Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia

  • also nominating: All sub-pages (not individually tagged as yet, and project categories

This is sad, and unusual. Of course, there ought to be a WikiProject for Macedonia. But this freshly-founded one has taken off to an exceptionally bad start.

It was created in June by a neutral outsider, AWN2 (talk · contribs), but remained inactive until this month, when it was joined by Capricornis (talk · contribs), Strich3d (talk · contribs), INkubusse (talk · contribs), Makedonij (talk · contribs), Guitardemon666 (talk · contribs) and a few others. Since then, it still hasn't done anything real, except for plastering the unavoidable project banners all over the place like other projects too.

But what it really aims at is amply illustrated by its To Do List. At the top of the list of "articles needing URGENT attention" are those with "(edit wars/conflicts)", led by Ilinden Uprising and Yane Sandanski [1]. Exactly the articles on which the above users have been edit-warring most intensively of late, in favour of a Macedonian national POV. It also lists as "Work to be performed": "Replace FYROM with Republic of Macedonia" in as many articles as possible. (While I personally happen to agree that this would be a desirable outcome in the end, coordinating a push like this is certainly an unconstructive and combative attitude to a sensitive disputed area.) An attempt at removing the offending content was brusquely reverted twice ([2], [3]) with a less than friendly explanation ([4]).

Clearly, the intention here is to co-ordinate POV-pushing edit wars. This fits in with this project's usage of its article importance scale: the only articles listed currently as "top" or "high" importance are, again, Ilinden Uprising and Yane Sandanski, the national edit-warring hotspots.

All of this is not really surprising if you look at the new participants. Several of them have so far made a reputation not so much by their constructive article edits, but by their glaringly inappropriate political user pages ((ex.1, ex.2 (note the nazi flag used for Greece in the country list!), ex.3), their edit warring or their personal attacks on other users ([5]).

The last straw was what happened when a Greek user wanted to join the project. The project's self-appointed OWNer, Guitardemon, edit-warred to remove his name from the participant list ([6], [7]) and rudely told him that he couldn't join if he didn't edit in line with the project's preferences ([8]) and that he must be an "illiterate" trying "to cause trouble". I myself was also told I couldn't edit the project's pages as I was "not a member" (even when my name was on the list) ([9]).

In this talk message between the two project OWNers, the project is referred to as a group who togeter will "think of something" that will make members of other nationalities, in particular Greeks, "not happy" ([10], translation): clearly another reference to the intention of using the project for POV-coordination.

I don't see how allowing this group of editors to use Wikipedia space for their purposes has a potential of helping the project. Dismantle it, in hopes that a fresh start in a better spirit can be made some time later.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, or possibly userfy to one of the participants' userspaces. This is a good example of what WikiProjects are not for. A country WikiProject is not meant to represent the interests of its country, nor to act as a political party. And while a WikiProject may legitimately remove members if their conduct is seen as inappropriate, it does not have the right to prevent people from joining on the basis of them having the wrong nationality or political views. If this group of editors wants to co-ordinate their pro-Macedonian editing off-wiki, we can't stop them from doing so; likewise, I would not strongly object to them hosting a group for Macedonian nationalist editors in their own userspace. But WikiProjects belong to the whole community, and have a veneer of legitimacy/neutrality; as such, we need to ensure that they aren't used for promoting a POV. WaltonOne 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. El Greco (talk · contribs) 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WikiProjects should not be used to coordinate POV pushing and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground.--NetProfit 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - No project in any way, shape or form should be involved in POV pushing. John Carter 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Kill with fire, break in pieces, smash into the ground, block everyone within range. This is no more nor less than an edit-warrior's noticeboard for winning out in nationalist conflicts. Totally unacceptable. Moreschi Talk 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Walton One stated it most succinctly. — madman bum and angel 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this appears, more than anything, to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Edit War Coordination, and that's not at all acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and immediately relaunch under new management. Danny 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: sure, relaunch under new "management" should be welcome. I'm just not sure there'd be a suitable new management right now - our Macedonian user base is limited in number, and tends to be heavily politicised (sometimes understandably so, as they tend to be the victims also of POV-pushing factions from neighbouring sides.) If a new core group of users were found, we wouldn't actually need to technically delete the pages, just blank the "To Do" list and let people rewrite it. (I'd then retract this nomination.) But how would we prevent POV-pushing teams from taking control again? Ban some people from the WikiProject pages? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - precisely not what Wikiprojects are for. ELIMINATORJR 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and investigate other national noticeboards and projects for similar cases of WP:OWNing. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and follow up on the disciplinary action against Fut.Perf. who has been abusing his administrator standing to impose 'his way' of looking at things. Virtually all of his claims above have no merit whatsoever, and he is turning this whole thing into a big deal just because his ego was hurt. Let me address them one by one:
    • 'it still hasn't done anything real' - WRONG, look at the list of recent articles on the project. All of them have been created since the activation of this project
    • "articles needing URGENT attention" are those with "(edit wars/conflicts)" - I am not sure if the wording was a problem here, and that was changed after Fut.Perf. complained (and deleted stuff without discussion). This is not a 'call to arms' or for POV pushing, but simply what it says - these articles are being edited intensively right now and they need urgent attention.
    • ""Replace FYROM with Republic of Macedonia" in as many articles as possible" - firstly, I wrote "in ALL articles" not "in as many". I fail to see the least problem with this, as the task is beneficial to wikipedia and everybody. The page is simply used as the title says 'TO DO LIST' a place where you write things to be done, so that you don't forget about them. There is no POV, no edit warring, no nothing else involved in this.
    • "An attempt at removing the offending content was brusquely reverted twice " - WRONG - just by his choise of words "brusquely" Fut.Perf. reveals that this is not about the greater good of wikipedia, but about his hurt ego. I reverted his edits because he deleted valid sections of the project without EVER discussing them. That's why we have discussion pages. I commented on each revert, in a polite and factual manner, in the amount of space available in the 'edit summary', i would have written more, but there was no space, so I also wrote to Fut.Perf.'s talk page.
    • "Clearly, the intention here is to co-ordinate POV-pushing edit wars" - WRONG. Please point one instance where the project has been used to coordinate POV wars? Just because controversial articles are listed on the project as urgently needing attention doesn't mean that list has been used to 'coordinate POV'
    • "their glaringly inappropriate political user pages" - I fail to see how is this a reason for deleting a whole wikiproject. Take it up with the users if you think they are breaking any wikipedia rules on their user pages. Again Fut.Perf's bias and personal investment in this matter is shown.
    • "Guitardemon, edit-warred to remove his name from the participant list " - I am not familiar with this, but if it happened then it is the only valid point here, and has nothing to do with the project, but the user itself and it should be pursued in that way.
    • "I couldn't edit the project's pages as I was "not a member"" - your name was not on the list when I wrote that. And please try not to interpret it out of context. The main problem there is that you took it upon yourself to 'right all wrongs' and do mass deletions without discussing it with anybody first.
    • "the project is referred to as a group who togeter will "think of something" that will make members of other nationalities, in particular Greeks, "not happy" " - WRONG, you took imperfect translations out of context,yet again. Fut.Perf. has a long history of going ballistic over native language talk on user pages, just check his and mine talk pages. He has been wrong in all cases, going bananas about sentences that were just chit chat, and written in the manner of the everyday talk in the native country, but sound very harsh and rough when translated to English - purely cultural differences.
To summarize:
  • the project is a valid wikipedia group of able authors who use it for coordinating their efforts on particular topic.
  • There might have been few bad slips, all of them different user's personal stands, unrelated to the projects, but these were few and far in between, and do not negate all teh good work the project has been doing. Other wikipedia projects have not been immune to this.
  • Fut.Perf. is undertaking this action as a personal vendetta and abusing his admin standing and as such he should be sanctioned and his current claim thrown out as without any merit
  • The RoM wikiproject has bulgarian and greek members who will make sure no POV is published as they have done in the past (look at their contribs)
  • The emphasis here should be on educating the project members on wikipedia rules and processes and not antagonizing them by unilateral deletions like Fut.Perf. did, and did not show any good faith in trying to resolve this but has approached it from a position of power.
All in all, moves without any merit like this one especially from users like Fut.Perf. are unhelpful to the wikipedia community and just waste everybody's time. He has been reported to the administrators noticeboards. Capricornis 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see your meaning. In the above I am exposing how Fut.Perf. is abusing his adminship and taking up as a personal insult a wikiproject. there are no 'personal' attacks. Capricornis 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete per Walton One. - Ev 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and then nuke it from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure.) There ought to be some topic bans handed out, too. WikiProjects are not for organizing POV-pushing. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment – I don't think user...fication should be a possibility. This project needs to be terminated, not just transplanted into a different venue, sending a clear message that POV-pushing is unacceptable, whether it's coordinated or not. — madman bum and angel 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am baffled by the above comments. Can't you folks read? Can't you read my refutation of each and every Fut.Perf. arguments? His case holds no water whatsoever, he hasn't proven probable cause nor any of his claims are beyond reasonable doubt. He has exhibited conflicts of interests and personal bias. No judge in the world would allow something like this to even appear in court, let alone to go to trial. If he gets his way and this project gets deleted (not that a new one cannot be created within minutes), it would be a final proof of how much wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. Dixit Capricornis 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, it'd be proof that one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles was upheld: that Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is against this project as clearly, the other people involved in this discussion don't find your arguments as convincing as you do. Two final cents. Do try to be civil; dissenters are not necessarily illiterate. And recreating this WikiProject in its current form "within minutes" of its deletion would be most unwise. — madman bum and angel 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree with you. There is no consensus here. And 'head count' is not a proof of consensus, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion. As for my civility, please point out to exact examples where I wasn't such, so that I can see what you are talking about, since right now I have no idea. As for your suggestion about recreating it, please point out to the exact wikipedia policy which forbids this. thank you Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Having a WikiProject about Macedonia is a good thing. Having a WikiProject that is trying to impose/push a certain pov wrt Macedonia is an exceptionally bad thing. Delete this WikiProject, with no prejudice against the creation of a new, neutral and comprehensive WikiProject afterwards. This reminds me of the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia of two years ago. AecisBrievenbus 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. As the neutral outsider who established the WP, it saddens me to see that the WP is being used as a tool in edit wars. I established the WP with the aim of improving the quality of articles relating to the Republic of Macedonia (especially the sporting teams, which I was editing at the time!), as there seemed to be no forum to coordinate RoM-related articles in a similar way to other nations. The need for a Macedonian WP therefore remains. I think it is unavoidable (and not necessarily a bad thing) that Macedonians and Greeks -- with strong views on the controversial matters -- would take an interest in the WP. However, the problem is not that the issues arise, but how they are handled. I note that some of the more provocative edits and headings on the WP have since been removed, and I think that is a good sign, and evidence that the WP can be 'saved'. I would also be happy for a note to be included on the front page to the effect that the WP should not be used as a tool in edit wars, links to articles/policies on NPOV, etc. I think there is no need to delete the project -- deleting the project will simply defer the controversy for another time, so why not take on this issue and resolve it amicably? (Yes, I know, we should now all link hands and sing Kumbaya ;-)) AWN AWN2 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this sort of thing is why Wikipedia has a blocking policy, and it should be used. If admins aware of this have a COI they can approach admins outside the situation to conduct a review. Most of the things being described amount to disruption of some form. The project can probably be rescued and should remain to coordinate edits in the ROM. Just my 2c, but if the consensus is delete I won't stand in its way. Orderinchaos 16:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and police. I was about to suggest to delete and salt, as I cannot share the nominator's optimism for a "fresh start", since I am almost positive that there won't be any user from that particular ethnicity who will not strictly follow the doctrines of Macedonism; at least I have never met anyone yet here (and neither has he, I'm sure). Well, there's always hope, I presume, so salting may be indeed excessive. In any case, this is an example of what WikiProjects should NOT be, and it should be deleted, but I recognize the necessity per AWN2, and I am willing to give a second chance. I sincerely hope that our administrators are capable of policing the content (if not, then I'll change my vote). NikoSilver 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Lost hope after carefully examining the links of the nominator and changed my vote. I also support topic bans per Videmus Omnia, and I am really disappointed that the community did not manage to block the recent participants to the project before they manage to create it! Tolerance has its limits. NikoSilver 21:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It seems that tolerance has the limits you put on it, eh? I am much more disappointed with the velocity that Greek and Bulgarian editors jump at any opportunity to damage the Macedonian community and standing here Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete, salt - after reading Capricornis's response to the nomination it seems clear that this is an edit warrior's notice board for macedonians. --Rocksanddirt 22:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I wish I had your 'clarity'. Lucky you! Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • userfy — I have observed a WikiReality: Where there is war, people will fight. You are not going to stop people from fighting. If they want to organize for the purpose of fighting, we should encourage them to do it public rather than off-Wiki. It's way POV, so put it in userspace.  Randall Bart   Talk  05:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, Not Applicable: Further to my previous post above, I also note that WP RoM does not seem to qualify under any of the criteria for deletion. I think there is some scope to try and POV-proof the WP per some of the comments on this page, but I think the request for deletion should fail or be withdrawn on the basis that it does not meet the criteria. What do others think? The solution to this might simply be that WP members and editors in general should "just try and get along"... Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya... ;-) AWN AWN2 07:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd reply that, even if it were so, this is a textbook case for WP:COMMON and WP:IAR. NikoSilver 09:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • So ignore all rules if no rule applies? Again, rules seem to apply only when it suits you. I am sorry, but I must disagree with such random applications Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • To AWN: I can understand you'd be unhappy about your initiative going to waste, and be assured I'd be most happy if some mode of continuing the project in a more constructive way could be found. But about your argument above, the "criteria" you quote are explicitly not exhaustive criteria, so just because this particular case isn't mentioned there doesn't mean it couldn't be deleted. Initiatives in Wikipedia space get deleted if the community feels they aren't helpful to the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually AWN's are completely valid and plausible. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion you will see that "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page". You had a problem with content on this page, the To Do list, neither that, nor your problems with some of the users are valid reasons for deletion of the COMPLETE project. The community here seems to be far from agreeing with you. Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete. The creators of this site have misunderstood the purpose and direction of Wikipedia. They are confusing it with a moderated blog where membership is by prior approval and limited to like-minded persons. When editors are excluded for failing to, "edit the pages of interest to the Wikiproject in accordance with the teamwork page", then one must say, sorry friends time to close the shop. Politis 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I invited you to give your opinion on this deletion because I was interested in your opinion. I can understand that you are disappointed because of the trouble you had in joining the project, that is unfortunate and was wrong. You are wrong about the owners of the project though, I consider the only project owner AWN who created it, and I am sure he would have no objection to your membership. The actions of a single MEMBER (not owner) of the project, however, cannot be grounds for deletion of the whole project Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt; Wikipedia has no place for a Ministry of Truth! A "wikiproject" whose sole purpose is to take ownership of a group of pages in order to force edits to conform to a party line is a monstrosity whose head needs to come off, now. Maybe some day the topic will become less volatile and this wikiproject could be restarted as something else than a slimy hate nest. Now is not it. — Coren (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest then that you propose for deletion the Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Armenian, Turkish and all other national projects from countries with long and controversial history. The thing you mention are rare incidents and exceptions, not a rule. The rule is collaboration and organization for betterment of wikipedia Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep – I think the majority of the people in this debate are missing the main point – having a project about the Republic of Macedonia is a wonderful thing! We have here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greece, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Croatia, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albania etc, so why the Republic of Macedonia should be an exclusion? Other thing is if someone of the project participants said or did something wrong - that is not the reason to delete the whole project! There are a lot of mechanisms here on WP to improve the things, at least, we can discuss with those participants (there are more convincible methods as well, but hopefully they would be not necessary). Don’t forget that the Macedonian editors here on WP (including me) are in a considerable smaller number than the editors from the neighboring countries (Greece, Bulgaria) and their edits are usually undone if they disagree with the official policy of those neighbors (you can even regularly notice that the Bulgarian editors are reverting things in Greek favor and in opposite), so I cannot see, at the end, what is the problem if the Macedonian editors create a To do list about the articles they are interested in and where they are literally victims of the far more numbered editors from the neighboring countries. The saddest thing is that this MfD comes as a result of an argue between Fut.Perf and Capricornis about the To do list of that project:[11], [12] where (see the second link), the Fut.Perf (admin) user concludes that when Capricornis is willing to bring the case to a larger audience, the case would continue at MfD. I really cannot understand why, because the To do list is supposedly wrong, we should delete the whole project!? So, to summarize, keep the project and try to calm the things around the Macedonia related articles, ideally by contributions of neutral editors outside the Balkan region. MatriX 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
REPLY:
  • MatriX, you seem to be in favor of reason rather than nationalistic ranting. Your user page is a pleasure to read. In this spirit, you probably appreciate that this site is dominated by an arguably irredentist ideology that actually goes against your own reasoned attitude.
  • Regarding editors of the Greek project. I can assure you there are many disagreements between editors not least over Cyprus (I have been 'accused' of being pro-Turkish). Also, disagreements between so-called 'Greek' editors and 'Bulgarian' and 'Turkish' editors tend to be resolved with far less acrimony (I hope!).
Politis 10:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply:
  • Wikiprojects Greece, Croatia and Albania exist, albeit not aimed at "coordinating efforts to counter vandalism".
  • About half of the contributors have made some hideous racist comments at some point.
  • Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and being a minority ethnic group as you say is irrelevant. Edits are accepted on merit, not on belonging to some ethnicity.
ForeignerFromTheEast 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Some people might find it funny that you are so vocal for deletion of this project and yet you joined it early on (and no one contested your joining, besides the fact that you are a Bulgarian and fervent fighter for the 'Bulgarian Cause' in wikipedia articles about Macedonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ForeignerFromTheEast). Editing on wikipedia is open and free to everybody, it is not a privilege since then it is assumed that someone is in charge of granting that privilege. If some people have expressed inappropriate views then there are proper mechanisms in wikipedia to deal with that, as you well know judging by the frequency of your complaints on admin's talk pages about alleged Macedonian editors "POV pushing" and "vandalism" Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Free speech. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Absolute no case for "guaranteed edits for an ethnicity" can be made. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and break out the topic bans per Videmus Omnia and NikoSilver (after a review of the diff's). Listing all of the relevant reasons might take some time, so I'll stick to massive, overwhelming violations of WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. (No prejudice against recreation though, in the event that someone wants to redo this in a civil fashion.) --Bfigura (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Caution or Fold under some other WikiProject. As the nominator says, a WikiProject on the topic would be acceptable; however, we're apparently trying to use this deletion discussion as a tool for user conduct enforcement, and that doesn't do. So I suggest that we keep the project now and tell the alleged or proven misbehaviourants to wisen up, or else. (Or else? well, WP:DR is this way.) XfD shouldn't be used for user conduct problems, and in my opinion deletion of the battlegrounds isn't a necessary step in enforcing such things anyway, if the topic of the WikiProject is plausible. Battlefields don't get deleted after the war either. See? In this picture we have a hill with grass, not a giant pit. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: What positive contributions have emerged from this WikiProject so far ? Has it generated anything that would compensate for its current misuse, as described by Fut. Perf. ? Anything that would merit the time-consuming dispute resolution process instead of simply cutting the Gordian Knot ? - Regards, Ev 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer: I still believe the main aim of the project is to increase the quality of articles related to the Republic of Macedonia and Macedonians (as stated in the intro). I reviewed it and I think the project contents are properly related to the country the project is devoted to (Macedonian songs, universities, singers, revolutionaries, Macedonian geographic terms – rivers, spas etc). I believe this project will be very helpful in the future to coordinate the interested editors in editing the articles related to the Republic of Macedonia. It is a new project and now we want to delete it without giving it a chance. However, I still fail to see what is the problem with the To do list. All topics listed there are within the realm of interest of the Macedonian editors. The dispute begun when Future Perfect at Sunrise made the following deletion of the list: [13]. Note that he (or she) removed almost all links from the To do list (commenting that the list is used for POV pushing). I fail to see why the links about the Ilinden uprising or Jane Sandanski are disputable, they are all related with the Macedonian history. Ilinden uprising is considered as the greatest Macedonia independence movement in the history. See, for example, how Britannica describes the Ilinden uprising:[14]. The problem is that the Bulgarian editors are interested too (they have different view on the matter), the same thing is happening with the Greek editors and, as a result, conflicting situations happen very frequently in the Macedonia related articles. Moreover, the Bulgarian and Greek editors are far more numbered than the Macedonian (see for example the history list of the Ilinden uprising article: [15], if you carefully review the edits, you would notice that some 40 edits of the last 50 are made by Bulgarian editors like Jingiby, Dimitar Navorski, NetProfit and ForeignerFromTheEast, I noticed just one Macedonian editor in the last 50 edits – Strich3d). It looks to me that pushing pro-Bulgarian POV and pro-Greek POV is a normal thing, but pushing pro-Macedonian POV in the articles where it is the most expected thing to see is wrong? Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not agree with this blanking of the list without discussing it with other members of the project (at the time FPAS wasn't project member at all). I still think the To do list issue cannot be a reason for deletion of the whole project. MatriX 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer Look at all the articles created since the creation of this project. They are all listed under "Recent Articles" on the project page. Unfortunately, what MatriX is saying about the numerical superiority of the Greek and Bulgarian editors in wikipedia is sad but true. As long as things are decided by the "number of votes" or manpower, Macedonians, and other small nations will lose and will get underrepresented and misrepresented at wikipedia.
    Capricornis 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are we making this Greek/Bulgarian vs. Macedonian? Is there a point why we are inciting this discussion, Matrix/Capricornis? This is what we don't need, and is why this WP is up for deletion. El Greco(talk) 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.