sense to claim that the vlachs are of romanian origin...Maybe, another theory supported by Hungarian nationalists and concerning the first inhabitants of Transylvania-they claim that Magyars were-, the Romanians are of greek origin, coming from what is today Epirus and southern Albania (Voreios Epiros for the Greeks). Lastly, those who speak dopia, may not be of slavic origins, but linguistically assimilated by the slavs (i have not searched for their case deeply enough). As every thinking person in Greece knows, the Greeks assimilated people of different ethnic groups, starting with Persians and Romans and continuing with Slavs, Bulgars, Albanians and western Europeans (French, Venetians, Italians, Catalans, and all those who settled here after the 4th crusade). but the ethnological base of the people remained greek (just common logic: no invading or settling population outnumbered the greeks, and in no time in history greece was deserted by people...) --Hectorian 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not certain about the Arvanites thing, but as far as I know, Arvanites were called Albanians formally in Greece right up until the 1950s (including the censi). "Arvanitis" and "Alvanos" were synonyms, just like "Anglos" and "Englezos" are today for "Englishman". Just because names change, it does not mean that the people have changed; Greeks used to call themselves "Romioi", now they call themselves "Hellenes". No one says that the modern ethnic group, the Hellenes evolved out of the "Romioi" (which was a different ethnic group). --Telex 12:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys you are both missing my point. We don't care if their genes were Greek or Albanian or Romanian or Slavic or Chinese. The only point is that the Hellenic culture has its way of sucking people in, relatively effectively. Those people prefer to be Greeks, while they probably had the choice, one way or the other, of becoming Albanians, Romanians, Slavs, Turks, Ukranians or Italians. The latter indeed (mostly) happenned (read Magna Grecia). From all of the above, I still would prefer to be Greek, but then again, that's probably because I am a hotheaded ultra-nationalist fundamentalist! :-) My point is that there are quite a few reasons for one to wish to self-identify as Greek: The history, the language, the religion, the tradition, the culture, the economy etc. There are ofcourse reasons not to: The lack of schedule, the laziness, the traditional enemies, the politicians, the strikes, the economy (oops) etc. But people around here tend to go for choice number one. Maybe they are masochists or maybe they are indeed berdzeni or maybe both. Or maybe it's the other way around, and most wise Greeks really got going when the going got tough and all we're left here with, is dumb people like me, making silly arguments about something that isn't so... In any case, if a Greek has the audacity of being proud to self-identify as the true descendant of the glorious ancient/Roman/Byzantine Greeks, he must also feel proud that some neighbors have the wish to share that and self-identify as such too. Now if he doesn't feel so, then he shouldn't care either way. Correct? If only there weren't many of these things flying around, there wouldn't be any reason not to...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irredentist and inflammatory user pages

Shortcut: WP:MWNB-UP

Please see User:Makedonas, User:Asteraki, User:Macedonia and User:Makedonia. I have asked them to bring their user pages in line with the policy at WP:USER. If they do not do so within a day I shall be removing the offending content. I can't see a problem with this, can anyone else? - FrancisTyers 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading again, perhaps I could have made that slightly less aggressive :) Basically, these pages are way out of line, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not mis-interpreting policy before I implement it. Thanks - FrancisTyers 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of the text on User:Macedonia's page is almost certainly a copyvio. Jkelly 23:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia - not carry on ethnic disputes by proxy. Totally inappropriate userspace use - deal with it as neccessary - but it all has to go. --Doc ^ask? 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

FrancisTyers, you are in the right. Their user pages aren't in good faith and just cause bad-blood among editors. Just make sure you gave them enough warning before you dealt with it yourself. --dcabrilo 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added User:Vergina and User:Makedonec to the merry band. - FrancisTyers 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree on this and thanks. Just give them a little more time, to do it themselves (a day is too-short a notice, check the frequency of their contribs). We've tolerated such content for too long now, not to give some more days to those guys to understand their error and correct themselves. Agree?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A day is much longer than I was going to give them. I see User:Makedonia has already started to attempt to bring his page in line. As for the others, I understand User:Makedonas has been conscripted, well I'm not going to wait around for the Greek army. How long would you suggest we leave it? Also you should realise that deletion is not a terminal affair, their pages can be restored if they agree to bring them in line. - FrancisTyers 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox ought to apply to user space as well as article space. --ajn (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Guinnog 11:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about reverting anytime, I was just trying to prevent irrational reactions that would make things worse, when they come back and see their pages blanked. As for User:Makedonas, his page used to be much milder, and I am sure he'll get in-line. People (ha! especially hot-blooded Greeks and Slavomacedonians) tend to over-react when they consider they've been victimised by what they interpret as use of excessive force. So, how about a week?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would help to be honest. I mean, giving them four more days, or six more days is not going to help if they don't come online. I mean, if they don't come online before the time is up they are just as likely to "go postal" when they do. Do you have any way of contacting them? - FrancisTyers 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No problem, I thought of something: When the time expires, I blank the Greeks and FlavrSavr blanks the Slavomacedonians. We also give them a nice message. Just say when is that, if FlavrSavr agrees too.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea. :) - FrancisTyers 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Four things though: 1.Who, 2.When (tomorrow noon [or 9:00 UTC] I'll be available), 3.FlavrSavr agrees (he is not online)?, 4.Hold the automatic/semi-automatic/manual-counter-vandal horses. Ok?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• When - Anytime you like before 17:00 UTC (I just picked that out of my "hat").
• Who - User:Makedonas, User:Asteraki, User:Macedonia, User:Vergina and User:Makedonec.

Provisionally removing User:Makedonia from the list should the consensus agree.

PS. I've moved this discussion here, as it is now a "community action", although I'm still willing to step in if we fail to reach a consensus ;) - FrancisTyers 15:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'll do it at exactly the time pulled out of your hat. How about 3 and 4?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No idea about FlavrSavr, the horses are held :) Did you get my email? - FrancisTyers 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in. However, I'll be "in charge" for the Macedonians, since I don't know any Slavomacedonians around here :P. Also, I didn't understand - if the user doesn't change his user page, should we: 1. blank it totally, or 2. blank some parts (and if this is the case could you specify exactly what are the problematic parts?) --FlavrSavr 09:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing me from the list, as i said before, i am willing to change, however i think my page is quite good at the moment and think it should be left like this, i hope you agree and if not, as Francistyers said, he will give me a notice, and i hope we will work it out. As for the other users, wether they are macedonians or greeks or whatever they are, i think you should give them a little more time, you never know in what situation they are in, maybe he or she can't edit his page at the moment. me for example , i had a very bad day, i wasnt planning to go on the net or on wiki, but still i decided to have a "look", if i didnt do that, my page would be "removed". so give those people a break.

btw, nice page, good work.! Greetings--Makedonia 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You dont think that User:Vlatkoto's page is irredentist too?   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

His page is on the limit of acceptability. - FrancisTyers 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee whiz, what's that limit? Short of military invasion?   /FunkyFly.talk_  

His page does not strike me as "polemical". The United Macedonia thing is far more reserved than the other pages, "And as Macedonian he believes in the reunification of his land, but hopes that to be achived on cultural level and human right recognition by Greece and Bulgaria" does not strike me as excessive. I realise you might have been knocked-for-six by the garishness of his colour scheme. But I think it is unfair to blank a users page just because they are, or seem colour-blind. :) Some of the images may need taking care of though. The what-seems-to-be coat of arms has no source information and so I have nsd'd it. - FrancisTyers 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How about my old userpage? --Telex 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's downloaded from a website, from [1]   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And its gone. - FrancisTyers 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can User:Asteraki edit his own page now that he's blocked?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He can edit his talk page. I would be happy to unblock him if he agrees to stop uploading a fair use image for use on his user page, which is a violation of Wikipedia:Fair use. - FrancisTyers 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Irredentist and inflammatory user pages were for me in some way exotic and funny (except the openly offensive content). However, I have nothing against the idea of removing the offensive content. Another thing: if we are going to vote for the most interesting page, I will choose the Vlatkoto’s page as the most colorful and optimistic (with some minor objections, I would not classify his home page in the category of irredentist and inflammatory pages). On the other side, I think that NikoSilver has also good looking page.MatriX 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Update:

• Who - User:Makedonas, User:Macedonia, User:Vergina and User:Makedonec.

Provisionally removing User:Makedonia from the list should the consensus agree.

Provisionally removing User:Asteraki from the list should the consensus agree.

(unsigned by Fran)

Thanks for the compliment MatriX. Please check the history of User:Asteraki who was mentored by me. I took the liberty of assuming that the anon removing stuff from his page was actually him, since he copied the content in a sub-page for further analysis and selection, I presume. (check anon's contribs). Fran, kindly unblock him, as it is difficult to communicate with him anyway.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and so much about your held horses...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gah, I was sleeping! Sometimes I think people should quit pissing around with these "automated tools". Christ. On the former point I unblocked him when I woke up, which could be anywhere between one and two hours ago... I don't remember... User:Deskana blanked User:Macedonias page, but I reverted it for now. Doesn't look like he's going to make the deadline though. - FrancisTyers 10:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting content in User:Makedonas. I think I partly overdid it, but he can put back whatever he wants from history when he's back. I also wrote some friendly notes in Greek in his talk, explaining the situation and asking him to forgive me. If you feel it is ok, kindly consent.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I've done my homework as well. I feel sorry for deleting all of Macedonia's page, but I really didn't want to mess with the contents - deleting too little would have made me a nationalist, deleting to much would have made me... um... insensitive. I find it objectionable that Asteraki and Makedonas label the Macedonian language a Bulgarian dialect, since the number of neutral linguists stating that (if any) is really insignificant, and because of the polemical nature of it. But, that's me. --FlavrSavr 15:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty stupid I agree, probably about on a level with the Vergina sun flag thing, or User:Makedonias "Macedonians weren't Greeks" thing. I think its good that we've dealt with the worse of it. The only one left to do is User:Vergina, and Niko can do that when he has time. - FrancisTyers 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you for removing the united macedonia box and the flag, but so be it. i do have something against the mr.gligorov quote on Telex his page, thats inflammatory. you can say, "well you have demosthenes's quote on your page" i know, but you cant compare them. its very diffirent.--Makedonia 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How exactly are they different? --Telex 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My homework was done yesterday along with Fran. Sorry for being on-air for just a little time, but I am away, working on my laptop+mobile (kinda slow and messy, you know). I had notified Fran I was gonna be late for a couple of hours. Actually Vergina had deleted himself a lot. I didn't know what else to do, so Fran renamed or deleted a sub-page. I hope it is ok now. I like it much better that we have lowered the tones. I suggest we make a special sub-page here to report further possible attempts and new inflammatory users. Or we could just post them just here...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think things are looking much more reasonable ;) I was thinking a similar thing actually (having some kind of a subpage), but equally posting them here helps. Also, please please please (see below) post anything else that you think requires attention. Notably copyright violations etc. - FrancisTyers 14:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dual nationality

Question to Francis. Fran, you supported a solution of the form "Macedonian and Bulgarian". However you erased the "Bulgarian and Aromanian" solution in place for Pitu Guli. Does that or does that not mean you really support the dual nationality solution, or does it mean you're just being inconsistent?   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, see my comments above about starting an article Macedonians (which does not redirect to Macedonian).   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I suggested a similar idea to User:Vlatkoto, although calling it Bulgarian-Macedonian ethnicity dispute. I think it would be a good idea. Regarding "dual nationality" you are right, I've restored the dual nationality bit on Pitu Guli. - FrancisTyers 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a triple nationality now, to be precise.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people are born lucky :) - FrancisTyers 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is different thing. I will support a statemnt of the form, X is [[Bulgarians|Bulgarian]] and [[Macedonians|Macedonian]].   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thats good. - FrancisTyers 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've copy-pasted this discussion at Goce Delchev. --FlavrSavr 00:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Any reasons to paste it there and not in the talk of another person, or is it just because he's considered the greatest Macedonian revolutionary?   /FunkyFly.talk_   00:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got any particular reasons. Maybe because he's the greatest, I don't know, I really just pasted it there, it seemed to me as natural. Your comment really made me think... On second thought, perhaps it would be better to transfer it to the noticeboard's talk page? --FlavrSavr 00:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, where are we going to discuss this dispute? I'm almost finished with the mk.wiki translation, but another mess happened to me meanwhile. --FlavrSavr 12:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some issues

Well, to surprise you, I'm not going to address POV problems and other stuff that's more or less become traditional for the topic. Instead, there are some other things of no less importance that need to be done.

First of all, there are some Macedonian users that recklessly and continuously upload copyrighted and non-free-licensed images that they have found somewhere on the web, and put GFDL tags to the license page. They possibly rely on the large number of images on Wikipedia, so their actions would not be detected, but this has to stop. One example would be this panorama uploaded by User:Vlatkoto and tagged with {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} while being copyrighted. Many of the photos in RoM-related articles are actually taken from TrekEarth.com or other copyrighted websites. Apart from the massive infringement work of Vlatkoto, User:Makedonia has also pinched content from copyrighted websites. There are very likely other Macedonians who decorate articles this way.

And then, there is a problem with which transliteration system of Macedonian to use. Seems like there was an official one during Yugoslav times that was much like the systems Serbian and Croatian Latin use (č, š, ž, j, etc.), but the situation today is not really clear. Thus, the name of Gotse Delchev may also be transliterated Goce Delčev, Goce Delchev or Goce Delcev, totally messing up articles on cities, towns, mountains and so on. What can be done about that? Todor Bozhinov  → 13:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree wrt. images. I've found and deleted a couple, but there are plenty more out there. This is a problem for some of our Greek friends too, User:Asteraki for example whom I blocked for repeatedly uploading a "fair use" image for use on his userpage. I wonder do we have translations of the Wikipedia:Fair use and related policies in a form these users could read? Please feel free to notify me of any inappropriately tagged images you find and I will delete them with expediency. - FrancisTyers 14:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For the transliteration problem. I suggest we choose one standard and stick to it (man, doesn't that sound revolutionary) :) — Four standards are listed here. My preference would be for ALA-LC, but I really don't care so long as it is consistent. - FrancisTyers 14:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, regarding Vlatkoto, we may have to delete everything that is not {{GFDL-self}}, a coat of arms (these have to be {{coat of arms}} + {{Non-free fair use in}}) or a flag. Apart from his user page logos, coat of arms and flags, location and municipality maps, everything is a copyright infringement judging by his Image namespace contributions. As for Makedonia, he doesn't have many image contributions, so I guess it wouldn't be hard to identify the ones that have been nicked (his Image namespace contibutions). Fair use image for an user page? Sounds funny :) I don't think there's a translation of WP:FU in Macedonian, there isn't even one in Bulgarian.

The transliteration systems in that document look OK to me, they are at least standardized. The ALA-LC indeed seems the most appropriate one, although I don't like the "x" instead of "h"; but then again, standard Macedonian doesn't swim in /x/ and actually tends to heavily ommit it unlike some dialects (Pexčevo looks weird :)). "Ѓ" and "Ќ" suck, but the ALA-LC version is better than the Serbian-inspired UN 1977 one. As a whole, I'd go for it too. Todor Bozhinov  → 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll check through their contributions now. Could we possibly get a translation of (at the very minimum) WP:FU#Policy. Doesn't really matter if its in Macedonian or Bulgarian. I'm sure the subsequent translation from one to the other won't present too much of a problem :) About transliteration, I agree that "x" for /x/ kind of sucks, "h" would be better. We could of course cook our own standard. Would you suggest replacing "Ѓ" and "Ќ" with "gj" and "kj" ? - FrancisTyers 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Question, what status do images produced by .gov.mk have? Is there a similar thing to in the US — e.g. they are freely distributable? If so, it would be nice to have a template that we could tag these images with. I've deleted some of User:Makedonias worst violations, but I'd like to know more about copyright in Macedonia before I delete the others. - FrancisTyers 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

About the translation, I think I can do something about the one in Bulgarian but it would take some time. I like "gj" and "kj" better than the "g" and "k" + acute accent combinations; I can't even find these in Character Map. Creating a system ourselves is an option, but it would further complicate the situation, I would prefer a somewhat established system even if it has flaws or it doesn't entirely appeal to me.

I highly doubt .gov.mk images are public domain by law. Ohrid.gov.mk for example has "Copyright © 2006 Општина Охрид. All rights reserved.", so does Bitola.gov.mk, and the official website of Skopje is no exception. Todor Bozhinov  → 15:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This one too - [2], Image:Predlog-grb-mal.gif   /FunkyFly.talk_   18:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. - FrancisTyers 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of notice board

Folks, first of all, let me congratulate you all on the introduction of this noticeboard and on the great success in fostering a reasonably friendly and constructive atmosphere here. That's really something! Just a little suggestion: I think other regional noticeboard tend to conduct the kind of free discussion you've been engaging in on their "Wikipedia talk:" page, and use the main noticeboard page for just that: notices. Such as, lists of open tasks, important links, membership lists, that kind of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, only in order to plant potatoes on a field, you need to remove the rocks and the wild weed first...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Lazaridis

Copied from the other Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board

Hi francis, i am asking for your support or could you at least please take a look at the Stan Lazaridis page, also take a look atthis. Stan lazaridis is a Macedonian from Aegean Macedonia, the greeks on wiki are trying to cover his heritage over and over again, even if i added sources to my arguments, after a while i and GR MANOS made an agreement, to mention him as a Greek Australian with Macedonian heritage, to calm both sides down, i rested my case, so did GR Manos, however since yesterday Telex started to edit again and he does not want to rest his case. i just dont want to see injustice. Greetings--Makedonia 17:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See also [3]. --Telex 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember making a search once, and found no trustworthy source for his Macedonian descent.--Aldux 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See also User talk:Telex#Stan Lazaridis. --Telex 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

of course the australian media is mentioning him as a Greek, they think Aegean Macedonia has Always been Greek, and second they are mentioning a Surinam football player from Holland a Dutchman too, but he isnt, he is from suriname.

First of all i gave you sources, and second its just LOGICAL thinking!!!--Makedonia 17:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Lazaridis sounds like a Greek name to me. Are there any sources which describe him, or preferably which show him espousing a Macedonian ethnicity? - FrancisTyers 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on Francis, you know macedonians were forced to change their names, and there are many macedonians with greek sounding names. read this again please:

1- He played at a Macedonian Club (wich widely uses macedonian symbols), do you think a real greek would ever play for such a club??? NO he would not, thats logical.

Not all Greeks are nationalist whackos. - FrancisTyers 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

2- His family comes from Voden, a Macedonian city wich untill today is a significant macedonian community city.

3- As you can see in the E-mail the President of Stirling Lions FC sent to me, you will know that he Speaks Macedonian, that he played for macedonian clubs, and that he is called "a true Macedonian Trait".

4- About his Greek Surname, after 1913 all Macedonians and other peoples who were annexed into Greece, were forced to change their surnames into Greek sounding ones, Lazar became Lazaridis, Spiro or Spirov became Spiros etc etc. However many of those Macedonians whom their surname had been changed have kept their new forced name even when they emigrated outside of Agean Macedonia. For example, Steve Staios the famous hockey player, George Servinis, Another hockey player, Petros Dimtsis a leader of the Rainbow (political party) in Florina and many many others.

Please im asking you and your fellow friends to drop your actions against Stan Lazaridis he is Macedonian and will be Macedonian. It's clear enough, if you have something against Macedonians or me, than show it in another way, but do not keep editing the stan lazaridis page over and over again while you know im right. If it wasnt for GR MANOS i would not even mention Greek Australian on the Stan lazaridis page, but we made an agreement, to mention him as Greek Australian with Macedonian(ethnic group) heritage, to calm both sides down. So please give me a break here and stop with the nonsense.--Makedonia 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Makedonia. Lazaridis is originally from Edessa (the original of the city used in ancient Macedonian times - the 1991 census recorded Turkish, Pomak, Roma, even Armenian minorities in Greece, there is no "Macedonian" minority), and the fact that he has a Greek name is proof that he is Greek. Contrary to the claims in your schoolbooks, the people with Slavic names in Greece were not forced to change them and declare themselves Greeks - they voluntarily chose to do you, so as to be exempt from the population exchanges, or because they really felt Greek. See also [4]. --Telex 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He is from Voden or as you call it Edessa, its still the same city! there is an ethnic minority, but as we all know, Greece is denying the Ethnic macedonian minority. (look at all the Human rights watch reports). They were forced, if they did not changed their names, they got many many problems to live as a normal person. see Steve staios, petros dimtsis and many others, they are macedonians too, with greek sounding names. names were not only changed in Greece, it was a common thing on the balkans. the australian media is mentioning him as a Greek, they think Aegean Macedonia has Always been Greek, and second they are mentioning a Surinam football player from Holland a Dutchman too, but he isnt, he is from suriname He is a (modern day) Greek but a Macedonian from (Modern day)Greece. --Makedonia 17:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, Would a Greek speak macedonian to his parentS??? i dont think so! Would a Greek, and we all know Greeks are big nationalist, would a greek play for a Macedonian community soccer club? a club wich symbol is the Vergina sun??? wich uses that symbol widely?? i dont think so! just read the E-mail man.--Makedonia 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The guy who sent you this email may have been Macedonian and may have been calling the language spoken by this guy "Macedonian", even if he was actually a Slavophone Greek and not a Macedonian living in Greece. If you can't cope with the disambiguation there ask me and I'll spell it out more clearly. - FrancisTyers 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Makedonia, this a somewhat peculiar topic to me. Anyways, an e-mail is not really the most reliable source you can get. --FlavrSavr 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the ancient Macedonians also called it Edessa. You Slavs have a habit of renaming placenames though. Tut... tut... As for the ethnic minority, all this just makes me LOL... evidence is required. Do all these human rights reports cite their sources? Yes, they do, and do you know what their source is, http://www.mhrmi.org/. Very reliable, I must say. I find it rather cute that you actually believe all that you're saying. All you have proven now, is that this dispute is part of your campaign to present Macedonia as have never being Greek, contrary to the claims in Britannica. If Lazaridis had a problem with being called Greek, he would have made it known. This has yet to happen. --Telex 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you use Greek-Macedonian formula, but then I realized we have Greek Macedonians. I guess Albanian Macedonians and Bulgarian Macedonians are called for.   /FunkyFly.talk_   18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The more the merrier ;-) --Telex 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Although, it should be noted that if we start a Macedonian Albanians, we'll have to start a Kosovar Albanians at the very least (we already have Cham Albanians). --Telex 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are just Abanians in the Republic?   /FunkyFly.talk_   18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't make sense to make such an article, since we already have Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia; and neither would Kosovar Albanians, sice there already is Albanians in Kosovo.--Aldux 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well i think the Stan Lazaridis page should be mentioned like this However i will accept this version of GR MANOS also and will rest my case.--Makedonia 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of Macedonian Slav origin. --Telex18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Politis wrote in User_talk:Greasysteve13#yes:

Last month Greece played a friendly football match against Australia [5]. Stan Lazaridis was cheered by Australian Greeks as a fellow Australian Greek and the Greek team, namely Georgios Seitaridis, treated him as such. One must presume that since user Makedonia identifies with Lazaridis, he must be Greek himself.

Also, see article [6]: Greek interest on omogeneia football player Stan Lazaridis. 05 Jun 2006 09:47:00 Greek-Australian, 33 year-old football player, Stan Lazaridis revealed that Greece and Cyprus football teams have made interesting proposals with that of Greece being most attractive. However, he did not rule out the possibility of playing in an Australian team since he has proposals from three teams, Newcastle, whose coach is Greek Nikos Theodorakopoulos, Perth and Adelaide. At the moment he said “ the focus of my interest is Australian National team and my participation in the World Cup Finals.

Read the links. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this interview, asked specifically this question: "You're from a Greek background, did you ever consider playing for their national side instead?" and replys: "Yeah, the opportunity did arise but I was born Australian and wanted to go with them really. I respect the heritage and that, but it'd be hard to live your life in Australia and play for another team."[7]; he appears in the book The Greeks in Australia (p.102) about his Greek heritage by Anastasios Tamis; why would he appear in a book about Greek-Australians if he isn't or doesn't even feel Greek?[8]. Oh and Lazaridis, who has Greek heritage, said he was really excited about meeting the Euro 2004 champion Greece. Regards. ;) ~Mallaccaos, 8 June 2006

Still, why would he then speak macedonian with his parents???? if he was full greek??? and why would he play for macedonian community soccer clubs?? --Makedonia 10:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence he speaks Macedonian (Slavic) to his parents, and he plays for that soccer club because that's what he is being paid to do. There is no evidence that he is of ethnic Macedonian origin. --Telex 10:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says he speaks "Macedonian" with his parents? Have you heard him personally? Did he himself say he speaks "Macedonian" to his parents or that his is of "Makedonce" descent? That "email" you posted does not mean a thing. Its third party info who is making the claim and who knows about its authenticy. ~Mallaccaos, 9 June 2006

Have you ever considered that he may be a Grkoman? --Telex 10:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

haha he could be, but i dont think so, and if he is, he still is macedonian, i know many macedonians from aegean macedonia who accept themselves being macedonian, but also embrace their greek part of their lives. btw he wasnt paid for a club like stirling lions or preston lions, remember that was in his younger days. lets make an agreement ok? or we stay it like this, just mentioning him as aussie and mentioning the greek australians and macedonian australians categories, cause he is seen by greeks as greek and by macedonians as macedonian.

or we just remove any referring to ethnic groups, and just leave him as an aussie.

or we will go on with this for years.--Makedonia 10:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, agreement on what? There is no evidence where he claims himself being of "Makedonce" descent and claiming him such just because he played for the Stirling lions is ridiculous. Nick Ward, Aaron McKee, David Murphy and Paul Dickson ALL played/playing for that club. Does that mean they too are "Makedonce" descent? Or does the fact that Robbie Dunn played for Preston Makedonia make him a "Makedonije"? In that case we might as well call Bobby Despotovski Greek since he played for Floreat Athena. They are football clubs, they do not decide ones ethnicity. Oh and all this, "he just does not want to disappoint his Greek fans because they embraced him" I don't buy. He was born in Australia and if he wasn't of Greek descent he would have said it by now as have many other Australians who have been mistaken for Greek and made sure everyone knew they weren't or he would have just claimed "Makedonce" descent as many of your country men do who live abroad. Lazaridis has claimed himself as Greek because he is, as quoted:"You're from a Greek background, did you ever consider playing for their national side instead?" and he replys: "Yeah, the opportunity did arise but I was born Australian and wanted to go with them really. I respect the heritage and that, but it'd be hard to live your life in Australia and play for another team." He didn't say "Makedonce" background, nor did Lazaridis corrected the interviewer. He claimed a Greek heritage and an Australian nationality. That makes him a Greek Australian. ~Mallaccaos, 9 June 2006

Makedonia, can you please cite your sources. They must be reliable sources. --Telex 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the edit warring around Stan Lazaridis will never end. Can’t we just put the undisputable parts in the introduction (until (if) we found something relevant that Stan is explicitly declaring himself as Macedonian or Greek), for example:

There is already evidence, as ~Mallaccaos posted above: "You're from a Greek background, did you ever consider playing for their national side instead?" and he Lazaridis replys back: "Yeah, the opportunity did arise but I was born Australian and wanted to go with them really. I respect the heritage and that, but it'd be hard to live your life in Australia and play for another team.". How much clearer can you get then that?BONK 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Stanley "Stan" Lazaridis (born August 16, 1972 in Perth, Australia although his parents are originating from Aegean Macedonia-Greece) is an Australian football (soccer) player who plays as a left-sider, equally at home on the wing in a deeper-lying midfield role or even at left-back.

MatriX 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No way, calling it Aegean Macedonia is an insult. No Greek ever calls the region that. :BONK 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Matrix, i respect you are trying to find a solution, however there is no better solution than this one. it satisfies both sides, ! and if we cant get an agreement, i will accept this version too. I mean, come on man, it is obvious he is of macedonian origin or at least has a part. He is a Greek citizen of Macedonian Origin. thats the truth, so why is no one willing to accept that fact? --Makedonia 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it obvious? --Telex 23:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Telex, its not obivious, the interview above clearly states his background as being Greek and nowhere do we find legit sources which claim him, or he himself claiming, of being Macedonians (ethnic group). I also agree with BONK on the Aegean Macedonia thing. ~Mallaccaos, 12 June 2006

As I can see, there are two opposite meanings about Stan’s nationality: first one that he is Macedonian and that second one that he is Greek. In the mail provided by Makedonia his former coach tells us that he is a Macedonian embraced by the Greek community, that he speaks to his parents both Macedonian and Greek etc. MatriX 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That email is WP:OR third party info who is making the claim and who knows about its authenticy. As it is stated above, Lazaridis, himself does not state anywhere with legit sources that he is of "ethnic" "Makedonije" background. ~Mallaccaos, 12 June 2006

In the interview provided by Mallaccaos they are asking Stan if he likes to play for Greece regarding his Greek background. Saying that he has Greek background probably means that he is originating from Greece, not that he is ultimatively Greek. For example, the well-known Macedonian footballer Artim Shakiri is of Albanian origin, but jet he is mostly popular as a Macedonian player: [9],[10] etc. MatriX 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it "probably means" what you are claiming above is just a point of view, you can't know if that is what the interviewer or Lazaridis meant since saying, "You're from a Greek background," usually means, "you come from a Greek background", and Lazaridis makes it clear that is what they were talking about since his reply is: "I respect the heritage and that, but it'd be hard to live your life in Australia and play for another team.". In other words, he is an Australian national, with a Greek background, meaning, by his word, he comes from a Greek heritage background. He would not have said heritage if that is not what he meant. ~Mallaccaos, 12 June 2006

I didn’t want to contribute in the edit warring around Stan and I actually made only one single edit there. My solution was based on the fact that actually Stan doesn’t want to bother to much with the politic (as an answer to the question about playing for Greece national team Stan replies that: the opportunity did arise, but I was born Australian and wanted to go with them really. I respect the heritage and that, but it'd be hard to live your life in Australia and play for another team) and for that reason I proposed in my opinion a neutral solution that his parents originated from Aegean Macedonia –Greece (it doesn’t explicitly determine his nationality). (Another thing: I also don’t understand why the term Aegean Macedonia would be insulting for some editors regarding that it is widely used here on Wikipedia and everywhere else: see Macedonia article for example). However, this is an encyclopedia where everybody is welcomed to make edits and to correct my proposal if he finds it incorrect or unreasonable.I was just trying to calm down the edit warring... MatriX 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The following articles are from previous years, for those who can translate into English please do so, which has some interesting info source on this subject matter, [11], [12]. As for Aegean Macedonia seeOffensive as to why it is seen as insulting. ~Mallaccaos, 12 June 2006

[edit] Pomaks

Hi guys. This is slightly off-topic (not much really), but I wanted to hear your opinions regard the article I'm writing at Pomaks. Much (most) has still to be done, but I wanted to here your opinions on the work so far. I'm a bit worried by the notes; if it continues this way the article may end having 80 or even 100 notes! Let me know. Ciao--Aldux 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good here :) Particularly nice quote btw ;) "After adopting Islam under the most terrible and harshest circumstances they (i.e. the Bulgarian Muslims) - people whose mind is full of tragedy, but who are hard as stones - did keep their beautiful Bulgarian language, their old Slavic traditions, their pure national character, despite brutal pressure and persecution throughout centuries." LOL! - FrancisTyers · 12:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's going great, I've been following the gradual development for the article for some time now. Maybe you should consider replacing this ibid stuff with multiple footnotes to a single source (<ref name=choosesomething>footnote text</ref> for the first one and then <ref name=choosesomething/> every other time you use the source in the article). This would save up plenty of space, I believe. Also, the article may need some clearer structure (the current sections, Etymologies, Conversion, Up to the Balkan Wars and Turkey, all discuss very different aspects), for example making Conversion and Up to the Balkan Wars subsections of a ==History== section and Turkey a subsection of some future ==Geographic distribution== section (I'd strongly suggest one) that would also include Bulgaria and Greece. In addition, a subsection regarding the history of the Pomaks after the Balkan Wars may be useful. Todor→Bozhinov 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noted your edits Todor, and believe me, they are greatly appreciated. As for the notes, I'm not an expert using them, I'll give a try to see how it comes. Regarding the sections on Bulgaria and Greece, don't worry, I treated Turkey first because it was easier, as there were much less sources. A problem will be separating "history" and "Geographic distribution"; my formation is historical, so it'll be hard for me to separate present and past. Maybe you can do something there for making a better division of the article.--Aldux 18:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Aldux. I tried to make improvements in the Macedonian Muslims article, so I'm inviting anyone interested to take a look on it. MatriX 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Torbesh? --Telex 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion page of the article.MatriX 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Torbesh (or better Torbeshi, the plural) I have met possibly the biggest problem yet concerning the article. A solution was to simply merge Torbesh and Macedonian Muslims with Pomaks; this is the solution adopted from a number of my sources, that counted as a block muslim slavs present in Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Albania. What at the end made me opt against, was this passage: "This name [i.e. Pomaks], which is usually given them by their Christian fellow-countrymen, used also to be given occasionally by Bulgarians to Muslims speaking Serbian in western Macedonia. There, however, the Serbian Muslims are usually called torbeài (sing. torbeà) by their Christian fellow-citizens, sometimes also poturi, more rarely kurki, etc. How far these Serbian Muslims were still called Pomaks by some people in the early 20th century depended mainly on the influence of the Bulgarian school and literature". (Encyclopedia of Islam) I'm not certain I took the correct decision, but I believe there was no fully correct choice.

Anymays, Torbesh and Macedonian Muslims must be merged, no question. But honestly I have some difficulty with "Macedonian Muslims"; a good reason, is that the term can hardly be used for the Torbeshi in Albania; and we may not be speaking of a small community, as from an independent source I received the estimate of 80-120,000. Calling these guys "Macedonians" seems a bit strong here. Also I don't know if you noted the "Serbian-speaking" part; this makes all quite difficult, and also indicates a strong parentage among Gorani and Torbeshi.--Aldux 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Many neutral sources use the term Macedonian Muslims, for example, in Politics, Power and the Struggle for Democracy in South-East Europe by Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrott we can find the following introduction: Macedonian Muslims, as they are officially designated, or Torbeshi, are a community in search of affirmation. Living in western Macedonia, these Macedonian-speaking, Slav Muslims are largely agricultural... In the book Macedonia: The Politics of Identity and Difference by Jane Cowan the term Muslim Macedonians is also used: ...in the Dolna Reka, there were Orthodox Macedonians, Muslim Macedonians and Muslim Albanians.... Maybe the term Muslim Macedonians is too strong, so I find Macedonian Muslims pretty much neutral (it is the official term used in Macedonia for them after all). The term Pomaks here is always considered related to the Bulgarian Muslims, never with the Macedonian Muslims. Because the term Torbeshi is considered somewhat offensive, I still think the best solution is to have Macedonian Muslims as the name for the article. MatriX 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As for "it is the official term used in Macedonia for them after all", this is exactly where the problem stands; like Muslim Bulgarians, or much worse "Bulgarian Mohammedans", it stinks of state machinery and "assimilation programs", of attempts to make them as normal as a Macedonian Protestant.--Aldux 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ME

Hi all, I thought you should know I exist!  ₪Hellenic Republic₪  ^(T) 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and vanish! This is completely unacceptable behavior! The conversation regarding your apparently short-lived existence is here: Wikipedia talk:Username#Names of countries, or of large or disputed regions.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually my WP:SOCK proved useful. He merged and redirected Nikos Kavadias to Nikos Kavvadias. I think I'm gonna spare his life for a while (until certain other POV usernames here dissappear)...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common history

Macedonian newspaper. Too bad the site seems to be down at the moment. Interesting...   /FunkyFly.talk_   18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"ш0кантн0" is a good (and funny-sounding!) way to describe it indeed! :) "Прифаќањето на заедничко славење на Илинден, алудира дека сме еден народ со Бугарите, што е полошо и од бугарското тврдење дека имаме заеднички корени" ("The acceptance of a common celebration of Ilinden (St Elijah's Day) alludes that we are one people with the Bulgarians, which is even worse than the Bulgarian statement that we have common roots" — an opinion of a Macedonian professor, who also calls this an "anti-state initiative". So it's just a loud newspaper title page to make the reader interested by scandalizing :) Anyway, just wondering worse for what this professor means. Todor→Bozhinov 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Shocking how many English loan words are stuffed in the language - 'алудира' - alludes. They succeeded implementing one language in 1944, might be a good time to implement another.   /FunkyFly.talk_   19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm perpetually disgusted, when i consider the significant number of French terms in the English language. Certainly, they are verily "stuffed in". - FrancisTyers · 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The French are equally disgusted about the English words that pollute their language.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kemal and the Young Turks didn't like the Arabic and Persian words in their language (Ottoman Turkish), so they conducted a purge, and formed new words, based on Turkic roots (with only European influences). "School" in modern Turkish is called "okul", which derives from the Turkish word "oku" (to read) and is influenced by the French word "école" (school). The old word - "mektep" - was discarded. --Telex 20:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Awww, FF, I don't know if you were being deliberately ignorant, but I deliberately constructed that sentence to maximise the number of French loan words :) Thus making a humourous statement about linguistic purism. - FrancisTyers · 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is "verily" a French loanword?   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown:

• Perpetually -- [Middle English perpetuel, from Old French, from Latin perpetulis, from perpetuus, continuous  : per-, per- + petere, to go toward; see pet- in Indo-European Roots.]
• Disgusted -- [Late Old French desgouster, to lose one's appetite  : des-, dis- + gouster, to eat, taste (from Latin gustre. See geus- in Indo-European Roots).]
• Consider -- [Middle English consideren, from Old French, from Latin cnsderre : com-, intensive pref.; see com- + sdus, sder-, star.]
• Significant -- [Latin significns, significant- present participle of significre, to signify. See signify.]
• Number -- [Middle English nombre, from Old French, from Latin numerus. See nem- in Indo-European Roots.]
• Term -- [Middle English terme, from Old French, from Latin terminus, boundary. N., senses 4-8, from Middle English from Medieval Latin terminus, from Late Latin, mathematical or logical term, from Latin, boundary, limit.]
• Language -- [Middle English, from Old French langage, from langue, tongue, language, from Latin lingua. See dgh- in Indo-European Roots.]
• Certainly -- [Middle English, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *certnus, from Latin certus, past participle of cernere, to determine. See krei- in Indo-European Roots.]
• Verily -- [Middle English verrai, from Old French verai, true, from Vulgar Latin *vrcus, from Latin vrx, vrc-, truthful, from vrus, true. See wr-o- in Indo-European Roots.]
• In -- [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin in-, in. See en in Indo-European Roots.]

I honestly thought that "significant" had come to English through French, but what the hell, I like having words from all different languages in English. There is a good quote on the English language page: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle [sic] their pockets for new vocabulary." :) - FrancisTyers · 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well well, I dont hink that you should go down to Latin for that purpose. Maybe a few words and expressions like "machine", "laisez faire", "gaston", bourgeois, etc. I'm surprised you're not mad about filling English with German words :)))   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The best words are the English words of Greek origin ;-) --Telex 21:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the best words are the Greek words of English origin of Greek extraction :)) - FrancisTyers · 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All the natural science :)   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitola article again

Hi, can you take a look at the Bitola article? I'm in danger of breaking the 3RR rule there. FunkyFly is constantly pushing the wrong info that Bitola is the third largest town in the country (he is deliberately or not mixing the terms town and municipality). Bitola is the third municipality after Skopje and Kumanovo, but is also the second largest town in the country. FunkyFly noted the document about the latest census in 2002, but they are talking there about municipalities only (data by city population is not present at all): [13]. You can also make the following comparison regarding the 2002 census data: municipality of Ohrid has 55 000 inhabitants and municipality of Struga has 63 000 inhabitants. If we follow the FunkyFly logic, then Struga is larger town than Ohrid!? (Stuga was and is very smaller town then Ohrid). It is very simple, Struga and Kumanovo villages are highly populated, Bitola municipality has only a few villages which are not populated much (larger villages have its own municipalities). This can be easily checked at the Kumanovo official web site:[14] - you can notice that in 1994 census Kumanovo municipality had 126.543 inhabitants, but only 66.237 (52%) are city population, the rest are farmers 60.306 or 47%) and in 2002 the whole municipality has even smaller number of inhabitants: 105 484.

I also compared different census data a few months ago:Talk:Bitola#Second_largest_city. To finnish, the latest census data is applicable when we are talking about municipalities, but as that census doesn't contain data about cities itself, the only relevant data is the 1994 census where clearly is stated that Bitola is larger than Kumanovo:[15]. MatriX 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As there is clearly disagreement, couldn't you just omit the size comparisons? --Telex 17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the size thing from the intro. - FrancisTyers · 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis and Telex, but I thought we could find a consensus about this issue (I spent hours comparing different census data). I would like FunkyFly to comment on this also if he wants that, maybe we can clear the mess through the discussion.MatriX 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just another link:[16]MatriX 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Still you have not presented official government source. Just various other compilations.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is no government source, but tells a different story. I contest second largest.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Matrix, thanks, feel free to put back in that it is the second biggest city, with this book as a reference. You will be absolved from the WP:3RR. - FrancisTyers · 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. MatriX 18:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

FunkyFly, why don't you accept the widely accepted fact that Bitola is larger city than Kumanovo? ( [17],[18],[19],[20],[21]) Why don't you want to make a difference between city and municipality? And finally, why are you removing sourced info from the Bitola introduction? MatriX 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just two more links:[22],[23]. The last one is very interesting, because in the first table are represented the administrative units (municipalities) where clearly can be seen that Kumanovo is larger than Bitola as municipality, but pay attention on the second table where we have a list of cities. MatriX 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed sourced info because it is contested by other sourced info. It's not clear at all to me that it is the second largest, especially in the absence of official statistics. The population of Skopie btw is listed the same as the municipality of Skopie.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the last link you provided can be considered more relevant than official data from the censuses in 1994 and 2002 (they are probably using the municipality info from the 2002 census). I searched all data available from the 2002 census and didn't found so far any reference to the size of the cities itself (they are talking always about the municipalities and that is different). The only relevant data is the one from the 1994 census where clearly is stated that Bitola is larger than Kumanovo. However, I hope we are not going to deal with this for days… MatriX 06:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POLL

No, no, no, not what you think! This time is for something that all of us need:

Improvement of the <ref> function.

Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Poll!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of ethnic Macedonians

See discussion   /FunkyFly.talk_   14:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prlichev & Miladinov brothers

Francis, can you take a look at the Macedonians (ethnic group) article? FunkyFly just removed the image with four important Macedonian figures: Konstantin Miladinov, Krste Misirkov, Grigor Prlichev and Marko Cepenkov. That picture was present in the article for about 8 months: [24]. He/she based that action on this conversation, basically claiming that there are no sources that Miladinov and Prlicev declared themselves as Macedonians. It is natural that there are no many sources from that period about people declaring themselves as Macedonians regarding the fact that Macedonia as state didn’t exist during that period. But, many relevant historians and writers have different opinion and I will provide several links: [25] - The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World by Loring Danforth (page 50):

Among the most important figures of this Macedonian cultural renaissance were Gorgi Pulevski, Grigor Prlichev, Konstantin and Dimitar Miladinov, and Krste Misirkov.

[26] - Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe by Price, page 315:

At the beginning of the 19th c. J. Krcovski and K. Pejcinovic introduced the vernacular into literature and, in the second half of the 19th c, poetry written in Macedonian dialects made its appearance, the most famous poets being K. Miladinov and R. Zinzifov.

[27] - Explaining Yugoslavia by John B, page 324:

The central figures in the nineteenth-century Macedonian autonomist movement were quite disproportionately teachers – Hristo Batandziev, Anton Dimitrov, Dame Gruev, Dimitar Miladinov,.. Thanks,MatriX 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice links, however they do not mention anything about nationality. If you have sources to prove that Miladinov and Palichev were Macedonian, present them in their respective articles. The causes they fought for have nothing to do with their ethnicity. I removed the image because there are no sources to back Miladinov and Parlichev as Macedonian. You might want to continue the discussion here.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Konstantin Miladinov the one who co-wrote the Bulgarian Folk Songs and claimed to write in the Bulgarian language? ;-) --Telex 20:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, how about his signature too? [28]   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There weren't any Macedonian institutions at the time to go there and declare itself as Macedonian (unfortunately, you cannot do that in some Balkan countries even today). However, the biggest proof for me is their cause and their literature works. That is why so many neutral sources are recognizing them as Macedonians and that is why you shouldn't delete the picture so easily. MatriX 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Which neutral sources (I hardly think that self-described Bulgarian literature qualifies)? --Telex 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(ed confl) Where are those neutral sources which recognize their ethnicity? Present them and we can discuss. Have you heard of the self-identifying principle or do you not respect their own words by claiming something they are not? You should feel lucky that they are nonetheless categorized as "Macedonian writers", despite the lack of evidence for it, purely for the fact that they are considered Macedonian in the Republic.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you have not understood it yet, I personally have no objections to Misirkov and Cepenkov being in the picture.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy stating that the people in the pictures have to be members of the ethnic group? These two are vert important for members of the ethnic group (at least so it seems to me), so unless there is a specific policy saying "all people in pictures have to be members of the ethnic group" then I don't see a problem. Furthermore, a note should be made on the page, saying that they described themselves/identified as Bulgarian, but are important for Macedonians today. We can point out that at the time a separate Macedonian ethnicity didn't exist due to whatever historical reason. How does that sound? - FrancisTyers · 20:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Misirkov the one who said: We are Bulgarian more than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. ;-) --Telex 20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Telex, he said the other thing, too, which in fact you don't want to accept it. That is why it's difficult to declare who was Bulgarian and who Macedonian then. Those were difficult times for the occupied from Ottomans Macedonia which was under the Bulgarian exarchate. Bomac 20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And? What exactly is that you point out? We're not contesting Misirkov. People are classified according to whatever delcared. For Misirkov, who declared different things throughout his life, this is also reflected.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that tose persons are undoubtedly important for Macedonia in the first place. I'm sure you have Botev, Hajtov and other Bulgarians, which actually are important for Bulgaria. Bomac 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are important for Bulgarian history and they are also Bulgarians. However, we cannot make the same match for Macedonian history and Miladinov and Parlichev.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Miladinov brothers and Prlichev should stay in the picture. The remarks (as Francis said) are good idea. Those are people that were born in Macedonia (which was hell back then, occupied by Ottomans) and they play a essential role in the Macedonian literature also (if you consider them worthy for Bulgarian literature). Bomac 20:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No they should not because:

1. It is misleading to the readers.
2. They were not ethnic Macedonians, rather Bulgarians

  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. They never collected songs from Bulgaria; they were given around 70 Bulgarian songs by Vasili Cholakov
2. Their declaring is a result of the situation back then: occupied Macedonia and the Bulgarian exarchate.

Bomac 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That maybe true, yet they considered themselves Bulgarian. Anyway, you cannot prove the exarchate is the reason.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, why do you want to set precedents for this issue? Isnt it self-evident that articles about an ethnic group should feature pictures of prominent members of that same ethnic group? Do you care to reason with Miskin about this?   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't we put aside the politic just for once? Can't we read a little more poetry for a change? Miladinov and Prlichev as very important figures for the Macedonians should be present in the picture and I agree with the Francis proposal, hope you would agree too. And what was in the heart of the poet can be seen by his poetry of course:[29]. MatriX 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, you cannot evade the issue though. Why dont you try replacing Miladinov and Parlichev with Gligorov, Chento or Koneski (or someone else who did not declare Bulgarian, although Koneski once did, but I doubt that anyone will contest him, juding by his great achievements in the development of the Macedonian language and literature)? Noone will contest that and we'll be able to enjoy poetry in peace. Not to mention, seeing images of people right under the sign "Macedonians" will be misleading to readers.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a picture, if I had my way, you could have Cyril in the Bulgarian one if you wanted. The Irish have Oscar Wilde, even though he was Anglo-Irish and not Irish per sé. National identity is a rather loose concept (as we all know), so if someone is important and considered that way, then what the hell. A picture isn't the same as saying "This guy self-identified as Macedonian". Would Boudica be classed as British ? — on a lighter note, sure Koneski would be good, he's a rather instrumental figure too, I don't think readers will be misled if it is explained in the article, which it will be anyway. - FrancisTyers · 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but that is big precedent. Stalin was very important in post WW2 Bulgarian history, but it will be totally inapropriate to put him in the picture. Also, a big element is generally controversial figures are avoided. I doubt anyone else but the British can claim the Kelts as theirs. I doubt the Germans will claim the Kelts, so Boudica will not be contested by anyone. However in our case things are not so clear cut.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You can keep Stalin on your user-page. Bomac 21:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I intend to.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Stalin, the analogy does not fit. - FrancisTyers · 21:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy in 1963 - I am a Berliner.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nup. Try Thomas Paine, the famous American. - FrancisTyers · 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont know anything about him, will read the article.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice that the pictures (both the old one and the new one) have gone?? MatriX 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be missing sources.   /FunkyFly.talk_   17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I can see, Nv8200p removed the image per WP:PUI on May 20 2006:[30] and I haven’t found so far who nominated the image for deletion there. MatriX 17:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Macedonia

Francis, the article United Macedonia is indirectly atacing macedonians, we should not forget thet macedonians are people like Bulgarians, Greeks... and that there are ideas as some "Sanstefan Bulgaria", "Megali Idea", "Great Allbania"... and in none of the articles about the people is not directly atacked like Macedonians in the article about "United Macedonia". How do you regard this sentence: "Their perception of The region Macedonia", unlikle it says that there are and other perceptions, and it is so. Please I like to change some things in the article and you can see the post edit, If than you (not Funky or Telex) realise that is not correctly and neutral feel fre to revert it.--Vlatko 11:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Greeks have a different perception, i.e. there's only one Macedonia, whose borders correspond to those of ancient Macedon, which happened to be Greek. See Macedonia (terminology). As for your other points, what do you want us to do? Legitimize the United Macedonia claims, and present Bulgaria and Greece as illegal occupiers (like Turkey in Cyprus)? --Telex 09:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just demad the article to be written in a neutrall POV, this is not Greek or Bulgaran pedia.--Vlatko 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is neutral. There is no universal definition of the region of Macedonia - this is well explained at Macedonia (terminology). United Macedonia irredentists tend to perceive it in the way it appears in their maps - other people disagree. Wikipedia is not a springboard for United Macedonia propaganda. --Telex 10:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, stop it, its stupid, and you know it, it seems as wikipedia has something to argue with "Macedonian irridentist nationalists" not you and the Funky. The neutral POV regards all the sides, accepti it.--Vlatko 12:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So what you want to say is that Aegean Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia are illegally occupied by Greece and Bulgaria, that they falsify the census data in order to hide the Macedonian Slav majority, and that there really are no Greeks and Bulgarians there. You think that I and the [sic] Funky get in your way. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight - we don't give equal credibility to nationalist babbling; that's why at the map at Greater Albania, it says that in some of the claimed areas, there are no Albanians. --Telex 10:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Vlatko, we know where you stand because you express your views on your user page (and, even though I disagree with some of them, I thank you because it show you are an honest person). It seems normal to me that you would like to promote as much as possible the perception of an unjustly divided "macedonian region", but history, I would argue, is not your strongest point. Politis 11:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We have Greater Serbia, Greater Albania, United Macedonia, United Ireland, and all the rest. Bring up some specific complaints, either here or on the talk page. - FrancisTyers · 11:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind (I do not want to say so, even mine view should be ond the same level as your's POV), I whant to point that in the article it is used to point macedonians with the word They. That is something that gives a totaly diferent POV sence. And the article it should be written first as it is viewed by Macedonians and after that "Critics" to be added.--Vlatko 13:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"They" is a pronoun. Anyway, I've seen to your concerns, check the article again, please. --Telex 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia

Hi all. There's a little divergence between me and Telex regarding the organization of the part relative the 2002 census in the intro. of the article [31]. Mainly I disagree adding the Ethnologue number, since there is already an internationally monitored and endorsed census, and the ethnologue number appears to be from before the pubblication of the census data. As for the last link, www.albanian.com, what it says is in contraddiction with the NYT link; and it's also plain wrong, as it says the census reported 22% of Albanians, when the true census number is 25.2%, rising doubts on everything said by the webpage. These additions don't seem to me to be NPOV, as they tend to inforce the impression that the census data is partisan. So I brought the question here, hoping you could help us solve this little conflict between us.--Aldux 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why not give the reader the opportunity to read all available data and make up his own mind. When it comes to deciding the number of Macedonians in Albania, Bulgaria and Greece, then obviously partisan estimates (Simovski, political parties etc.) are included alongside the official estimates. If the unofficial estimates of non-partisans and Albanians are removed (while being properly attributed), then I think the Macedonian sources, as well as all independent sources (Ethnologue included - their data regarding Greece is extremely questionable, it claims its statistics are based on a census which never took place) should be removed. I don't like double standards. --Telex 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Telex, reading the introduction as it is written now (Albanians previously claimed to be 30%, Albanian political parties claiming 40% etc..) one can make a conclusion that the latest census is pretty much questionable, although many international monitoring organizations were involved in the census and verified that the census has been conducted properly. It is understandable that Albanian political parties want to present higher numbers because that will give to the Albanians greater rights, as it is understandable that some Macedonians have doubts about the exaggerating the number of Albanians for different reasons. I believe Aldux version conform more to the NPOV because it clearly places the census data at first place and equally mentioning both Macedonian and Albanian doubts about the real number of Albanians. MatriX 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have left the Albanian and Mac. claims, adeguately sourced (NYT). So I have leaved space for partisan claims, even if I dislike them and have always done my best to keep them out. Regards ethnologue, you know very well that it's not the same thing, as in Greece there is no linguistic census, let alone ethnic, so we have to use estimates, even if these can be very untrustworthy, but until they are independent and we don't have a census monitored and endorsed by the UE, we can use them. As for --Aldux 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then can I remove the unofficial and Macedonian claims on the number of Macedonians in Albania, Greece and Bulgaria? --Telex 17:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Give a look to the edit history of Macedonians (ethnic group) (it's big, I know); you'll see that they had to literally twist my arm to get them in, so I'll be all too happy if the numbers are removed from wikipedia. I only submitted myself to them because Jkelly asked me to let them in, and for no other reason.--Aldux 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(to Telex): as I know, those countries don't allow expressing Macedonian nationality at the census (on the contrary to the Macedonian census observed carefully by international monitors), so we must rely on unofficial data in those articles. Of course, nobody forbids presenting unofficial data in the article about Albanians, but it should be done in accordance to NPOV.MatriX 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems good, when being compared to edits like this, estimates based on Popov's whims taking precedence to official statistics. It would be all right if they states where they got their estimates from, but they don't. Ethnologue's claims on Greece [32] that there are 180,180 speakers claims to base it on some 1986 census. I'm afraid no such census took place - censi take place every ten years: 1981, 1991, 2001 etc. I would treat their estmates with extreme caution. Albania's census gives approximately 5,000 Macedonians, so we have to add the Macedonian Human Rights Movement of Canada's estimate of 120,000 - 350,000 next to it. Then there is Bulgaria, with approximately 5000 Macedonians according to the last census, so we have to give Popov's "estimate" of 200,000 [33]. As there is no policy on the matter, either we stick to official statistics, or we include parisan and non-partisan sources. In my version of the Albanians article, we say that there is the internationally monitored census, indepented sources and Albanian estimates. Perhaps there should be a numbers section, I don't know. As for the credibility of Bulgarian, Greek etc statistics, I don't think we should base our inclusion criteria on mere unproven allegations. --Telex 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is, for example, that we don't contest the credibility of Greece statistics; they may be the best of the world, but won't give us the awnsers regarding language or ethnicity, because they don't make these sort of questions. Regarding countries like Bulgaria, which make linguistic census, if we have independent sources, like the Bulgarian Helsinki Monitor, that explicitely contest the credibility of the census on this or that, we have to report it, especially if there are strange modifications among the last two census. But the ethnologue number you give does not contest the validity of the census, and reports the date 2002, before the release of census data; so the opposition attempted appears false (especially considering you didn't right "ethnologue estimated in 2002" but "independent sources estimate"). --Aldux 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence in its current form is misleading. It gives the impression that, in general, international organisations state that the number is higher than the official numbers. That is incorrect. The majority of the international organisations (some of whom may have participated in the census itself), books of references, etc. do not contest that number. As far as I know, there were no major objections to the accuracy of the census, not even from the Albanian parties. The numbers collected from the census were used for the upcoming decentralisation, and I doubt that the Albanians would accept the new municipal organisation if they had seriously contested the census. (The decentralisation process is important for this matter, because many of the newly introduced ethnic rights depended on the numerical representation of the ethnic communities in certain municipalities) --FlavrSavr 23:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FK Makedonija Gorce Petrov

Just a new article annonuncement for any football fans here: FK Makedonija Gorce Petrov. I don't really read Macedonian, so this article is only a stub. Conscious 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official language

Moved from over there.

Francis please see the changes and the mestake that has been uncorectly done regarding the page about Macedonia and the explanation on the Talk page, thanx--Vlatko 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - the Ohrid Agreement, Britannica and Article 7 (2) of the constitution are being challenged again. --Tēlex 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex, aren't you ashamed of the things you do, this is not a play, Stop it, The albanian is not official on the entire teritory of macedonia, it is only municipalicly. It is posible, but (I'm not sure) it is a real posibility, as I'm not a native speaker of english, that with the transltaion of the article from macedonian to english, wrong context and posibly unanalog meaning of that article to be provoked, but as I do know verry well macedonian, the albanian is not official, here is the constitution on this page www.mls.gov.mk, it is in macedonian as it is full legislative strenght. You are wrong about that, I'm convinsing you it is so.--Vlatko 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The official translation is incorrect??? Could you link me to Article 7 in the original Macedonian - I'd like to see what it says. --Tēlex 21:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do realy pointed somethimg else here, but had you understood what i wanted to say?? HA, no need to comment. BTW here is the link:you want--Vlatko 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - look at what it says: Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик. --Tēlex 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, "службен" means official. --Tēlex 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why haven't you wrote as it says completly.

Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, како што е определено со овој член. it says as it is defined by this article, and only this one sentence is not this article. Please read it completly. There is no need for explanation, this is the original text in macedonian.

Член 7

На целата територија во Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, како што е определено со овој член. Личните документи на граѓаните кои зборуваат службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, се издаваат на македонски јазик и неговото писмо, како и на тој јазик и неговото писмо во согласност со закон. Кој било граѓанин кој живее во единиците на локалната самоуправа во која најмалку 20% од граѓаните зборуваат службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, во комуникацијата со подрачните единици на министерствата, може да употреби кој било од службените јазици и неговото писмо. Подрачните единици надлежни за тие единици на локалната самоуправа одговараат на македонски јазик и неговото кирилско писмо, како и на службениот јазик и писмо што го употребува граѓанинот. Секој граѓанин во комуникација со министерствата може да употребува еден од службените јазици и неговото писмо, а министерствата одговараат на македонски јазик и неговото кирилско писмо, како и на службениот јазик писмото што го употребува граѓанинот. Во органите на државната власт во Република Македонија службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, може да се користи во согласност со закон. Во единиците на локалната самоуправа јазикот и писмото што го користат најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик, покрај македонскиот и неговото кирилско писмо. За употребата на јазиците и писмата на кои зборуваат помалку од 20% од граѓаните во единиците на локалната самоуправа, одлучуваат органите на единиците на локалната самоуправа.

Telex, it is wrong to implicate an official language that is de-facto not.--Vlatko 21:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is official de jure though. German is de jure official in Belgium, but hardly ever used. You don't get nationalistic users at the Belgium article trying to remove the German from the infobox. --Tēlex 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not, it is written in the article, did you read it. do it again. I understand completly and clearly what it says, you interprete it wrongly. You are wrong by thinking that I play nationalistic, if not so, i wouldn' add the albanian names in the bilingual municipalities of RoM, see: Aračinovo municipality, Tetovo municipality ...--Vlatko 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this covered in Ohrid Agreement ? - FrancisTyers · 11:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only an agreement, throught the implementation changes can be made (if the ones who signed it are agreed). Throught the "transformation" of the agreement into the macedonian constitution the albanian finished as municipal language only (not as a state official). In artice & it says official only because it is official in some "part" of the state, and it is defined how. If you do not trust me plase ask someone neutral, relevant......--Vlatko 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

While I understand that the wording is ambiguous, and there is no doubt that they don't have the same status, all the same, it appears clear that if a language is spoken by more than 20% of the total pop. of the country, it is called official, a bit like Romansh in Switzerland.--Aldux 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia (terminology)

Is currently undergoing a peer review, we'd appreciate your comments here. - FrancisTyers · 17:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And now it's listed as a Featured Article Candidate! :NikoSilver: 10:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've got the mop

OK, I know that the first (and maybe even the second) reaction of you guys is going to be e chissene frega (i.e. who cares), but I'm only telling you so I can help you in aspects you feel needs admin. powers (even if first I've got to be certain to fully understand them, so to not risk abusing them). Also I felt this was a good place to thank those who supported me, often spending kind words for me. Naturally, I know the others didn't vote only because they didn't know of the votation (I hope so, at least...;-)). Ciao, --Aldux 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's too late to vote for you now on the grounds of being modest and not telling us! Congratulations! :NikoSilver: 13:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) - FrancisTyers · 13:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, Aldux! --FlavrSavr 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all, guys :-)--Aldux 11:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You should send those end-of-voting flyers to people that voted, with a funny picture, to announce the result.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socks

Could someone do something about the sock attack at Hellenization (semi-protect perhaps so that legit users can continue editing on the new topics). --Tēlex 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking news

Former prime minister of the Republic of Macedonia and former head of VMRO-DPMNE, which won this year's elections, Ljubcho Georgievski obtains Bulgarian citizenship.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah :-) A true patriot! Now he gets to serve in the "foreign" army that "occupied" his motherland (unless there is an age limit - in Greece the limit is 45). --Tēlex 18:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he's over that. In Bulgaria is 27 I think. Still, he is the highest political figure yet to obtain citizenship, and he is a deputy in the current parliament.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haha

So much for the neutrality of the Bulgaropedia (again).

# (diff) (hist) . . Macedonians (ethnic group)‎; 21:38 . . 84.164.227.31 (Talk | block) (interwiki bg:Македонци (Българи))

You guys! :)) Which one of you was telling me something like "oh, you know, we're much more neutral than those Macedonian guys!" laughable :)) - FrancisTyers · 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That was vandalism by User:Asteraki [34]. Bgwiki is far more neutral than fyromwiki. At least it doesn't make dubious claims on the ethnic composition of "Egeyska Makedoniya" and "Pirinska Makedoniya". --Tēlex 22:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It was moved back to where it was originally. Thanks for keeping an eye Francis. It was me that was telling you "oh, you know, we're much more neutral than those Macedonian guys!"   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkification

Comments requested at the AfD for Turkification. - FrancisTyers · 11:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Macedonia (terminology)#Poll

...you know the drill!

PS:I was redirected here by User talk:FrancisTyers. Nice notification there, Fran! :-) •NikoSilver• 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PS2:Disgrace: We forgot to post here that Macedonia (terminology) is now a featured article! Congratulations to all contributors. •NikoSilver• 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renewal efforts of the Ohrid Archbishopric

Any suggestions as to how we should deal with such articles? It has a strong Macedonian/Macedonistic bias (even in the name and the topic), claiming the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid (founded in 1019 as the Byzantines subjugated Bulgaria, by lowering of the rank of the autocephalous Bulgarian Patriarchate) was Macedonian, that the Bulgarian Exarchate was somehow evil to the "Macedonians", etc. In fact, the very claim of a Macedonian nationality, language and self-consciousness in the 19th century is very controversial. And the guy's relying exclusively on Macedonian sources... as if anyone else would write a thing like that :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirected to Macedonian Orthodox Church as POV fork. Easiest solution (if it sticks). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. How is redirect easisiest sollution? Are the articles even similar? Unless we copy the entire text into MOC article. And BTW Ohrid church was not founded on 1019 but several centuries earlier. As for the controversial Macedonian nationality,self-consciousness etc, there are direct quotes there clearly showing it. Feel free to blend opinions of Bulgarian (and other) historians if you want to neutralize it (sourced, of course). --Cigor 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation

From my talk page

[edit] Renewal_efforts_of_the_Ohrid_Archbishopric

Hello, Is there any way to protect redirecting articles, since that is equivalent to deleting? I am taking about this without many explanations except the article is quite disgusting. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigor (talk • contribs)

You mean protect your own version?   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your version there. And BTW you were OK with "mine" version for quite some time, until you suddenly decide you don't like it anymore.--Cigor 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And?   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! I can refute your argument. Such as "And, because I am bully".--Cigor 14:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Substantially motivated, arent we.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you guys. Fran is away though and I'll probably see him tomorrow personally, and prepare the countermeasures, which may include blocking you all :-). Quick check: the article in question seems 1) legitimate and sourced 2) if promoting "Macedonist POV", it's in a farly mild manner 2) mostly a copyvio (minor rewording in several sentences) from [35], which I don't know if counts as a WP:RS (lazy to investigate). Have a nice revert war for the weekend. Duja 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, what a surprise, that is only the second time Cigor posted copyvios, after some ultranationalist's doctoral thesis at Macedonism. Oh wait, that is the same one again. That is again, without acknowledging the original text.  /FunkyFly.talk_  15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I used it Nick’s thesis twice: in the Macedonism and this one.The reason I did not source him, which was a mistake, was to avoid endless excuses from FF and others as biased etc. The fact of the matter is that I used more his sources, which can be verified, than his interpretations. Some of them can be found on Google books, for example. Then again, the mere fact that the author is ethnic Macedonian is enough to some Bulgarian and Greek editors to deem his work for invalid. I have asked many times to get to some kind of NPOV consensus for the article, but short of total deletion no interest was found.

As for Nick as ultranationalist, why don’t FunkyFly provide some ultra nationalistic sentence by Nick as a proof of his claim. It is funny that this argument comes from you, FF when many can evaluate you as a turbo-ultra-mega nationalist. Also, I don’t see you have a PhD from relevant subjects (like Nick) to make you authority in who gets to be used as source or not. In fact, other than your picture of Stalin on your user page and your Stalinist behavior, we don’t know much of you. From my part, I am not going to do any edit war. That is FF’s speciality. --Cigor 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The guy is the chair of an organization that supports the annexation of neighboring teritories by the Republic of Macedonia period.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So to summarize for not sourcing - you lied, you plagiarized and presented it as your own work. You knew the guy is irredentist and you tried to hide it, but it surfaced nonetheless.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I also have much less time than I once had for wikipedia, and tend to avoid disputes. That said, a phd thesis presented at the Victoria University may be considered a RS, even if i can't find anything specific pro or against thesis and dissertations. A problem could come eventually from WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.--Aldux 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And how reliable does it sound when you hear that Nick Anastasovski is the chair of the United Macedonians in Victoria?   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You can spit on me as much as you like. I made a mistake not sourcing him, why, I already explained. I am sick and tired of the double standards. The sad fact is that there are ways that you can manipulate Wikipedia, without breaking the rules, something more than evident in the articles related to Macedonia. But I never lied in the actual content of any articles, and I always left space for other opinions.

But let’s focus on the real issue, the article. The article survived pretty long out there, and yet no Bulgarian changed it significantly. Why, because it is the truth, Gologanov was one of the biggest Macedonist in the 19th century, to use FF formulation (where everything short of pure Bulgarian identity is ultra nationalism)

What exactly you are saying: 1. That his thesis is pack of lies. That means his school is crap. 2. That his University has a Macedonistic reputation. Again, his school is crap. 3. That he or his organization is ultra-nationalistic (if, so provide proofs. Surelly out of his long text, you can find something. I am sorry, but the name ‘United Macedonia’ does not means he is ravaging lunatic, anti Bulgarian hater or a pathologic liar.) --Cigor 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your exaggerations mean little to me. He is irredentist. Schools, even the best ones make mistakes, take Alexander Donski for example, currently studying in Australia.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all cool FF, schools make mistake, and I’ll take your word for it. My question is do you think you that his sources (quotes from other books and references) are accurate? Or, did he got them from la-la land? It is a simple question. --Cigor 02:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes by themselves dont mean anything. The original authors might have been misinterpreted. You cannot just throw quotes from 100 authors, which might not agree between themselves, in order to advance a point. Read Wikipedia:Sources.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I take you admit that the quotes are accurate. For me, even the quotes from T.G speak more than enough and they are not ambiguous. Anyway I don't see some enthusiasm to correct or neutralize the article. You would rather see it vanished, since it does not match your system of belief. Good night. --Cigor 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Assume things at your own will. I go by facts, and that is, you're trying to push stuff from some iredentist person in order to justify things rebutted by international historical science.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from my talk

Hi there, I see you worked with User:FunkyFly before. Well, I recieved a complaint on his behaviour and I think it's a legitimate one. Check out edits he made today and you'll see a bunch of messing with Macedonia related categories. User:PANONIAN warned him, as you can see on the bottom of their talk pages, and I tend to agree with PANONIAN that an article can be in both Category:History of Macedonia and Category:History of the Republic of Macedonia if it is about both FYRM and the larger region. But, before warning the FunkyFly, I'd like to get another opinion to be sure that I'm not under some kind of POV. --Dijxtra 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And what POV might that possibly be? Oh, wait I forgot you're Serb buddies.

You do not seem to abide WP:AGF. Please, start doing that. --Dijxtra 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I made an effort to discuss the changes, largerly ignored by Panonian, who also trolled my talk. To summarize again:

• Category:History of the Republic of Macedonia is included in History of Macedonia, so there's no point in adding along with its parent
• Republic of Macedonia is an anachronism in the context of the Middle Ages
• Samuil ruled over territories of present day Serbia, Albania and Greece as well. You dont see history categories of present day countries in Roman Empire for example.

  /FunkyFly.talk_  18:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to answer this:

• 1. Regarding "Serb buddies" claim, I am Serb and user Dijxtra is a Croat and we spoke in our common language on that talk page.
• 2. Regarding claim that "Category:History of the Republic of Macedonia is included in History of Macedonia", that is really not point here. Point is that there is a parent category "History by country" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_by_country) and "History of the Republic of Macedonia" is part of that parent category. Category "History of Macedonia" is not a proper parent category where "History of the Republic of Macedonia" should be because Republic of Macedonia is country and Macedonia is only geographical region. It is category "History of Macedonia" that should belong to 3 parent categories: "History of the Republic of Macedonia", "History of Greece" and "History of Bulgaria" because geographical regions are subdivisions of countries and countries are not subdivisions of geographical regions.
• 3. Regarding claim that "Republic of Macedonia is an anachronism in the context of the Middle Ages", other categories about history of countries contain articles that are relevant for the history of the territory that today belong to the country no matter whether country existed in that time. Here are few examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_France This category contain subcategory named "Roman Gaul" no matter that France is an anachronism in the context of ancient Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Hungary This category contain subcategory named "Hungary before the Magyars" no matter that Hungary is an anachronism in the context of this subcategory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Romania This category contain subcategory named "Dacia" no matter that Romania is an anachronism in the context of this subcategory. Those are only 3 examples, but examples are really numerous. Those are general principles that apply to ALL histories of the modern-day countries. I do not see why Republic of Macedonia should be an exception from this.
• 4. And regarding Samuil, he did ruled over territories of present day Serbia, Albania and Greece as well, but his capital was exactly in the Republic of Macedonia. Therefore, he is much more important for the history of this country than for the hisatory of other 3. PANONIAN (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion of this talk page. You have talk pages of your own. --Dijxtra 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Whatever. 2. Your argument does not hold, the Republic of Macedonia is entirely in the region, and it is an anachronism in the Middle Ages. 3. There's no region of France to mix up with the French republic. See History of China or History of Ireland. 4. The capital of Samuil was actually in Bulgaria. The Republic did not exist then. The region of Macedonia, however, did.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can give you long answer to this, but since User:Dijxtra said that we should not discuss here, I will continue this discussion in some other proper place. This is question for Dijxtra or FrancisTyers however: can I ask for arbitration about this case somewhere? Do I have to make a official request for arbitration or just to mention this to an administrator? PANONIAN (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(reply to Francis) No problem, you're not supposed to be online 24/7 :-) And, yeah, I'd like to know what you think. --Dijxtra 12:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that this is a discussion about the inclusion of the category "History of the Republic of Macedonia" in articles from the middle ages, when there was no "Republic of Macedonia" ? If so, it depends on the article in question — I don't believe we should be including the category in articles such as Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki — but I think that inclusion in articles such as Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization would be reasonably prudent. I don't quite understand why Category:History of the Republic of Macedonia was removed from Category:History of Macedonia, but it should probably be in there, as Category:History of England is in Category:History of the United Kingdom. - FrancisTyers · 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as the categories are concerned, I restored them as they were prior to yestedays intervention.   /FunkyFly.talk_  13:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notification

The intro image of the featured article Macedonia (terminology) has been nominated for Featured Picture (here). I would appreciate your comments. Thanks! •NikoSilver• 12:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some quotations

By 1944 however, Bulgaria was again the victim of a German defeat. Macedonia was restored to Yugoslavia, but old fears were aroused. For the local people remained obstinately Maceds. Not unnaturally there was great confusion. People who had been brought up as Bulgars were informed that they were Serbs--and did not blieve that they were either. Each country during its tenure had attempted with mixed success to sway the local population to its own outlook: I recalled a village near Skopje in 1935, where I met two brothers: one called himself a Bulgar, the other a Serb!

"You escaped?" "Yes. Some friends rescued me--we had IMRO members even among the warders. I escaped to Bulgaria. It is funny. In my lifetime I have been a Turk, a Bulgar and a Serb. I have been called a patriot or a terrorist, and now a Communist. And all the while I have been a Macedonian peasant. I still am!"

Newman, R. (1952) Tito's Yugoslavia (London : Robert Hale)

- Francis Tyers · 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)