User talk:Evlekis/Archive7

Kingdom of Yugoslavia - Please do not modify; you may start from fresh on my current talk page.

Phoeniks 53 time

Evlekis, i recognize it when i saw that account name for the first time... But you know, "i am just watching him". :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Изволи

	Казандиби
	Изволи један казандиби. Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheney Mason

Hello. I am denying your request to have that IP blocked: their edits are not vandalism. The section you keep reinstating is improperly sourced and contains contentious BLP information--the IP was correct in removing it. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS, and please stop edit warring on that article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I was not involved in an edit war, I had been engaged in an operation against a vandal. If I were wrong and the edits were correct, the user in question could have made a far more commendable effort by attempting to discuss rather than shout "NON-ENCYCLOPAEDIC" on the summary. You need to look at my vantage point, there I was watching changes and suddenly the references removed tag shows itself and the perpetrator is an IP, to my experience, 1001 times out of 1000 it tends to be unconstructive editing. When that same user then makes a personal attack on my talk page, using the word "peder" (meaning poofter in our Slavic tongues), how do I assume good faith. Also, are you doing anything about the personal attack in question? Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• That insult, I've given them a warning for it. You could have done that yourself; you were within your rights to do so. You could also have explained what you think was wrong with their edits instead of rolling them back. In fact, you probably abused your rollback privilege, since that is to be used only for vandalism, and the IP did not vandalize the article--that's the first thing you need to acknowledge.

  Next time, please look more carefully. The IP did explain, even if they did so in terms you didn't approve of (and I don't like them either), and you simply hit rollback a bunch of times. That they insulted you is not nice, but I can understand that they were frustrated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed something else--your signature doesn't have a link to your talk page, and it should. If you can fix that, that would be great. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Firsly, thanks for pointing out the signature. Five years and nobody has said a word! :) I'll look into fixing that. Concerning the issue, no I am not arguing with you. Once you examined the matter and saw that the IP's edit was legit then I took no more liberties of reverting. I found the mannerism of the IP slightly impertinent, that was all. About the "abuse" issue. I suppose that technically speaking, yes I did abuse the privilege but I was not taking advantage of anything more than one click instead of two (the alternative being the free-to-all undo option). I just want you to realise that in the time I've had the facility, I've never used it persistently against regulars, not least because if I am cancelling an established user's contribution, I use the summary so he knows why. Furthermore, this example needed some inspection and it was difficult to assess too carefully when the user was continuously reverting. I believe I had reason to suspect vandalism or POV-pushing even though I were wrong: removal of references, albeit in violation of WP:RS, never looks constructive. Still, I hope you won't remove the facility and that you accept I too was acting in good faith. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course I accept that, gladly. And I will grant you readily that removal of stuff with all-caps edit summaries does not look good, and yelling at other editors doesn't help either. But sometimes there's more than meets the eye, and someone may act correctly when all appearances are against them (including their history and a previous block). I've seen a lot of IP vandalism, but I've also seen a lot of positive and helpful edits from IPs. All the best, Drmies (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree fully with your above statement, I'll keep better watch in future. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (talk)

Gj, Đ or what?

Hi Evle, there is a doubt with Fahrudin Gjurgjević on how should we spell his surname. He is Macedonian, so that is why this question is donne. Gjurgjević was how his name was at begining, but another user changed it to Đurđević, but I, being a smart ass, reverted him as "the player is Macedonian" excuse... However, the other user made a good point in my talk page, and that is that if we were using Romanization of Macedonian the ć should also then be converted to kj or k with accent... See my talk page (User_talk:FkpCascais#Fahrudin_Gjurgjevi.C4.87) and also User_talk:Tempo21#Gj_or_.C4.90 to see the conversation, and then if you can please give us your opinion on that. FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC) You raise a very interesting point and I can tell you that this is not the easiest to explain. First of all, me personally, I have always romanised Macedonian consistently with the Gaj alphabet with which you are familiar in Serbian. So Ѓубрето во вреќата would become Đubreto vo vrećata (slang: the rubbish in the bin-bag). Certainly in Yugoslav times this was the standard and if you examine some of the pre-1991 road signs across Macedonia, you'll find Ćafasan and Sveti Đorđe (Ќафасан и Св Ѓорѓе). I believe that the switch to Kj/Gj has become more rife since independence but I believe there is no true standard, not least because Macedonian is most widely written in Cyrillic. Either way, Gjurgjević is wholly inconsistent, it employs one feature from the modern arrangement and another from the previous. On the whole, /kj/ is seemingly undesirable for end place characters so my preference is the Gaj script all the way - just bearing in mind that Macedonian also has /ѕ/ (trans. dzvezda). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so just to check: Đurđević is preferable over Đurđeviќ, Djurdjević, Djurdjeviќ, Gjurgjević, Gjurgjeviќ or Gjurgjeviќ? The problem is that seems that many Macedonian names had been using Ǵ or Gj, however also ć often even in same surname (exemple: Miroslav Ǵokić), for instance, see Category:Macedonian footballers. We even have the strange case of father being Milko Ǵurovski and son Mario Gjurovski! We also have Saša Ćirić but Panče Ḱumbev. FkpCascais (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Đurđević and Djurdjević are largely one and the same - /dj/ being an accepted alternative. Gjurgjević contains inconsistency.

Djurdjeviќ, Gjurgjeviќ or Gjurgjeviќ are fine, except the final /ќ/ is unadopted in any of the world's Latin-based scripts. Just looking at the character, it is clear that it has been drawn from Macedonian Cyrillic. It is technically an illegal character in any Latin script as to look at it, you see it is a capital K shrunk, rather than a small /k/. This is rather like the Icelandic thorn - they are using it on Wikipedia but it is not supposed to be used on any official document outside of Iceland as it is not a property of the 26-letter standard Roman alphabet, it is romanised as "th". Ǵokić also presents inconsistency. As Latinic is not widespread in Macedonia, as with Bulgaria, few really know the transliteration solution and the correct codes. In Bulgaria you get Nesebar, Nessebar, Nesebur or Nessebur (Несебър). Thanks for enlisting my help, but I am not a competent adjudicator on this one, and like all things Macedonian - it is a chaos!! :) ----Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Uzicans

Ok, sorry, but i thought this was obvious. The information on the page can easily be put in the Uzice-article, just under the Demographics or culture sections. May I ask, why is this article existing? No notability, nor sources. --Zoupan (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Andrea Petkovic

Sorry I wasn't of more use :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto... :) This is a corner case, since Petkovic/Petković is technically a German. Otherwise, I both support diacritics and find them important. However, arguing in favor is rather difficult, because one tends to be bludgeoned with WP:RS. That's why I feel that undermining the applicability of WP:RS on this issue is the way to go.

While I'm at it, let me explain what I mean with an example: National Geographic uses diacritics for geographic names. This goes contrary to 99% of English-language sources out there. Still, this is not the same as saying that e.g. Amazon lies in Africa, contrary to sources. NG simply decided that they were going to use the correct form, and to them, "correct" means "the original spelling" - end of story. To them, the authenticity was more important than providing their readers a pleasure cruise. One might argue for or against such a solution and its rationale, but it is undeniably legitimate and possible, for NG as well as Wikipedia. GregorB (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are Croats called Petković, but in this case it looks like she was preallocated to the Serbs already, presumably with good reason :) The mother's name is clearly of Islamic origin, and the default for a Bosnian person with a Muslim name is to be considered Bosniak (there are very few people like Emir Kusturica who stray from that norm). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and to answer your point that we need to establish how the name is in English - that's exactly the problem - it's not an English name, and it's not an Anglicized name, it's still a foreign name. In case of AP, the extended problem is that we don't know exactly whether we should consider her as a German person who is no longer bound by original Serbian spelling. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Evlekis, you make a very good point that many people fail to see (or fail to acknowledge, at any rate): as I once said, Wikipedia is not the sports section of USA Today, written for the newspaper-buying average Joe. (Quote from the article: USA Today is known for synthesizing news down to easy-to-read-and-comprehend stories.) WP is a reference source (a tertiary one, but a reference source nevertheless), written in accordance with entirely different objectives and priorities. Wikipedia is mirroring what e.g. sports newspapers say, which is absolutely fine, but - for the reasons we have just outlined - does not need to mirror how it is said. GregorB (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right, I didn't want to go into fully-blown arguments there, it would have overloaded the discussion without providing much benefit. As they say: live today, fight tomorrow. :) GregorB (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

AN

You are the subject of this AN complaint. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. This edit is beyond what is expected here, especially given previous discussion on this subject at ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Evlekis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I hope I am doing this properly as I have no experience in fighting the block. To Black Kite - do you not feel that your decision to block me was not just a little bit rushed? I always assumed "personal attacks" to be swearing or aggresive threats, etc. Anyhow, let me assure you firstly that if you lift this ban in good faith, I shall not make any more references to individuals that are remotely unpleasant (even if what I had in mind did not qualify as a personal attack, it won't matter). At the time the block registered, I was making good faith edits on various footballers, removing superfluous terms such as "currently" and correcting their birthplace details. My only wish is to return to that feature. I'd also like you to know that the past 36 hours have seen much bitterness between AN and me, beginning with Talk:Andrea Petkovic - something that remained on talk - and then spread when the user followed me into Bernard Tomic, Republic of Kosovo, Radovan Vujanović and Aleksandro Petrović and cancelled my contributions on each of them (before reverting himself on the last two). To this end, it is wholly evident that I felt provoked by this user when spotting the section where I left my remark. If it hasn't already been done, I commit myself to removing the remark from the talk page with my first free edit should the block be lifted. I just feel that this is a draconian measure for what was an unintentional attack (albeit thoughtless on my part) when a simple warning would have sufficed. I have edited for close to six years and have had very few feuds and to that end, very few genuine warnings - in every case, they were heeded and nothing was revisited. I am disheartened that this has happened to me and all so quickly with the tag "disruptive editing" when the 19,000 edits I have contributed since December 2005 have been anything but disruptive. Please also note that now I realise how minor a remark needs to be to qualify as an attack, I accept that if it happens again, I will be blocked for longer or possibly indefinite. I would be grateful if any admin (chiefly Black Kite) lifted the ban. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

If the previous issues that had arisen at WP:ANI, including misuse of rollback, had not arisen I would have merely warned you. However, given that just previously you had acknowledged you were wrong, and then within a few hours post a completely egregious attack on the same editor, led me to assume that you had not understood the problem. Hence the block. However, given that your unblock request appears to be in good faith, I am prepared to unblock. Can I suggest that you try to avoid the other editor involved if possible? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you are back

I am glad you are unblocked. Please be more careful in future because wikipedia is better place when you are here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)