User talk:Avg

Archives
– December 2006 – January 2008 – May 2008

Please see Discussion page of Florina for a response. Now as I said I m new over here but I ve been reading Wikipedia for a couple of years and I have noticed that there are a few users who persistently try to add foreign names (mostly Slavic, Turkish) in Greek places on the grounds of Minority or other issues. I think this is very serious. I dont know why they are doing it (i suspect) but frankly I dont care (for the reason). The thing is this has got to stop. Those people must understand that a serious Encyclopedia (have a look at Encarta, Britannica) will NEVER add in the lead a foreign name right beside the original spoken official name. They could add it in the history section for instance: Samos during the Ottoman Times was called Sisam, but not Samos or Sisam in Turkish, because this is funny and creares wrong impressions. The reader will obviously ask himself: Is Samos or Sisam Greek or Turkish? Or are there Lots of Turks there, or is it like Cyprus?

Anyway please take a look at Komotini, Kos and Rhodes. Things must get fixed.ThanksAeg2008 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know all too well about these articles... this is why I'm pushing for a cross-Balkan consensus. --   Avg    22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that User:Aeg2008 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Mywayyy. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I know this (I've already commented on the selective diligence of some admins).--   Avg    14:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I try to reopen old wounds, but the situation persists aided by this dubious guideline about naming conventions. It is common in Greek towns and places, yet I don't see any of this in articles regarding Instanbul for example. Has this issue been resolved in such a way? We both know that wikipedia can be far from neutral sometimes, but since you have done so much work on the subject, can you give me a heads-up? Alfadog777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.48.207 (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOSMAC, etc. While I think I have seen WP:MOSMAC before, it hasn't been for awhile and I did not see it directly prior to my request. It was my recollection that "Republic of Macedonia" was used carte blanche; clearly, that is not the case. I never (and still have not) saw any discussion at User talk:Parsecboy, nor do I have that page on my watchlist. Please respond on my talk if you need any further discussion. Thank you for your note. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2008 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Hi, the original version said "Βούλγαρους" and that was later substituted with the word "βάρβαρους", not the other way around.--   Avg    20:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

The phrasing, "Y was substituted for X", indicates that "X" was employed first and "Y", next; this phrasing will deliver to the reader the meaning you intend. Contrarily, the phrasing, "X was substituted with Y", is not a native construction and does not clearly indicate anything, but could (instead of simply confusing the reader) imply that "Y" was employed first and "X", second. Firstorm (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Γειά! Βασικά πρώτος έγω δημιούργησα τη σελίδα με τον ύμνο και τις μεταφράσεις. Σε αυτό με το original version έχεις δικαιο, αλλά νομίζω οτι είναι πιο βασικό να παρουσιαστεί όπως χρησημοποιείται τώρα, άλλωστε χτυπάει πολύ άσχημα στον άσχετο ξένο αναγνώστη η πρώτη του έκδοση. Μας δυσφημεί σαν λαό. Παντώς σίγουρα θα πρέπει να αναφερθεί και πως το τραγουδούσαμε παλιά... Ποιά είναι η αποψή σου; --makedonas (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You belong to the ethnos Macedonôn then, don't you? Moving the article has not made it less ambiguous, so why should we use a longer title? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have noticed your messages concerning the diaspora under this term. Φυσικά, δεν περιμένω θαύματα, ούτε διακατέχομαι από φρούδες ελπίδες ότι σε ένα κυριαρχούμενο από την αμερικανική πολιτική θέμα θα δούμε κάποια αλλαγή στη Wikipedia. Όσο οι ΗΠΑ δεν είχαν αναγνωρίσει τα Σκόπια με το συνταγματικό τους όνομα, ο όρος "Republic of Macedonia" επιβαλλόταν στη Wikipedia. Έπειτα, αργά αλλά σταθερά αυτό άρχισε να αλλάζει, για να συμπλεύσει με την επίσημη αμερικανική εξωτερική πολιτική. But since no Wikipedian can ever seriously try to disassociate the term "Macedonian" from the Greeks, there is much potential in created a specific article concerning the Macedonian (Greek) diaspora. There is much information available on the net and bibliography. Pan-Macedonian assosiations inside the wider category of Greek diasporan assosiations also exist. Also, there are numerous precedents of separate diaspora articles for sub-ethnic groups in Wikipedia itself; in fact, there is not a clear policy concerning diaspora articles and categories in Wikipedia. There is the Greek Cypriot diaspora (as part of the Greek diaspora), there is Cypriot and Belgian diasporas (in the form of categories), irrespectively of ethnic group, just referring to a country, and Basque diaspora despite the fact that no independent Basque country exists. Also, there is the category Venetian diaspora as part of the Italian diaspora. I could create an article about the (Greek) Macedonian diaspora withing a few days. However, this should be renamed to Slav/RoM/FYRO Macedonian diaspora (or something like that) to avoid confusion. Then, a category "Macedonian diaspora" shall be created to include these diasporas as a regional reference, just as the categories: Scandinavian diaspora, European diasporas and African diaspora.

Η Wikipedia είναι οι χρήστες της. Όσο είμαστε εδώ μέσα δεν πρόκειται να αφήσουμε να πέσει τίποτα κάτω. In terms of your suggestion, Greek Macedonian diaspora is at least double the size of the Slavic Macedonian diaspora and yet the article on "Macedonian diaspora" is hijacked by the latter. This is beyond ridiculous, yet this is the reality we face in here. Since some spin doctors have now made "disambiguation" their centre of the universe, having Greek Macedonian equivalents for every Slavic Macedonian article seems to be the solution. It shouldn't be this way if people were reasonable, but common sense is not common. And you know the drill, usual suspects will AfD every new article they see, however if the content is right, then the article will stay. --   Avg    18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I will have time, it will be the first arcticle, after a long time, I will create in Wikipedia. If a disambiguation page is what some want, let them have it; Greek equivalent for every Slavic, but not Greek Macedonian for every "Macedonian". --Hectorian (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will help as much as I can. I can't fail to notice there is a rather hostile climate against anything Greek Macedonian here. This is the place where Macedonians (Greek) was deleted (sorry, merged to Macedonia (Greece)), but Aegean Macedonians is still here.--   Avg    21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that one day, but it was too late, (since I was away for almost a year). --Hectorian (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion there, (Talk:Aegean Macedonians#Ahem...)is leading to a review for deletion. After we settle the linguistic map issue, we can then move and all work there.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avg,

I don't believe we've talked before but since you've been dealing with FYROM/Greece related discussions for awhile here I thought I might come to you for some advice. I made some points on the Macedonian naming dispute talk page. I was wondering if you could please provide some input into the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the points. --Crossthets (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crossthets, their leaders have indeed said those things, but the relevance they have to the current situation is another thing. It can certainly be mentioned that FYROM's position has shifted towards a more hardline (and untenable) position from previous years, since nationalist Gruevski took power. However Greece's position has shifted as well from an equally untenable position (no Macedonia in the name) to a softer one (Macedonia with a geographical qualifier). If you remember 15 years ago, Athens were the hardliners and Skopje were making concessions, now Athens are making concessions and Skopje are intransigent. There's much to say about missed opportunities to get over this annoying issue once and for all.--   Avg    18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here Avg is we know about those quotes and events.... but most neutrals don't. (including HR 300 and 356 which are also noticeably missing from the article) I think showing verifiable evidence of this sort in the naming dispute article puts into focus that FYROM nationals often contradict themselves when they make claims about their own ethnic identity (and how it ends up in acts of irredentism and hostility towards Greeks) This is the primary issue here... not the name dispute which is simply one facet of a jumble of ethnic problems they are experiencing.

Why this matters?

What I don't think many people fully appreciate is even if the name issue is resolved (or stays unresolved)... . the real issue... FYROM ultra-nationalist claims they are related to ancient Macedonians.... will have no reason not to continue to fester indefinitely. It seems very plausible that knowing they are primarily Slavic in origin, speak a Slavic dialect, showed up a thousand years too late for Macedon, and have 2.5 million other Greek Macedonians right next door... will continue to drive their insecurities about their ethnic identity. This will in turn encourage more acts of irredentism and hostility... which in turn will continue to destabilize the region further (including parts of Bulgaria and Albania eventually). --Crossthets (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Gligorov's quotes, this was probably the reason some people tried to assassinate him. Nationalists today even go as far as saying he was no true Macedonian. I'm well aware that outside Wikipedia there's plenty of the ridiculous claims regarding the Slavomacedonians origins, thankfully though they're still regarded as fringe theories here. If, however, you find any article even remotely suggesting that Slavic Macedonians have anything to do with the Ancient Macedonians, it is obviously the right thing to remove such claims. Regarding your last comments, I may agree with them, however it would be better if they weren't used in talk pages in Wikipedia since they are rather forum-related and people don't care at all for forum-related discussions (in fact they will use it against you). --   Avg    22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are currently busy still writing a modern narrative. It is only a matter of time before they start writing an ancient one. My guess is you are just a little more diplomatic and less direct than I :) but it's nice to see you retain your editor integrity and don't walk in lockstep with me just because I am Greek. I'm not sure what comment you think "someone" might try to use against me in this instance. However, if at any time you feel some particular point isn't verifiable or could be worded better please feel to elaborate with specifics. As far as I am aware, barring the occasional unintentional error, nearly everything I say regarding FYROM/Greek matters is factual. I typically even check FYROM sources to confirm they acknowledge the fact too. (although of course they weigh issues differently). --Crossthets (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Avg. That article ("Aegean Macedonia" and Macedonians) is just...τραβηγμένο απ'τα μαλλιά. Παραβιάζει πολλούς "κανόνες" της εγκυκλοπαίδειας, κυρίως το MOSMAC. I say we call a deletion review on it, leaving the probability of it surviving with only changing the title. (If we wait to resolve the map issue first, we will never fix this one.) What do you think?? --Michael X the White (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree both articles violate MOSMAC. However a lot of people try to render MOSMAC irrelevant (perhaps not a coincidence). As you can see there is already a "rejected" tag on the top of the page. I've already AfDed Aegean Macedonians and this partially cost me a 2-month topic ban because I was "tendentious". The result? Mass "keep" votes from ethnic Macedonians and we only reached "no consensus". The exact same thing will happen to every article they create. And no I do not agree this is solved with a name change, since the content is a blatant WP:POVFORK. And we'll see even more POV forks as we go along (see this new baby Ethnic Macedonian refugees from Greek Civil War, a POV Fork of Political refugees of the Greek Civil War and Child refugees of the Greek Civil War). In a perfect world, these articles would be deleted immediately or at least any useful information they might have would be merged to the proper objective article, however, in the real world, no admins take action and these articles are left standing (and ridiculing any notion that this is an encyclopedia) for ages.--   Avg    16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100000% with you. I proposed the probability of survival with only name change, because we may also need to give something to achieve something. I see the whole problem with these articles. Shouldn't we, however, give it another chance?? I think the team that developed in the map issue can also achieve a lot in all these articles too.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for the concern for that barnstar!! I just leave it there as other stuff!) Still, what 're we going to do about those "Aegean" articles?? --Michael X the White (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i dont really see any more "splinter" articles which could come off Aegean Macedonians?. The article is well sourced and the Ethnic Macedonian refugees from Greek Civil War has a wider variety of sources. And very few (<5) are from Ethnic Macedonian sources. PMK1 (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses data for Greeks and labels Greeks as "Macedonians". We know the drill, this has been the case for decades now. So the figures might be right, but they do not refer to "Macedonians".--Avg (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really? Many macedonian sources put the figure of refugees at over 200,000, greeks put the figure of "kidnapped children" and other communists in general at a much lower figure (<50,000). The facts are that many of the refugees were in fact ethnic macedonians and today they make up populations in the countries to which they were evacuated. Anyway if you read some non greek history you will realise that the territory occupied by the KKE in the closing stages of the war was the north-west region of greek Macedonia (florina, edessa, kostur) which in the 1940's was primarily settled by slav macedonians, or slavophones or whatever you want to call them. I do not feel like getting into a debate atm. I will approach an administrator about the issue. PMK1 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably wanted to say ethnic Macedonian sources, because Greek Macedonian sources claim that almost all of them were Greeks. Here's the situation: The ethnic Macedonians story is just a peripheral story of the great drama that was the Greek Civil War. The real issue was the exodus of communists and their sympathisers because of the McCarthy-like climate that existed in Greece after the war. Your government and historians take this completely out of context and build a fictional story about the "exodus" of ethnic Macedonians because this kind of drama sells for internal purposes. Some ethnic Macedonians did flee Greece (among the tens of thousands of non-ethnic Macedonians), but it was because they had fought with the communists, not because they were ethnic Macedonians. Regarding you approaching an administrator be my guest, I've done it many times myself and it always ends with the phrase "this is a content dispute".--Avg (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need information on Antonio Fountoulakis. He left the US owing people millions. Your website is terrible. There is no logic to it. I have lived in Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.203.155 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avg, your signature (pale blue on dark blue) is very hard to read and probably impossible for many people with visual problems (contrast). Per WP:SIG#Appearance and color, could you please change your signature to something with higher contrast? Fram (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted it altogether. It was a nice present from User:NikoSilver (and actually his very first from his famous Signature Shop) which I'd prefer to keep but, well.--Avg (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire article that is so absurdly offbase I recommend it should be either flagged for deletion or written. I am in the process of cleaning it up in the meantime for reasons I've outlined on the talk page but I'd appreciate your participation if you have time.

Also do you know how to add the following disclaimer to the head of the Aegean Macedonians article (another one-sided communist/FYROM POV fest)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (October 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (October 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying for the last two weekends to read the WP:Deletion review (that is relevant in this case), but my browser (Windows Internet Expl. 8 Beta, I don't know why I downloaded it) cannot support that long pages and so everytime I tried, the browser only collapsed. Please, if you can, do not improve the article but try to nominate it for deletion review, for reasons stated in another section above.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you are going to put it up for deletion you should at least make some mention of it on the articles talk page. PMK1 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the notification to all people in the edit history but will do that as well.--Avg (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the change you made to Browns article, changing it from Scottish to British nationality. I dont disagree with the change, but the trouble is whilst some articles list people as British many others list their nationality as Scottish or English etc. I would rather see them all listed as British which is there legal nationality or as a compromise Scottish and British etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did this user give you a reason why he is using two names? I just noticed your message on his talk page. [1] --AW (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason he offered is that he has different usernames per the Wiki he participates and by mistake he kept using his Spanish one in the English Wiki and that in any case this is not a sockpuppet account since it's not hidden. I would still prefer he chose one of course.--Avg (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good prediction. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Move of the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia by User:ChrisO and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you object to the current name of the country article?--Patton^t/c 12:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is ambiguous and because there is no "primary" topic. And more important, because ChrisO's actions are based on his (erratic) interpretation of guidelines, while WP:CONSENSUS is a policy.--Avg (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ChrisO was not simply a random "bold" move nor a move by a passing-by, uninvolved administrator. It was a carefully planned and premeditated move, by a heavily biased editor, with the objective of acting as a fait accompli." of course it was carefully planned, but he wasn't acting in bad faith. He was moving the article to where he thought it should go.--Patton^t/c 22:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patton123, allow me to form my own opinion on ChrisO's motives. I will expand on the Evidence phase of the arbitration.--Avg (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if someone could search back and find who and on what grounds had renamed the article to "Republic of Macedonia" 6-7 years ago. Also, the identity of the administrator who had locked the article to that name. I have been trying to find these, but I'm relatively new to wikipedia and haven't been able to so far. --Radjenef (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give some input on this issue. I hope you aren't getting beaten over the head with this issue.

Points:

• The name Macedonia should be a directed toward the article on the region or the disambiguation page. Like Ireland, Britain, China, Georgia, and America for at least as long as long as the naming dispute is unresolved.
• The name Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia (Country) should be the primary name of the Country's article.

Justification:

• The Republic of Macedonia gets it's name from the Region of Macedonia. The Region of Macedonia is not only older, it encompasses the Country and should therefore have naming primacy. Having the reverse implies that the Country has a more legitimate claim to the name.
• The only thing that can override this logic is an international agreement that resolves the dispute in favor of the Country. That is something to be decided by the involved countries, not anyone in Wikipedia.

EDG161 (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you cordially to please retract this statemtent; "User:PMK1 called User:Heracletus (or rather his village) Grecoman" [2]. In no way did I call Heracletus a "Grecoman", nor did I label "his/her" village a "Grecoman" one. I do not know the user nor his background. I will state again in no way did speculate about the users ethnicity nor his ethnic background. My statement was in relation to another topic altogether. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heracletus has identified himself in your page as being from Macedonia and inferred having a knowledge of Slavic languages. So you knew that. --Avg (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually his apparent lack of knowledge was what I was commenting on. You know that I clearly did not call him a Grecoman and was refering to something else. The only other possible word would have been "Patriachists", in future I will use it to label ethnically non-Greek peoples of a Greek national persuasion. I do not regret using the G word, however I did not label Heracletus one, my request still stands. PMK1 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not even reply if you "do not regret" using the G word. --Avg (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the instance when I asked you that question. As for the reference to those villages, I have no regrets. I hope that is cleared up for you. PMK1 (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding evidence to Macedonia 2. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their evidence to 1,000 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators. In addition, I delinked a few of you headers. Links in headers can disrupt screen readers.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KnightLago, I'll cut some of the prose since I have some more evidence to add. I may also refer to other people's evidence if this is allowed.--Avg (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In your evidence section, you use "fYRoM side of the dispute" to refer to the side that supported the name use of the term fYRoM, not the POV of people from the republic. Could you clarify it somewhere because it is a little bit confusing? Great job by the way! :) --Radjenef (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll refactor the statement anyway to meet the space requirements. However probably tomorrow, Saturday night is coming and I also have a life outside Wikipedia :-)--Avg (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move your evidence section near the top by exchanging positions between my section and yours please by all means do! You have my full permission to make the switch. You've been around longer, you know the way things played out chronologically better than I do and you do a great job presenting it. I believe your section deserves to be next to ChrisO's :-) --Radjenef (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... Do you think it would be helpful to add Futute Perfect's use of obscene language [3] to the list of evidence? Have a look at the edit summary. Perhaps a diff along with the English translation? --Radjenef (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If only this was the only instance he did that...--Avg (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but I' d like your input on something. Are we in an open season for Greeks/ pro Greek position users? I mean, reading the /Workshop I see that there is a general attitude of " We don't need them, they cause us problems". There wasn't even understanding of the malignancy of the practice of ethnic profiling, not to mention condemning it. In fact, it is accepted as evidence in an attempt to support a generic ban on all Greek IPs. Especially the user Taivo is against anything in general and particular that a Greek/ pro Greek user might post. Most of the times, without bothering to state really why. They accuse Greeks of walling, while they are actually doing exactly that. Arguments of pro Greek users are dismissed. Are the Arbitrators going to act in a similar fashion? Because then, we are just wasting our lives here in front of monitors and the NPOV view of Wikipedia is just a scant dream. Also, is there an estimate of the time Arbitration is going to take? When can we expect a proposed solution? RegardsAlfadog777 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alfadog777, this matter is now referred to the highest level of dispute resolution that exists in Wikipedia. Let the Arbitrators study all the evidence, all the proposals in the workshop and the general behaviour of all parties. I trust their judgment and I will abide by their final decision.--Avg (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am quickly approaching the point where I am going to block both you and Future Perfect at Sunrise for disruption. I strongly suggest that you both stop commenting on each other. Both on pages related to the arbitration case and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Arguing with each other on the talk pages is pointless. It will not change the outcome of arbitration, and may in fact hurt your case in the eyes of the Arbitrators. Please add your evidence, your proposed decision, and let the Arbitration Committee handle the rest. You should consider this your only warning. I am leaving this same note for Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happily accepting your request. You will not see from now on a single comment from me in any talk page addressed to this person. However, please allow me the right to reply to any of his future posts, should he ignore your suggestion.--Avg (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting here, on FP's page, and the evidence talk pages. I've already had enough of the sordid behavior, from many parties on this case. I strongly suggest everyone shape up very quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is precisely what we're talking about. Even if that was FPAS, it has two totally non-disruptive edits. You're blocked for 72 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what is worth, I never referred to the edits, which were of course non-disruptive, I referred to the creation of the sockpuppet per se, and the text that is posted on the User page. I maintain that they are a violation. --Avg (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of an obvious alt account, that makes a whopping total of two edits, both of which are completely non-controversial, is not disruption as you claim, but saying so is disruptive and inflammatory. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, it is my very firm belief that the sock was created as a direct violation of WP:POINT. Also please note the irony on the sock's user page about the "sun". The sun is the Vergina Sun and Greece's official opinion is ridiculed and discredited. This is "stirring up controversy" per WP:SOCK and to my mind it equals disruption. No he did not make disruptive edits, I never alleged so, it is what he says in the User page that it is extremely controversial and disruptive.--Avg (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your statement is that the offending material was on the userpage. It is very hard to see a userpage as being disruptive of the broader conversation. Ultimately, it entails looking at the user page, which is a specific, voluntary action, which means the only way it could be disruptive is if someone were to take the step of looking at the userpage. I'm not saying you may not have a point, but it isn't that strong of one. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John I agree with you. Yes, it is not "actively" disruptive, it is "passively" disruptive, if I may. Someone can find the offensive material and, well, feel offended. Is this a violation of WP:SOCK or not? Can a user create an alt account with clearly offensive material in the User page and get away with it just because he didn't make any offensive edits? I might ask for a clarification at WT:SOCK when I get back. As a minimum this is a WP:UP#NOT violation, since it is not allowed to have polemical statements in any user page. Anyway, I'm afraid I'm somewhat restricted from supporting my view for the next 72 hours. --Avg (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People can create socks as long as they don't use them to edit war and to double vote. As for making a point with a username you should understand that "WP:POINT" doesn't refer to that. You pretty much don't have a case, take a big breath in, let it out, calm yourself... continuing on this losing line will be bad for yourself. man with one red shoe 12:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will not change my line of argumentation. Trust me, I have prepared quite extensively for this Arbitration. I have read and reread the Wikipolicies, have a quote from the policy or guideline for every single diff I present as evidence and will respond in detail to every question I'm asked. So my "losing line" did not just occur in one night. Although I have always been on the receiving end, I do accept my share of participation in the havoc of the last days, so I will lower my tone a bit. Going back to the sock issue above, I will put this in the Proposed Principles and I do not think that the Committee will disagree that creating a sock which displays polemical statements is not a violation. This is pretty much impossible. Certainly, the level of disruption might be debated, but not the violation itself. Anyway, more when I get back. --Avg (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want anyone to add the evidence to the page before your block gets lifted, let me know and I will post it there myself. I've got your talk page marked, and you can send me e-mail as well if you want. Just maybe try to tone down the language a bit, OK? John Carter (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, look what he did since yesterday. He removed from his page a warning from an ArbCom Clerk discrediting an official warning and the Clerk's opinion as "spurious" and "unsubstantiated"[4]. He also continues to throw vile against me, labeling me "the worst offender" and believing he is "vindicated"(!!!)[5]. He thinks he has won! Is this a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality or not? He simply refuses to acknowledge any error from his part altogether. Now these two alone would have got anyone else blocked. He has already two warnings and nobody touches him even if he ignores and discredits official warnings from the ArbCom and posts inflammatory comments about a user who cannot answer since he's blocked. I plan to add these diffs in my evidence, but I would expect I wouldn't need to. I got banned for claiming he violated WP:SOCK and WP:POINT (which he did). He's still there continuing the discrediting and the intimidation and he still refers to myself. This is simply unfair. It is unfair.--Avg (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair or not (and I do believe that in this case you are partly wrong), have in mind this motto: 'Ο,τι δε σε σκοτώνει σε κάνει πιο δυνατό.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Καλημέρα

Θέλω να βοηθήσω τα άτομα (editors) που ασχολούνται με το θέμα της Μακεδονίας. Με ποιον να έρθω σε επαφή και με ποιόν τρόπο (πως μπορώ να στείλω κρυφό μήνυμα)?

Μπορείτε να επικοινωνήσετε μαζί μου στο bobptz παπάκι Τζιμαιλ τελεία κομ. Kavathes (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate your offer, I have the feeling you cannot help in this arbitration. This is not a debate about the legitimacy of the usage of the term "Macedonia" by any of the parties in the real world dispute, but about what is the best application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and especially WP:NAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you have a good argument about those policies however, please add it here.--Avg (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Cavafy? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite, by far.--Avg (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in my top five. "Walls" is an exquisite sample of how to create a dramatic atmosphere. I also like how he painted senators, consuls and praetors. But I got carried away; talk pages have another purpose. If you want to exchange opinions, I'm here. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a warning from ChrisO for 'Original Research.' I was editing the list in the Macedonia Name Dispute page and I had just removed a reference used fort he Dutch position as it was a dead link. Then I noticed the two GOVT references on this page: [[6]] both point to Denmark using FYROM or FYR Macedonia yet Denmark was in the list under 'List of countries to be sorted.' I moved Denmark to countries which use FYROM, ChrisO immediately reverted stating you need a source that states how Denmark uses the name, not infer it yourself from a random document. I then informed him, the 'random document were two Danish Govt Pages that were already there as references concerning Denmark and reverted. ChrisO then proceeded to revert and dish me out with an 'Original Research Warning.' This time he changed his story and stated: you are inferring Denmark's position, but the documents you cite do not say anything about whether Denmark recognises the constitutional name or not. This is interesting. Most of the list is made up of Embassy pages using the word Macedonia, and immediately they are on the list, under countries who recognise the Republic of Macedonia. I wonder how many of those editors received warnings from ChrisO? I am going to make this action of ChrisO stick as his behaviour in general has downgraded the neutrality Administrators are supposed to have. Any help on how to make him come to account for this action would be most appreciated. He has put the case down here:[[7]] Reaper7 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Workshop#Question_for_Avg — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, American Chronicle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Chronicle. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hoi polloi, to which you seem to be one of the primarily contributors, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Lampman (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 14:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]