Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:48, 25 January 2008

If you leave a message here I will respond here

If I left a message on your talk page first and you respond here, I will respond there

If I left a message on your talk page and you plan to have a long discussion, it should be kept on one page (my talk page or yours)

Archives: /Archive1 (as User:202.10.89.28)

Template:Southslavlang

Hi! It seems that there is some misunderstanding about Template:Southslavlang. I was separated the Torlak dialects and Našinski as a Transitional between Central and Eastern languages and dialects, but you erased it. Obviously you are agree with the assert that these dialects are transitional between Central and Eastern group, because you express this with a note, but you don't want to express this fact in the template as a separate section. At the same time you just erased my note about Banat Bulgarian alphabet, based on Gaj’s Latin alphabet. Do you have some disareemnet of principle? Maybe it is really some misunderstanding? Regards, --AKeckarov (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it only because you are making the template too wide. You'll see I did the same thing with my first edits to the template. When the template is too wide (coupled with long like this one) it causes an inconvenience at the actual articles. Take a look here. The table is being compromised for the template. I used footnotes because if we create a different section for transition it doesn't express that Torlak is considered a dialect of Serbian (Central South Slavic). Also, then we have to create one for Western-Central of which Kajkavian is grouped in, even though Kajkavian is considered one of the three main dialects of Central South Slavic (along with Shtokavian and Chakavian). Either way we need to cut down on the width. I will try something now -tell me what you think.

With the Banat Bulgarian alphabet, I meant to add it later but I must have forgotten. Also, I think it would be a good idea to give a table of that alphabet in the Banat Bulgarian article so people actually know just how different the alphabet is from Gaj's. Regards, BalkanFever 10:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK! Thank you about your last edits. Now the template looks better, than I did. The differences between Gaj’s Latin alphabet (actually, present Croatian) and Banat Bulgarian are minimal (there aren't Đ, đ in Banat Bulgarian, they write the accents in many cases etc.) and It is good idea to prepare a table of Banat Bulgarian version of Gaj’s Latin alphabet.--AKeckarov (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Karajan

Hy. I`ve noticed that you`ve chaged "Macedo-Romanian" to "Aromanian" in Karajan's article. I am well aware of the fact that "Macedo-Romanians" redirects to "Aromanians", but isn`t the first term the proper one. I mean, what about the Meglenites, aren`t they "Macedo-Romanians" too? Raborg (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Meglenites are Megleno-Romanians. With the term, Macedo-Romanian, for people who don't check the links, Macedo-Romanian might be misread as Macedonian Romanian (scroll over). Also, the Aromanians are found in Thessaly and Epirus in Greece, Albania and Bulgaria, not just the region of Macedonia, so it isn't really the proper one. There are no Epiro-Romanians or anything so it just leads to confusion. And I'm pretty sure Macedo-Romanian was coined by Romanians, or Romanian Aromanians (and was meant only to refer to Aromanians), because the people living there don't self-identify as such, and the English language world generally uses "Aromanian" or groups Aromanians and Meglenites into "Vlachs" (as opposed to Romanians).

How do you know that Karajan was an "Aromanian" Vlach, and not an "Meglenite" Vlach? And don`t most of the "Aromanian" Vlachs call themselves "Ramani" rather than "Armani"? If yes, than calling "Aromanian" some people who don`t call themselves like that is erroneous, isn`t it, just like "Macedo-Romanian" vs. "Aromanian"? Btw, how exactly do they indetify there? Are you an... I don`t know how to ask it... Vlach/Aromanian/Macedo-Romanian/etc.? Raborg (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that I know many of them in the diaspora. Most of them identify with the nation that they come from - Greece, Republic of Macedonia, Albania etc. but not ethnically - as in "I am from Greece, but I am not Greek". However, they tell me the indigenous (non-diaspora) don't really espouse their "Vlach-ness". Most call themselves "Armãnji", and some call themselves "Rramanji" but they are the same people. "Aromanian" is a construction based on "Romanian", yes, but it would cause more confusion to use a construct like "Rromanian". Actually a more erroneous term is "Vlachs" (Slavic "Vlasi", Greek "Vlachoi") as it refers to Aromanians and regards Meglenites as Aromanians. So the Meglenites are subject to assimilation into to three groups: Greeks, Macedonians and Aromanians. Anyway, with Karajan, his grandfather was from Kozani, so it would be fair to assume he was Aromanian as opposed to Meglenite (see the second (ethnic) map in Vlachs). BalkanFever 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi Alex, thanks for the kind words on the sandbox article. I think it's just about ready to go, but I do want a Bulgarian to look over it before posting it. I will institute the review process over the next day or so, hopefully! I'll keep you informed on how it goes! Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Loved the Balkan fever explanation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWN2 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've had no choice but to block both you and User:Mapeal for that wild revert-warring spree on Macedonia naming dispute. Block duration is 24h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can I still edit my user space though? I am trying to make WP:MKD a functional WikiProject with things like this, so I would like to be able to create more subpages to test out the links. Intricate templates are hard :-D. BalkanFever 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When blocked, the only page you can edit is your talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn....Can I get permission to edit my userspace? BalkanFever 02:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to allow a blocked user to edit certain pages; the WP software doesn't allow for it. The only thing you could do would be request an unblock (add {{unblock|reason}} to this page, replacing "reason" with your reason for request), but I doubt that it would be granted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will either. Now to play the waiting game.....BalkanFever 02:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry, I wasn't online during today or I might have commented earlier. Actually, it's not so uncommon to grant early unblocks if users make a plausible commitment to stay away from the conflicts they were blocked over, if they have something else constructive to do. So, I personally would have had no objection to something like that in this case. It's a pity, as it's now a bit late - only one hour to go of the original block anyway. (If you're online, let me know and I'll unblock if you want to start right away.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not usually on line at that time period - I didn't realise how long I was revert-warring for. It doesn't really matter that you didn't see the comment, you're on holiday - enjoy it :-). Now back to WP:MKD... btw, it seems most of the members of the project are there to make sure nothing gets out of hand (although I don't blame you considering what happened last time). BalkanFever 07:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Англиска Википедија

Здраво. Е-маилот го добив но како што рече не се чита. Пробав во encoding да менвам ама пак не се читаше. Ако можиш смени му го само фонтот и пак испрати го. :) --strich3D (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tokija

An irredentist slogan? You could say that. I did some research and made an article about "Srbija do Tokija", which I think is reasonably informative. DS (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MKD

Hi BalkanFever, That looks really good -- with regard to the WP format, playing around with the frames should be OK, although using {{colbreak}} may be a better way of breaking up the frames... Putting the boxhead stuff in its own frame might be another way of doing it... Let me know if I can help :) Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I will set up the MKD WP so that there is an easy way to slot the boxhead and other content in. I'll play around with and let you know when it's ready :) Hopefully won't take too long!! Среќни Новогодишни и Божиќни празници! (Which I hope means Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, for Orthodox Christmas on Monday!) Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex, The reformatting of the MKD WP is a little more fiddly than I thought it would be! Let me know when the Boxhead and Assessment Guidelines are ready, and I will insert frames into the main MKD WP page. No hurry! Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I took a look at the column-less version and... yeah... I don't know that the format works! I will try something else keeping the column format and will let you know how it goes! Should be tomorrow or Wednesday. Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex! So I have figured out how to properly frame and layout the page and am ready to include your pages on the MKD WP. Let me know when you want me to go live with the pages, and let me know which pages you want on the WP :) Am I correct in assuming that this is the only page which will go on the main MKD WP page? Also, what heading do you want on the frame -- "Assessment", "Article Assessment"? Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex! A frame linking to the Assessment page is a good idea -- do you want to create a page with an intro/description, the {{WPMKD}} template and a link, and I will include the frame on the WP page? (Or, I can draft the frame.) I will be online again in a few hours. Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex! Gosh, it looks like I really went to town on the intro frame! Sorry about that! I had a couple of minor grammar edits and I re-jigged the advice for new editors. I have placed the link to the assessment page further down in the intro, to encourage editors to read the intro before clicking into the Assessment area. I also think that there should be a warning on the intro page (and in the Assessment page itself) to the effect that editors should carefully consider the article before adding the template to it, as there is potential for a lot of edit-warring as a result of the template being added to some articles!!

I have had a look through the pages you've done and I am very impressed -- you've done an excellent job!! Let me know what you think of the intro page changes and hopefully we can go live soon! Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex! Well, it's live! I have also added the Assessment capability to the Announcements page. I think the idea about putting a 'do not add' list of articles (like Alexander the Great and Tsar Samuil) is a good one, and perhaps a section can be added onto the assessment page warning about the dangers of starting an edit war. But, like you said, that can be done another day! A lot of hard work (99.99% by you!) went into this capability -- you should be proud! Честитки! (Which I hope means "congratulations"!!) AWN AWN2 (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex! Thanks again for the kind words and for correcting my Macedonian! The only reason I am MK-0 is because there is no MK-(-4)! ;) Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your request at WP:RFPP

Please note that a user's .js pages are always indef-full-protected to all but the user in question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It actually makes a lot of sense if one thinks about it. BalkanFever 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits in Macedonians (ethnic group)

Hi BalkanFever, by this edit you reproduced this anonymous edit to the letter. Can I ask you if you did the anonymous edit, too (without being logged in)? Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that edit was not mine. While I agree with the edit, I don't agree with that edit summary. BalkanFever 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia naming dispute#Link to video

What do you mean "it is based on the Greek word Skopia to give Skopianoi"? Is the self-identifying demonym for Skopje not Скопјани? A simple Google search would beg to differ. Regardless, calling a Macedonian or Peloponnesian an "Athenian" is not the same as calling him an "idiot" or "assfucker". Surely even you can see that. If you want, I'll call you a Hellene. I would even call you a Macedonian if you would stop spreading crap about misuse and offense and be able to call the other side Macedonians. Whatever possessed you to believe that what you choose to call me is of any consequence whatsoever? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You know very well what the word Скопјани is meant to refer to. And I doubt Greeks actually know the self-identifying term for people from the city. They constructed Skopianoi from the Greek word Skopia. I don't think Greeks are idiots, I merely think some Greeks are idiots if they get offended by "misuse of the name Macedonia" on the basis that it was chosen solely for the purpose of territorial and historical claims. Evlekis explained why such an idea is absurd. As for "assfucker" - it is a stronger slur than Skopjan, and I understand that. Let me try another comparison now, one term for you "Macedonians" is Pontians in the Republic of Macedonia - is that or is that not an ethnic slur? It is exactly the same as Skopjans. Anyway, I said I'd call you a Hellene because you brought up that Greeks is an exonym. BalkanFever 10:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about Скопјани in the sense of the inhabitants of the city of Skopje, not the way Greeks use the term. Is it or is it not a self-identifying term for a significant proportion of the Republic's population? And, if so, how can it possibly be on the same level as calling me an idiot? As for your other questions, no, I wouldn't consider "Pontians" an ethnic slur, given that so many Macedonians are in fact Pontians. Гркомани and Пушкари, on the other hand, are deliberatively offensive but nothing to weep over either. If they are indeed "exactly the same" as you say, I'd be more than happy for you to call me an Athenian or Pontian if you stopped feigning such mortal offence vis-à-vis Greeks' almost ubiquitous use of Skopjan. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a self-identifying term for around one quarter of the population. But "Albanian" is also a self-identifying term for one quarter of the population. If one quarter of Greeks are idiots for the reasons above, then the terms are pretty similar. Again though, I don't thinks Greeks are idiots. Puškari I haven't heard, and Grkomani refers only to the Slavophones - but even that by your definition is not necessarily pejorative, because there is no calque/translation for "Slavophone Greek" - Egejci comes close, but that refers to the ones with an ethnic Macedonian consiousness, i.e. Rainbow, and various diaspora individuals. BalkanFever 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The proportion of "idiots" is much higher than one quarter, I can assure you. Just go to Greece and find out for yourself. And I'm sure the Slavic languages are versatile enough to express a concept as simple as "Slavophone Greek". If not, try importing directly from the Greek, as in the case of "Macedonian". I think the lack of such a term stems more from a reluctance to accept the existence of such a group in the first place. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then tell them to stop feigning mortal offense. And if that is your (weak) attempt at proving "Skopjan theft" for the day, go complain to the Romans, who spoke Latin, and the English, who speak Germanic. I think the presence of such a term stems from a desire for the existence of such a group - because everyone knows it's a sin to not be Greek. BalkanFever 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Go tell them that for yourself. What happened to the sacrosanct right to self-determination? Or is it only the privilege of a select few? And who said anything about theft? I'm sure Macedonian existed in the Slavic languages for centuries before it had to be appropriated for a newly-conceived political project in the 1940s, to the detriment and exclusion of its original meaning. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The original meaning being Greeks, sure. You do understand that "Makedones" could be an exonym? BalkanFever 12:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The original meaning being "tall men" or "highlanders", in Greek, but "Macedonian" in the geographical sense by the time it passed into Slavonic. If Μακεδόνες is an exonym, then so is Macedonians, as the name was transmitted to all modern languages (yes, including yours) via the Greek. No offence, but I'll take Herodotus's word over yours. Cheers. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. And words take on meaning different than the original all the time, so "Macedonian" to refer to the ethnic group is no more "detrimental" than "Macedonian" in the geogrpahical sense. BalkanFever 12:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The crucial difference being, of course, that the circumstances under which "Macedonian" came to denote an ethnic group are not comparable to those of the earlier meanings. Macedonian came to take on a wider geographical meaning as the result of a natural process spanning several centuries, not a deliberate political act of the Cold War. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken. You're believing Bulgarians just because it falls in line with your position of being the "real" Macedonians. Besides, all nationalist movements are political - Modern Greek nationalism was a tool to get rid of Ottoman rule. So was Bulgarian nationalism. And Serbian nationalism. And Macedonian nationalism. You're problem is, again, you think that the name was chosen to claim Greek history and territory. Let me remind you that that movement pre-dates the Greek Struggle for Macedonia and the Balkan Wars, so there was no Greek territory to claim. The Franks were Germanic, but the Germans don't get offended by the word "French". The Belgui were Celts, but the Scottish don't get offended by the word "Belgians". The Bulgars were Turkic, but the Turks don't get offended by "Bulgarians". Let me be clear here:

Anyone who feigns offense from the self-identification of another group is an idiot.

Anyone who is actually offended by the self-identification of another group is a retard.

That's neither a personal attack nor an ethic slur, so don't cry to me if you're offended by that either. BalkanFever 01:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things, as is mine. I am simply arguing the facts, and the evidence does not support your claim that the "movement pre-dates the Greek Struggle for Macedonia and the Balkan Wars". If you mean VMORO, its unorigins are far from uncontroversial. Most non-"Macedonist" observers would agree that it was an organisation of Bulgarian activists who used Macedonia in a geographical sense within the framework of a Greater Bulgaria. At least that's how all those who actually fought them, the Greeks, Serbs and Turks, perceived them. The fact that they "considered Macedonia an indivisible territory and all of its inhabitants Macedonians, no matter their religion or ethnicity" speaks volumes about what they thought Macedonian meant. Not an ethnic term, that's for sure. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It was the basis for later Macedonian nationalism, which did use Macedonian as an ethnic term. Not to steal history or territory, but to create an independent country for the ethnic Macedonians. So technically, even if VMRO weren't ethnic Macedonians, it doesn't matter, because they provided the foundation for ethnic Macedonian nationalism - and don't make the error of confusing that with Macedonism. BalkanFever 09:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The ultimate goal of "ethnic Macedonian nationalism" has always been a United Macedonia, based on the idea that there is an unbroken line of continuity between the ancient Macedonians and the modern Slavic ethnic group and that Macedonia has always been a single ethnic, geographical and historical region (to quote mk.wikipedia.org) that was unfairly "divided" in 1913 by its "enemies". The very notion of a "Macedonian" ethnicity implies that anyone not of that ethnicity is a foreign element, an "invader", an "occupier" who must be expelled in order for Macedonia to be free. After all, what right do the Greeks have to be in Macedonia if they're not "Macedonian"? In that sense, the nationalist project is incomplete, despite the independence of the fYRoM. The fact that realpolitik has dictated the official abandonment of irredentism by the government in Skopje has not changed this. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And what is the ultimate goal of Modern Greek nationalism I wonder? It is a recreation of the Byzantine Empire. Realpolitik dictates that that will never happen either. Nationalism has no bounds, no matter which group it is. And if the ethnic Macedonian nationalism was based on continuity with the Ancient Macedonians, then a United Macedonia would be Alexander the Great's empire, not a United region of Macedonia. Your idea of a Macedonian ethnicity is amusing, It also seems quite similar to the reality of the Greek ethnicity. Except instead of expulsion in your Macedonian fantasy, Greeks just violently Hellenise everyone. BalkanFever 11:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the rhetoric about those evil Greeks and answer the following question, if you please. When you call yourself a "Macedonian" and me a "Greek" (or "Athenian"/"Pontian"/"Grkoman"/"idiot" or whatever else), does that not have the effect of implying that Macedonia is rightfully yours and that I am a foreign body (since I belong in "Greece", not "Macedonia")? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It means you're not a Macedonian (in the sense that I'm using it). It has nothing to do with Macedonia. And you should spare me the rhetoric about Macedonism and United Macedonia. BalkanFever 11:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian has nothing to do with Macedonia. Right. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? If I say I'm Macedonian and you're Greek, it means exactly that - you're not Macedonian (by the definition of my usage). There is no implication of a country, since I am using terms describing ethnic groups, and ethnic groups do not own countries. BalkanFever 12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but there is. In practice, such an abstract distinction is rarely made by your compatriots. And I certainly "get it" very well, don't worry about that; I am simply disputing your semantics. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You are seriously paranoid about this whole United Macedonia thing aren't you. Let me explain this:

Macedonians = ethnic Macedonians OR Macedonians = people from/in Macedonia

Macedonia = Republic of Macedonia

It's that simple. BalkanFever 12:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

hi there!

do you have a yahoo messenger id or an email because i would like to talk to you Mario1987 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re

No, it has nothing to do with my Greek POV. It has to do with the respect of rules and of the consensus we reach in this encyclopedia. User:Kirev could do the research I did for him, and find out how international organizations use the term "FYROM".

And it was neither my intention to "penalize" Kirev. After all, I mentioned with my own initiative that my warning occurred at the same time with the 4th revert. I knew that and I knew that what would happen would be just a warning. Kirev should not be punished, but he should learn that he cannot revert unilaterally without discussing first.

What annoyed me was a desperate effort by you and Jdej to deny an undeniable violation of rules by Kirev. And this is POV: POV is to interprete the 3R contra verbum (and this is not wise when you speak with a jurist like me who tends to focus on terms!), and then to insist on the assertion that the revers were 3 and not 4! A wrong way to defend somebody. Maybe you should wonder if it was your POV that made you interprete the 3R rule the way it was convenient to you, to omit that each edit was accompanied with a revert (although Kirev himself courageously admitted that he was reverting), and to amount the reverts to 3 while they were 4.

And all this, when you could effectively defend your friend basing your argumentation on what I myself admitted, that the 4th revert took place simultaneously with my warning, and that there was no further revert.

And I tell you all these not in order to lecture you or to scorn you. I have no interest in doing that. I do that for one reason: Because you accused me for POV-pushing, and in order to stress one thing: Before accusing others as POV-pushers, try first yourself to fight against your own POV. Unfortunately, the way you chose to defend Kirev and fight against my arguments does not indicate such a wise stance.

Cheers,--Yannismarou (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not reduce anything. Do you understand the term "more than 3"? It means any number above 3, not inclusive of 3. 4 is included in "more than 3" by definition. Don't try to teach me English. Not making "more than 3" reverts means making 3 or less reverts. There was no desperate effort to deny anything - I was calling it as I saw it. If you are interested in undermining my wisdom, focus on the term "no personal attacks". Also, I didn't accuse you of POV pushing, I "accused" you of attacking him because of your POV (thereby retorting your reason for this post). Either way, if you have anything informative to say, go ahead. If you're going to repeat what you said before, there's really no point. BalkanFever 21:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Thanks. Your suggestions are very helpful and I'll use them for the new version of the laguage map I'm working on. I was thinking to merge Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian into Serbo-Croatian, but I don't know what reactions will I receive from Croatians or Bosnians. Andrei nacu (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. For me, Serbian and Croatian are identical, excepting the Cyrillic alphabet being used by most Serbs. I think I'll color them as one but write Croatian for the language in Croatia, Bosnian for Bosnia and Serbian for Serbia and for Montenegro. One more thing, representing Macedonian and Bulgarian languages in Greek Macedonia and Thrace is a very sensitive matter as the two languages (and ethnicities) are not widely accepted to exist by the Greek authorities. The last language census conducted by the Greeks was in 1951, so we don't know for sure the exact area of distribution of Bulgarian and Macedonian or the number of speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei nacu (talk • contribs) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Proeski the Aromanian

Hi. Does a youtube video of him singing in Aromanian constitute a reliable source? Anybody who isn't Aromanian singing in Aromanian isn't too common. BalkanFever 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even though some of the information that can be found on YouTube can be helpful, it, however, does not qualify as a reliable source. The main reason would be that it would be hard to prove whether or not someone has a copyright to the specific video and Misplaced Pages might end up using it without proper consent.

Your example that it would be unlikely to hear a non-Aromanian singing in Aromanian might very well be true. However, that is considered original research because you're making an assumption based on evidence presented to you. Rather than conducting our own research, Misplaced Pages exists to provide information that can be readily found from another source and verified. In other words, in order for you to make a stetement declaring Proeski an Aromanian, you need to find a source that specifically says Proeski is of Aromanian origin or something to that effect that cannot be misconstrued. Most English speaking people reading his article and clicking on the YouTube link would never understand the difference between Macedonian and Aromanian anyways, right? So we need to have a source they can read for themselves that confirms that information. And, as far as what is considered a reliable source, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability states:

• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

I hope that answers your question.

Peace! SWik78 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

I'm leaving you this note to inform that you are placed on supervised editing: you may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article, talk page, or topic which you disrupt by editing in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

This is due to today's edit-war on Macedonians (ethnic group). I see from your talk page archives you know about the case, so we can bypass the formal warning bit. Moreschi 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)