157.228.x.x (talk | contribs) |
BalkanFever (talk | contribs) →June 2008: re |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
::What misuse of vandalism-template are you referring to? And please sign your posts in my talk page. --[[User:157.228.x.x|157.228.x.x]] ([[User talk:157.228.x.x#top|talk]]) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
::What misuse of vandalism-template are you referring to? And please sign your posts in my talk page. --[[User:157.228.x.x|157.228.x.x]] ([[User talk:157.228.x.x#top|talk]]) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::The one on Isavevski's talk page. BTW you're about to break 3RR. Calm down a bit. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:48, 13 June 2008
Wait, so you created an actual user account with a name based on your IP addresses? Genius. :D
Here's the routine:
Welcome!
Hello, 157.228.x.x, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! BalkanFever 01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
Welcome to the project! Looking forward to your ideas and active participation! I hope you'll enjoy editing for Wikipedia!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Warning
You know, you can do other things on wikipedia, for example try to improve the Greek articles rather than vandalise articles about MACEDONIAN people and events. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. I already warned the administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isavevski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Γελοίος ο τύπος (λιγουλάκι κολλημένος και 'συ μπρε) αλλά έχει ένα δίκιο. ;) Γιατί δε γράφεις περί της "εθνότητας" των Μακεδόνων και πώς οι Ελληνικές αντιλήψεις άλλαξαν, στο Ancient Macedonians; Βλέπω ότι έχεις υλικό. Thanks for the info btw. I had seen Malkin's book before; looks interesting. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Please remember this rule when your third edit today of Constantinople is, as I expect reverted. Breaking it could see you prevented from editing again. - Galloglass 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Everything is thoroughly explained in the talk page of the said article here. As I said, it was you who had removed long standing and cited (by highly reliable sources) pertinent material, therefore you carried the burden of proof and to build consensus in the talk page. Dispite that I have tried to accomodate you and provide clear and verifiable sources from reliable publishers/authors and to explain that we have a duty to report that "Constantinople" was the capital of the Ottoman Sultanate (Ottoman Empire). And by that name it was treated, in the English language (and not only) in academia, popular culture, media and elsewhere during the 16th up to 19th century, also widely during the best part of the 20th century, even up to the historical treatment of present-day historians and other published authors (21st century). --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually upon closer inspection I must say that it was User:Deipnosophista who was the first to remove the reference of Constantinople as the capital of the Ottoman Empire here. Nevertheless, you have removed that text yourself too, eventhough it was reintroduced by a spurious user. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
300 edits
My apologies if I was unclear in my comments. When you are making a point likely to inspire dissent, it is usually best to take the time to proceed tot he article discussion and resolve any issues beforehand. This is even more important in the case of FA articles, as they are supposed to be more stable than normal articles (they usually serve as templates for other articles seeking to emulate FA anf GA standards). t would be very helpful if you could take the time to seek a consensus in the article discussion before proceeding with an edit that has already been reverted by others. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, I really do. But I have followed that particular issue for some time now and I am engaging in the talk pages of pertinent articles. I do not have to repeat everything in every article, for the same "issue". An accurate summary, directing to the relevant sections and discussions, in the ...'edit summary box' is most sufficient, I think. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I am surmising that not all of the articles where these discussions are occurring are not GA or FA articles. If you are ironing the issue out in those places, could I impose upon you to perhaps wait until some conclusion is reached in those other places before posting a summary of that conclusion in the article discussion for 300? That way, we know that the matter has been hashed out in other venues, and there is consensus for a different view. I am concerned with the practice of reverting the article to look one way when others revert it back or otherwise, which de-stabilizes the article. I am not saying your view is wrong, but I am saying that changes in the face of dissent require discussion. Wait until that issue has substantial consensus before presenting it in a FA article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would also point out that you are coming pretty close to 3RR. You might wish to self-revert this, so as to avoid the appearance of edit-warring. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from and to be quite honest that was exactly the reason why I chose to engage in another talk page (not 300's). Plus, many interested editors where involved in that other article, so the chances to get some input were much higher. I was the one who edited out yesterday all that nonsense about plagiarism. The way it was worded implied that Warner and Bates did acknowledged copyright issues on par with Elliot Goldenthal's score "Titus". This is far from true. On that basis alone I had the "right" (in fact the obligation) to remove every single line, ignoring even the intext citations. Anyway there were no given sources for that with the exception of that non-english article/commend, published somewhere on the web, possibly talking about similarities, and that's that. I also knew (from day one, some 14 months ago) every single reference put forward regarding this "issue" in wikipedia and elsewhere. (Yes, I am fully aware about your efforts and long, frustating and often bitter discussions you had in this article). Mind you, there was some minor-edit-war going on between Bulgarian and Slav-Macedonian editors about the origins of a song, affecting the article. Now this and any other issues will be addressed elsewhere, leaving this FA "alone". If, in the near future pertinent, reliable and credible sources surface, then, simply we are going to address any issues in a NPOV way. As it stands though this plagiarism claim is just a non-issue. --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. (re 3RR) I do not wish to sound harsh but 'you choose a somewhat "polemic" way which, in fact, could affect the stability of the article. A simple click on my link and a few minutes to investigate my contributions and edit summaries would had spared us this minor-drama...
- Fair enough. If my way of bringing the matter to your attention was unfriendly, please accept my apology, for none was intended. I don't want you to leave the article "alone"; I just want to make sure the major issues are resolved fully before they are introduced in, thereby avoiding the nationalistic, petty nonsense that cluttered up the article last summer. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. My initial intention anyway, a couple of days back, was to move the discussion in the song's article so the stability of this FA would not be affected. That's what I've meant by leaving this FA "alone". I also like to apologize for not making myself clear earlier on and for any misunderstanding(s) I may have caused. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Slav-Macedonians? :S --Hegumen (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Er, what? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not you Arcayne, he refers to my choice of words, I suppose. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Er, what? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/No_stop_hand.png/30px-No_stop_hand.png)
- What misuse of vandalism-template are you referring to? And please sign your posts in my talk page. --157.228.x.x (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)